[1:14] The regular meeting of the Soma Planning
[1:17] Commission, February 19th, it is 6 pm.
[1:22] If I could get a roll call, please.
[1:24] >> Commissioner Willers
[1:26] » Commissioner Willers
[1:26] >> here.
[1:26] » here.
[1:26] >> Commissioner Barnett
[1:27] » Commissioner Barnett
[1:27] >> here.
[1:28] » here.
[1:28] >> Commissioner Jenkins
[1:29] » Commissioner Jenkins
[1:29] >> here.
[1:30] » here.
[1:30] >> Commissioner Donach
[1:31] » Commissioner Donach
[1:31] >> here.
[1:32] » here.
[1:32] >> Commissioner O'Neal
[1:33] » Commissioner O'Neal
[1:33] >> here.
[1:34] » here.
[1:34] >> Vice Chair Nent
[1:35] » Vice Chair Nent
[1:35] >> here. Chair Chair Hyrick
[1:37] » here. Chair Chair Hyrick
[1:37] >> here.
[1:40] » here.
[1:40] Thank you very much.
[1:43] >> Do I have a motion to approve tonight's
[1:45] » Do I have a motion to approve tonight's
[1:45] agenda?
[1:47] >> Motion to approve.
[1:48] » Motion to approve.
[1:48] >> Well,
[1:50] » Well,
[1:50] I would like to uh make a suggestion as
[1:55] to the rearrangement of the agenda.
[1:58] >> Council or Commissioner Barnett,
[2:01] » Council or Commissioner Barnett,
[2:01] >> ex Councilman. Um uh given a quick
[2:06] » ex Councilman. Um uh given a quick
[2:06] review of the audience here um I suspect
[2:09] that a significant number of people are
[2:11] here to discuss the land use element
[2:15] specifically as it pertains to u the
[2:18] Sebastiani parcels. So um I would like
[2:22] to suggest that we move that discussion
[2:26] up to the top of the list under 5.2 two
[2:31] and um uh as well if the if the
[2:36] commission agrees to actually move 5.2
[2:41] above 5.1
[2:43] so that it's the first item under our
[2:46] items for discussion.
[2:50] » Okay. So is that a motion?
[2:52] >> If it needs to be a motion I can say
[2:55] » If it needs to be a motion I can say
[2:55] yeah that's a motion. If it doesn't have
[2:58] to be, then I then it isn't a motion.
[3:00] How's that for How's that for?
[3:03] >> I'll second the almost motion.
[3:06] » I'll second the almost motion.
[3:06] >> Okay.
[3:09] » Can I get a roll call?
[3:10] >> Yes.
[3:12] » Yes.
[3:12] >> Commissioner Willers?
[3:13] » Commissioner Willers?
[3:13] >> Yes.
[3:14] » Yes.
[3:14] >> Commissioner Barnett.
[3:15] » Commissioner Barnett.
[3:15] >> I.
[3:15] » I.
[3:15] >> Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.
[3:17] » Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.
[3:17] >> I.
[3:18] » I.
[3:18] >> Commissioner Donbach.
[3:19] » Commissioner Donbach.
[3:19] >> I.
[3:19] » I.
[3:19] >> Commissioner O'Neal.
[3:20] » Commissioner O'Neal.
[3:20] >> Yes.
[3:21] » Yes.
[3:21] >> Vice Chair Net. I.
[3:23] » Vice Chair Net. I.
[3:23] >> Chair Hyrick.
[3:24] » Chair Hyrick.
[3:24] >> I.
[3:24] » I.
[3:24] >> The motion passes unanimously.
[3:27] » The motion passes unanimously.
[3:28] Okay, thank you.
[3:34] Is there do we need another motion to
[3:37] approve the remainder of the agenda?
[3:40] Okay. At this time, we will recite the
[3:44] pledge of allegiance. Uh, Vice Chair
[3:46] Nent, if you could lead us in the
[3:48] pledge, please.
[3:52] » To the flag of the United States of
[3:54] America to the Republic.
[4:07] Okay, thank you very much.
[4:12] At this time, members of the public may
[4:14] comment on any item not appearing on the
[4:16] agenda tonight. It's recommended that
[4:18] members of the public keep their
[4:19] comments to three minutes or less. For
[4:22] items appearing on the agenda, the
[4:24] public will be invited to make comments
[4:25] at the time the item comes up for
[4:27] commission consideration. Upon being
[4:29] acknowledged by the chair, please step
[4:31] to the podium, speak into the
[4:33] microphone, and begin by stating and
[4:35] spelling your name.
[4:38] At this point, we will move on to the
[4:40] consent calendar of tonight's agenda.
[4:45] >> Oh, I'm sorry.
[4:50] » Please come forward and state your name.
[4:51] >> Thank you. And thank you for the
[4:53] » Thank you. And thank you for the
[4:53] adjustment of the agenda. I get to eat
[4:54] dinner tonight.
[4:57] Uh, good evening. My name is Janet Bole.
[5:00] B is in boy, O Y L E. I am here to
[5:03] provide comment on the proposed land use
[5:05] change for the Spastian parcels after
[5:07] attending the January
[5:09] >> I'm sorry to interrupt you but that item
[5:11] » I'm sorry to interrupt you but that item
[5:11] is agendaized for tonight under item 5.
[5:14] >> Wait till 5.1
[5:15] » Wait till 5.1
[5:15] >> exactly. So at at this time members of
[5:17] » exactly. So at at this time members of
[5:17] the public can come forward and and
[5:19] address the commission on items that do
[5:21] not appear on tonight's agenda.
[5:23] >> Sorry.
[5:24] » Sorry.
[5:24] >> Thank you for the clarification.
[5:26] » Thank you for the clarification.
[5:26] >> I messed up. You messed up. We all
[5:27] » I messed up. You messed up. We all
[5:27] messed up.
[5:28] >> I got a little practice.
[5:29] » I got a little practice.
[5:29] >> Hi
[5:30] » Hi
[5:30] >> Mr. Abdily.
[5:30] » Mr. Abdily.
[5:30] >> JJ Abdil. What's your name?
[5:32] » JJ Abdil. What's your name?
[5:32] >> JJ Abideli. AB as in boy O D E L Y. Um,
[5:37] » JJ Abideli. AB as in boy O D E L Y. Um,
[5:37] so my comments really about the process
[5:39] and that that you know we're here as I
[5:42] understand it to talk about land use and
[5:45] really to create a definition of what
[5:47] land use means for various zoning and
[5:50] >> so so
[5:51] » so so
[5:51] >> but this is this is this is general
[5:52] » but this is this is this is general
[5:52] because I think what's I would like to
[5:54] say is that the lack of details that are
[5:58] discussed at this point in the process
[6:00] is creating a lot of anxiety because
[6:02] everyone wants details. I think we will
[6:04] address matters related to the process.
[6:07] Okay. In item 5.2 tonight. Fair enough.
[6:09] So,
[6:10] >> so for items completely separate, I'm
[6:13] » so for items completely separate, I'm
[6:13] sorry to interrupt and break your train
[6:15] of thought, but
[6:16] >> no worries.
[6:16] » no worries.
[6:16] >> We will we will hear at this point items
[6:19] » We will we will hear at this point items
[6:19] that are completely separate from any
[6:21] any agenda item that that appears on on
[6:24] tonight's agenda. So, thank you.
[6:27] >> So, are there any additional members of
[6:29] » So, are there any additional members of
[6:29] the public? I'll try not to yell at you
[6:32] or interrupt you. If you have comments
[6:35] tonight or wish to address the
[6:36] commission on anything relating to
[6:39] matters not appearing on tonight's
[6:40] agenda.
[6:43] Okay.
[6:44] Thank you very much.
[6:48] Okay. At this point, we will move on to
[6:50] the consent calendar. Are there any
[6:53] changes or edits to be made to
[6:57] the minutes in item 3.1, in item 3.2, or
[7:01] in item 3.3 that any commissioner wishes
[7:04] to raise?
[7:06] >> I'll just note that I wasn't present at
[7:08] » I'll just note that I wasn't present at
[7:08] the 3.3, so I'll abstain from that vote.
[7:13] >> Noted.
[7:15] » Noted.
[7:15] >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve
[7:17] » Okay. Is there a motion to approve
[7:17] tonight's consent calendar?
[7:18] >> Move to approve.
[7:19] » Move to approve.
[7:19] >> Second.
[7:20] » Second.
[7:20] >> Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers.
[7:23] » Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers.
[7:23] >> Yes.
[7:24] » Yes.
[7:24] >> Commissioner Barnett.
[7:25] » Commissioner Barnett.
[7:25] >> Hi.
[7:26] » Hi.
[7:26] >> Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins.
[7:27] » Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins.
[7:27] >> Hi.
[7:27] » Hi.
[7:27] >> Commissioner Donbach.
[7:29] » Commissioner Donbach.
[7:29] >> Yes.
[7:29] » Yes.
[7:29] >> Commissioner O'Neal.
[7:30] » Commissioner O'Neal.
[7:30] >> Yes.
[7:32] » Yes.
[7:32] >> Vice Chair Nent.
[7:34] » Vice Chair Nent.
[7:34] >> I.
[7:34] » I.
[7:34] >> Chair Hyrick.
[7:36] » Chair Hyrick.
[7:36] >> I.
[7:36] » I.
[7:36] >> The motion passes unanimously.
[7:39] » The motion passes unanimously.
[7:39] >> Thank you very much.
[7:42] » Thank you very much.
[7:42] Moving right along to tonight's public
[7:43] hearing. The first item is item 4.1.
[7:48] discussion, consideration, and possible
[7:49] action to approve a use permit and
[7:51] design review for the permanent
[7:53] placement of an MRI trailer at 347
[7:57] Andrew Street.
[7:58] >> Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself
[8:00] » Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself
[8:00] from this item since close proximity to
[8:03] my residence.
[8:04] >> Thank you, Commissioner Oakman.
[8:12] Are there any commissioners that need to
[8:14] report any exparte communication with
[8:17] the applicants in this case?
[8:20] Okay. Thank you.
[8:23] And if I could have a staff report,
[8:25] please. Of course. Good evening,
[8:27] commissioners. I am Jake Dunn, associate
[8:29] planner, and I'll be discussing the use
[8:31] permit and design review for the
[8:32] permanent MRI trailer at 347 Andrew
[8:34] Street. So, this item was previously
[8:36] reviewed um in October of 2025 where
[8:39] some revisions and studies were
[8:40] suggested and then we'll go over some of
[8:42] those changes that were made for uh this
[8:44] project as a whole. So, the trailer is
[8:47] located on Andrew Street on the north
[8:49] side of the hospital. The general plan
[8:51] and land use are dedicated as public and
[8:53] the property is not within any overlays.
[8:55] The hospital is located in the central
[8:57] west planning area and setits on three
[8:59] and a half acres of land.
[9:01] And the project is proposing dedicating
[9:03] the MRI trailer as a permanent structure
[9:05] which was previously approved as
[9:06] temporary. And the applicant intends to
[9:09] modify the trailer to match the color of
[9:11] the hospital with the recommendations
[9:12] that were made at the previous hearing
[9:15] and add sound dampening devices to the
[9:18] existing fence that you can see in that
[9:19] image there which should reduce the
[9:21] noise level impacts on the neighboring
[9:23] residences. Uh they'll also be
[9:25] permanently closing the parking lot at
[9:27] this time uh since we determined that
[9:29] the additional parking was not necessary
[9:32] and they will be adding new movable
[9:34] landscaping to uh help with some visual
[9:37] buffering and some aesthetic uh
[9:39] improvements to that parking lot. And
[9:41] then they will still use the parking lot
[9:43] but only for emergencies and maintenance
[9:45] on the MRO trailer.
[9:47] So this site plan shows the northern lot
[9:49] with the uh trailer dimensions in
[9:51] related to in relation to the parking
[9:53] spaces that are currently there. And
[9:55] then this is the modified site plan
[9:58] after the discussion at the last hearing
[9:59] with the landscaping features um in that
[10:02] parking area. And then there's also the
[10:05] location of the sound dampening device
[10:06] on that fence line. And then here's some
[10:10] examples of the landscaping that will be
[10:12] used for that visual buffer. just kind
[10:14] of give an idea of um how they'll kind
[10:16] of hide the trailer
[10:19] and a noise assessment was also
[10:21] conducted as requested and the
[10:24] assessment found that the noise levels
[10:25] produced by the MRI trailer along with
[10:27] the it was a chiller and some climate
[10:30] units that uh the noise levels from both
[10:32] of those ended up exceeding um by about
[10:36] four dB and um affected two of the
[10:40] residences. And then it found that with
[10:42] the recommended noise curtain that it
[10:44] would reduce the levels to below 50 dB,
[10:47] which would be about 47 for I think both
[10:49] of the residences.
[10:53] And so in accordance with the use permit
[10:55] findings, we found that the uh use is
[10:57] consistent with the general plan and uh
[10:59] supports the Sonoma Valley Hospital to
[11:01] respond to community needs. It also
[11:03] found that the MRI trailer is allowed on
[11:05] public properties and complies with the
[11:07] standards uh without needing any
[11:08] variances or exceptions. And then uh we
[11:11] found that the um the MRI trailer would
[11:16] be would further support their
[11:18] operations without negatively impacting
[11:20] those surrounding land uses by
[11:21] increasing the aesthetic value of the
[11:24] property by improving that lot.
[11:27] And as part of the design review, um
[11:30] further findings found that with the
[11:32] improvements to that parking lot, it's
[11:34] now a little bit more compatible with
[11:35] the residences surrounding it. Um it
[11:37] kind of cleans up that that has been
[11:40] unused and the pro uh the proposal won't
[11:43] negatively impact the public health,
[11:44] safety or welfare now that we know sound
[11:46] dampening devices have been added to
[11:48] reduce the sound impact to those
[11:49] residences.
[11:52] And so staff is recommending approval of
[11:53] the use permit and design review for the
[11:55] permanent placement of the MRI trailer
[11:56] and alterations to the parking in
[11:58] accordance with the SQL section 15303.
[12:02] Oh, sorry, that's yeah, 15303 and 15311.
[12:06] So staff's available for any questions
[12:07] and the applicant is also available to
[12:09] ask uh to answer any questions as well.
[12:13] >> Great. Thank you very much. Are there
[12:14] » Great. Thank you very much. Are there
[12:14] any questions from Commissioner Barnett?
[12:17] Question.
[12:17] >> Um
[12:19] » Um
[12:19] I understand that the no noise abatement
[12:23] uh efforts that have been made have
[12:25] brought it down to a threshold that's
[12:27] acceptable. Um my question is is the
[12:32] operation of this and the noise
[12:34] attenuation something that's only going
[12:37] to be um present during
[12:41] portions of the day or is this a 24-hour
[12:45] noise producer?
[12:47] >> I believe the applicant uh would be
[12:49] » I believe the applicant uh would be
[12:49] prepared to speak on that.
[12:55] » Good evening, commissioners. Uh my name
[12:57] is Brian B R Yan.
[13:00] Uh and this is Ryan Es with me. R Y Y an
[13:04] um so to answer your question, the noise
[13:06] abatement is a permanent exterior grade
[13:09] blanket which be installed on the fence
[13:11] and would be there for the rest of time.
[13:14] >> That's not my question. My question is
[13:17] » That's not my question. My question is
[13:17] um is is the unit that's producing the
[13:22] noise the MRI trailer and the equipment
[13:25] inside is that only producing the noise
[13:27] when it's in operation or is there a
[13:29] period of the day where it is not in
[13:31] operation and therefore producing no
[13:33] noise?
[13:34] >> Yes, that's correct. Um so the two units
[13:37] » Yes, that's correct. Um so the two units
[13:37] provide cooling for the actual MRI
[13:40] equipment. Yes. And there's a BART unit
[13:42] on the wall which provides um air
[13:44] conditioning for the occupants within
[13:46] the trailer.
[13:46] >> Yes.
[13:46] » Yes.
[13:46] >> But that trailer is only in operation
[13:48] » But that trailer is only in operation
[13:48] during regular day hours. So after hours
[13:51] it doesn't operate.
[13:52] >> Neither the chillers or the air
[13:54] » Neither the chillers or the air
[13:54] conditioner.
[13:54] >> Correct.
[13:55] » Correct.
[13:55] >> Thank you.
[13:57] » Thank you.
[13:57] >> Do any other members of the commission
[13:59] » Do any other members of the commission
[13:59] have questions for the applicant now
[14:00] that they are at the podium or for
[14:02] staff?
[14:05] >> I have a quick question. How long has
[14:06] » I have a quick question. How long has
[14:06] that trailer been in operation there
[14:08] with the HVAC equipment that it
[14:10] currently has?
[14:11] >> Uh, approximately two years.
[14:13] » Uh, approximately two years.
[14:13] >> Okay. Yeah, thank you. That's my only
[14:15] » Okay. Yeah, thank you. That's my only
[14:15] question.
[14:18] Any other questions of the applicant
[14:20] while they stand there? Okay. Thank you
[14:22] very much. Are there any members of the
[14:25] public that wish to comment on
[14:28] this agenda item?
[14:32] Okay.
[14:33] bring it back to the commission for
[14:36] discussion.
[14:40] It sure if you'd like to come up to the
[14:42] podium and uh address make got to
[14:45] address the commission but um happy to
[14:48] hear what you have to say.
[14:49] >> Hi, my name is Kim Belch. Um I'm just
[14:51] » Hi, my name is Kim Belch. Um I'm just
[14:51] wondering how many MRIs approximately a
[14:54] day. So how long would the sound be
[14:56] stopping starting stopping starting
[14:58] throughout the hours that it would be
[14:59] working?
[15:01] >> Okay, thank you. Thank you for the
[15:03] » Okay, thank you. Thank you for the
[15:03] question. Uh if the applicant is
[15:05] willing, they they're welcome to come
[15:07] forward and um address that question if
[15:10] you did you hear the question?
[15:12] >> Okay.
[15:13] » Okay.
[15:13] >> I heard the question is how many MRIs
[15:15] » I heard the question is how many MRIs
[15:16] per day? It's 10 to 11.
[15:18] >> Okay, great. Thank you.
[15:23] » Okay. Are there any other members of the
[15:24] public wishing to comment on this agenda
[15:26] item?
[15:28] Great. I'll close public comment and
[15:29] bring it back to the commission for
[15:30] commission comments and analysis.
[15:34] >> Yes, Commissioner Dbach.
[15:36] » Yes, Commissioner Dbach.
[15:36] >> Um I just uh want to comment that I
[15:37] » Um I just uh want to comment that I
[15:38] appreciate uh the applicant working with
[15:40] the staff um with regard to the
[15:43] improvements that we requested. Um and
[15:46] based on what has been uh achieved, I'm
[15:49] I'm comfortable proving this.
[15:51] >> Great. Any other commissioner comments?
[15:55] » Great. Any other commissioner comments?
[15:55] Commissioner Bernett?
[15:57] Well, perhaps it's a function of getting
[15:59] older, but I'm sorry to see our world
[16:04] becoming so noisy.
[16:06] And um uh I hope that at some point in
[16:09] the future um
[16:12] in some future generations expansion of
[16:15] this hospital
[16:17] uh if it continues to succeed which I
[16:19] sincerely hope it does that uh functions
[16:23] like this are entirely enclosed within
[16:26] the building and the need for noise
[16:29] attenuation and or the other things
[16:32] necessary to to prevent
[16:36] the
[16:37] I'll use the word degradation of
[16:39] ordinary everyday life because of the
[16:42] increase in sound um ambient sound
[16:46] mechanical ambient sound um uh can be uh
[16:53] ameliorated and changed in the future. I
[16:55] just uh uh I'm finding the world to be
[16:58] an increasingly noisy place and I don't
[17:01] find it pleasant.
[17:03] But that said, I appreciate the efforts
[17:05] that's being made on this and I
[17:07] certainly will approve the application.
[17:10] >> Thank you. Any other commission
[17:12] » Thank you. Any other commission
[17:12] comments?
[17:14] >> I'd like to make a motion to approve.
[17:17] » I'd like to make a motion to approve.
[17:17] >> Second.
[17:19] » Second.
[17:19] >> All right. Roll call, please.
[17:21] » All right. Roll call, please.
[17:22] >> Commissioner Willers,
[17:23] » Commissioner Willers,
[17:23] >> yes.
[17:23] » yes.
[17:23] >> Commissioner Barnett,
[17:24] » Commissioner Barnett,
[17:24] >> I.
[17:25] » I.
[17:25] >> Commissioner Dbach,
[17:26] » Commissioner Dbach,
[17:26] >> yes.
[17:27] » yes.
[17:27] >> Commissioner O'Neal,
[17:28] » Commissioner O'Neal,
[17:28] >> yes.
[17:28] » yes.
[17:28] >> Vice Chair Nent,
[17:30] » Vice Chair Nent,
[17:30] >> I.
[17:30] » I.
[17:30] >> Chair Hyrick,
[17:31] » Chair Hyrick,
[17:31] >> I. The motion passes 6001.
[17:36] » Excellent.
[17:38] Moving on to item 4.2.
[17:43] I'll give Commissioner Aorman just a
[17:45] second to walk back here.
[18:01] All right, we'll continue now with item
[18:04] 4.2 of tonight's public hearing
[18:06] discussion, consideration and possible
[18:08] action to approve a signed permit for
[18:11] two uh new illuminated signs on a
[18:14] residential property at 383 First Street
[18:17] West.
[18:19] Is there a staff report?
[18:20] >> Absolutely. So, this is for a sign
[18:23] » Absolutely. So, this is for a sign
[18:23] permit for two new eliminated wall signs
[18:25] um for a uh non-conforming wine tasting
[18:31] facility that has been grandfathered and
[18:32] improved with the zoning clearance. Uh
[18:35] the property is located in the downtown
[18:36] district and is zone medium red
[18:38] residential medium density. The use of
[18:40] the site um was determined as
[18:43] grandfathered and was approved for the
[18:45] zoning clearance back in a April of
[18:48] 2025. The property is 5,473 square feet
[18:52] and surrounded by commercial and
[18:53] residentially zoned properties. The
[18:56] project proposes one illuminated wall
[18:58] sign to advertise the business name
[19:00] which includes a halo lit backing above
[19:03] that front window. And it also proposes
[19:05] one externally illuminated logo sign
[19:07] next to the front entryway.
[19:10] The flat vineyard sign will be a total
[19:12] of 6.25 square ft and the logo sign will
[19:15] be four square feet. The business name
[19:17] and logo are proposed in satin black
[19:19] with the aluminum faces colored perfect
[19:21] khaki and slumber uh slumber sloth to
[19:24] match the color of the current
[19:25] structure.
[19:27] And then this gives you an idea of the
[19:30] um street view looking down the um down
[19:33] this roadway. So there was a comment
[19:35] from the public uh in concern to um
[19:41] how the entry to this street looks in
[19:43] regard to the residences and um the use
[19:46] of these residential sites as commercial
[19:48] businesses. Um so I put this site photo
[19:51] here to show uh there's three wineries
[19:54] here. One is the Hawk Winery on the left
[19:56] that you see was the previous winery
[19:59] wine tasting facility which is now going
[20:01] to be um Plat Vineyard. And then there's
[20:03] Walts on the right and there's I believe
[20:06] it's atrium on the left. You can't
[20:08] really see the signage there, but this
[20:09] is to kind of give you an idea of that.
[20:12] So, the property has f uh 53.25 ft of
[20:16] frontage on First Street West. So, an
[20:18] aggregate of 27.3 square feet is allowed
[20:21] um for signage. An additional 13 square
[20:24] feet is allowed due to the distance
[20:25] between the center of the road line and
[20:27] the front of the u the building. The
[20:30] total area of the proposed signage is
[20:31] 10.25 25 ft and the proposed eliminated
[20:34] wall sign is not going to exceed the 27
[20:36] ft maximum.
[20:39] So in accordance with the sign permit
[20:41] findings, we found that the proposed use
[20:44] is consistent with the general plan by
[20:45] providing uh ground flooror retail use
[20:47] on a small lot without imposing
[20:49] stylistic restrictions. uh the proposed
[20:53] signage is consistent with the intent of
[20:54] the code and it doesn't negatively
[20:56] impact the surrounding character and
[20:58] matches the look of the current
[21:00] structure without causing a max like a
[21:03] large visual impairment. Um the signage
[21:06] is consistent with the signage in
[21:07] surrounding area. Uh it has small
[21:09] lettering and uh colors that are also
[21:13] matching the structure as it is. And the
[21:16] signage is limited to a small portion of
[21:17] the structure and isn't um isn't going
[21:20] to impact for character and it intends
[21:24] to preserve the quality of the property
[21:25] as a whole. So staff recommends planning
[21:28] commission approval of the sign permit
[21:29] to install the two new wall signs um and
[21:33] sorry two new illuminated wall signs at
[21:35] 383 First Street West and um
[21:40] staff is available for any questions. I
[21:41] I'm not sure if the applicant is here.
[21:43] So if they are they may you may ask them
[21:46] as well.
[21:47] >> Great. Thank you for your presentation,
[21:50] » Great. Thank you for your presentation,
[21:50] associate planner done. Are there any
[21:53] members of the commission that wish to
[21:54] ask staff questions of staff? I saw
[21:58] Commissioner Donbox.
[21:59] >> You know, I always have a question. Um
[22:02] » You know, I always have a question. Um
[22:02] uh my question pertains um to when the
[22:06] applicant plans to illuminate and or not
[22:08] illuminate. Um so I know that there's uh
[22:12] permitting allowing to 11 p.m. Most wine
[22:15] tasting rooms don't go that late. So, do
[22:17] we have any idea of whether the
[22:19] illuminated signs will be turned off in
[22:22] the evening versus left on?
[22:25] >> That I don't know for sure. Um, but it
[22:27] » That I don't know for sure. Um, but it
[22:27] is up to your discretion to set a
[22:29] standard for when the eliminated sign
[22:31] should be turned off or if it should be
[22:33] dimmed at any point um as part of the
[22:35] lighting standard in the ordinance um
[22:37] which is part of the conditions
[22:38] approval. We can also add additional
[22:41] conditions for a timing.
[22:43] >> Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask if
[22:45] » Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask if
[22:45] anyone if the applicant's present
[22:48] tonight or an agent of the applicant is
[22:50] present?
[22:53] >> Would you like to come up and uh address
[22:55] » Would you like to come up and uh address
[22:55] the commission or you don't have to?
[22:58] >> I can. Uh Chris Shriner with Plat
[23:01] » I can. Uh Chris Shriner with Plat
[23:01] Vineyards. Uh our signed vendor that put
[23:04] everything together was going to be
[23:07] here.
[23:08] They took care of more of this. Um, I I
[23:11] I can't really uh answer the question
[23:15] directly, but I can say uh we're willing
[23:17] to to follow whatever rules you deem
[23:20] appropriate for the neighborhood.
[23:23] >> Uh, our hours are till 6 PM presently.
[23:27] » Uh, our hours are till 6 PM presently.
[23:27] >> Okay. Thank you.
[23:28] » Okay. Thank you.
[23:28] >> Great. Thank you very much. Or are there
[23:31] » Great. Thank you very much. Or are there
[23:31] any other questions from the commission
[23:32] of staff or of the applicant?
[23:34] >> Yes. Vice Chair,
[23:36] » Yes. Vice Chair,
[23:36] >> Jacob, could you go back to the previous
[23:39] » Jacob, could you go back to the previous
[23:39] slide? It really flashed by me quickly.
[23:41] That next one,
[23:43] >> I mean,
[23:45] » I mean,
[23:45] >> go forward.
[23:46] » go forward.
[23:46] >> Forward one.
[23:47] » Forward one.
[23:47] >> So, I'm um we talked about the size of
[23:50] » So, I'm um we talked about the size of
[23:50] the sign. Um
[23:55] I just have I just wanted to read this.
[23:58] Um so, the illumination is it's in
[24:01] compliance
[24:02] and we really need to determine. Um,
[24:05] what I'm hearing is that they're in
[24:06] business till 6 PM. Um,
[24:10] is there a reason why we would would it
[24:13] be necessary to extend it beyond um,
[24:17] business hours? And are there other
[24:20] illuminated signs
[24:22] uh, in and around this area for other
[24:25] retail businesses or wine tasting rooms?
[24:29] So, in regard to the wine tasting rooms
[24:31] that are directly surrounding it, they
[24:33] do not have illumination on those signs.
[24:35] Um, I believe I keep forgetting the name
[24:37] of it, but I believe it's atrium. The
[24:39] one next door, it has a up lighting on
[24:41] our tour.
[24:42] >> Artur, that's what it's called. Um,
[24:44] » Artur, that's what it's called. Um,
[24:44] there is an up there's an up light on a
[24:47] tree and that's what they have there. I
[24:48] don't know that they turned it on, but
[24:49] that's the only lighting I was able to
[24:51] see when I went by. Um, other than that,
[24:54] there has been approval of lighting uh
[24:57] sign lit lit signs in the plaza. So,
[25:00] that's the only other thing I'd have as
[25:02] a comparison.
[25:04] >> Thank you.
[25:05] » Thank you.
[25:05] >> Any other questions of staff or the
[25:07] » Any other questions of staff or the
[25:07] applicant?
[25:09] Okay.
[25:11] At this time, I would ask commissioners
[25:15] to disclose any experte communications
[25:16] they've had with interested parties to
[25:18] this agenda item.
[25:22] I have spoken with one of the neighbors,
[25:24] Jim Bohar.
[25:25] >> Okay. Thank you.
[25:26] » Okay. Thank you.
[25:26] >> I have spoken with a neighbor.
[25:29] » I have spoken with a neighbor.
[25:29] >> Thank you. Anybody else? All right.
[25:36] Um,
[25:37] Mr. Applicant, would you like to come up
[25:38] and address the commission further or
[25:40] are you satisfied?
[25:43] Okay. Thank you. Uh, at this time, I
[25:45] will open up this item for public
[25:47] comment.
[25:49] Please come forward. State your name.
[25:50] Mr.
[25:50] >> Bohar.
[26:24] Jim, I hate to interrupt. Would you
[26:26] would you mind just speaking into the
[26:27] microphone? I'm sorry. That way it's
[26:30] >> spoken into the record.
[26:31] » spoken into the record.
[26:31] >> I understand.
[26:32] » I understand.
[26:32] >> Thank you very much. Got it. Um,
[26:38] my understanding is the general plan and
[26:40] code discourages non-conforming uses and
[26:43] will not allow commercial uses within or
[26:45] abuing residential areas that changes
[26:48] the historic nature or character of the
[26:50] residential neighborhood context or
[26:52] other impacts of that nature. Um
[26:56] this is a not on a is not a sign on a
[26:59] residential property as it indicates in
[27:01] the first paragraph. It in fact is is on
[27:04] a structure which is a non-conforming
[27:06] use a wine tasting facility and the
[27:09] reason it's non legal non-conforming is
[27:12] that there are certain limitations on
[27:13] that use in terms of time and intensity.
[27:17] Um
[27:21] the description of it is overridden by
[27:23] the fact that um it has limitations on
[27:26] it. And
[27:32] the U applicant states that the reason
[27:35] for the illuminated signs is to increase
[27:37] foot traffic. Um
[27:41] this is the only wine tasting room that
[27:43] would have an illuminated sign as far as
[27:45] I can see. and having uh an
[27:48] encouragement of foot traffic sounds
[27:50] like an intensity of of use over what we
[27:52] have right now. the only um
[27:56] the the uh city discourages
[28:00] uh lit signs on the plaza and the only
[28:02] wine tasting facility that I understand
[28:04] is that uh something or other suppressor
[28:08] on the u on the east side and there's
[28:11] some question about whether that's going
[28:12] to remain there.
[28:18] Neither of the two tasting rooms have
[28:20] illumination that was uh talked about
[28:23] under the community development element.
[28:25] It says it's to coordinate development
[28:28] on small lots. There's no development
[28:30] here to coordinate. It's finished. It's
[28:31] been done years ago. Preserving the
[28:34] heritage of the community. It violates
[28:36] the heritage of the community as far as
[28:37] the neighbors are concerned.
[28:40] Um
[28:43] accessory structures allows on
[28:45] premisage. This is not an accessory
[28:47] structure. It is the main structure on
[28:50] the site, the subject of the site.
[28:56] Our
[29:01] position is and the neighbor's position
[29:02] is that it violates the uh general plan
[29:05] and code in the sense that having
[29:08] commercial uses abudding uh residential
[29:12] is is not allowed and also one that
[29:14] affects the historic value or the uh uh
[29:18] continuity of it is is May I have about
[29:20] 20 seconds left?
[29:23] >> Yes, another 20 seconds. I respectfully
[29:25] » Yes, another 20 seconds. I respectfully
[29:25] request that the commission reject this
[29:27] application, direct the applicant to
[29:30] return the front yard to residential
[29:31] garden, install no signs on the actual
[29:34] building, except modest in ground signs
[29:37] and no elimination. Thank you.
[29:40] >> Thank you very much, Jim.
[29:42] » Thank you very much, Jim.
[29:42] Are there any other members of the
[29:44] public who wish to address the
[29:45] commission on this agenda item? Okay,
[29:48] we'll close public comment. I'll bring
[29:50] it back to the commission for
[29:51] discussion. Any commissioners wish to
[29:55] opine on this agenda item? Uh,
[29:58] Commissioner O'Neal,
[29:59] >> I have a question. I'm not sure if it's
[30:01] » I have a question. I'm not sure if it's
[30:01] for staff for the applicant, but Jacob,
[30:03] I'll start with you. Um, so currently or
[30:06] previously, Hawk had that monument sign
[30:09] out front and what is the plan for that
[30:12] monument sign going forward?
[30:14] >> That sign's no longer there.
[30:15] » That sign's no longer there.
[30:15] >> So, there's nothing in replacement and
[30:17] » So, there's nothing in replacement and
[30:17] the monument sign has gone away.
[30:19] >> That is correct.
[30:19] » That is correct.
[30:20] >> Okay. Thank you.
[30:25] Commissioner,
[30:26] >> thank you. Um, I will direct this to
[30:29] » thank you. Um, I will direct this to
[30:29] staff. Um, hopefully you can answer. So,
[30:31] in terms of of I think the question was
[30:34] already asked about the the lighting in
[30:37] terms of the plaza itself, do we have
[30:40] any code or any ordinance pertaining to
[30:44] the lighting of buildings on the plaza?
[30:46] Even even the the lights in the park,
[30:49] what what time do those go off?
[30:51] I wouldn't be able to speak on the
[30:53] lighting in the park, but in terms of
[30:56] the plaza, I'm not aware of any specific
[30:58] regulations for that. We've talked about
[31:00] that as a potential new regulation with
[31:03] the upcoming sign ordinance.
[31:04] >> Um, so that's something to consider in
[31:07] » Um, so that's something to consider in
[31:07] how we address uh new lighting that's
[31:09] around the plaza.
[31:13] » Anyone else have questions for staff? I
[31:16] have a question.
[31:18] Have we, to your knowledge, have we
[31:20] placed any um restrictions on any other
[31:24] lit signage around the plaza?
[31:26] >> Okay.
[31:27] » Okay.
[31:27] >> Yes.
[31:28] » Yes.
[31:28] >> On Bank of America, it's the most recent
[31:30] » On Bank of America, it's the most recent
[31:30] one.
[31:30] >> I remember I recall that one. Is there
[31:33] » I remember I recall that one. Is there
[31:33] any other I mean, is it
[31:36] >> Yes. Um we've done another um wine
[31:39] » Yes. Um we've done another um wine
[31:39] tasting room that
[31:42] um I'm trying to remember.
[31:45] It's on this side of the plaza as well
[31:48] where we limited the lighting um for
[31:50] their sign to just be within the
[31:53] business hours and so after business
[31:55] hours it was to be turned off. I see. So
[32:00] fair to say that limiting the period of
[32:03] elimination for this lit sign to
[32:04] business hours would be in keeping with
[32:06] precedent.
[32:08] Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Any
[32:11] other questions?
[32:13] uh comments.
[32:17] » Um let's see. I'm gonna address the
[32:20] illumination of the sign. First of all,
[32:22] the I was the advocate for the reduction
[32:26] of the illumination of the Bank of
[32:28] America sign, but that sign is an
[32:30] internally
[32:32] there was one not internally
[32:33] illuminated. There were others that were
[32:35] internally illuminated and they had come
[32:38] to us wanting to keep that those signs
[32:41] illuminated 24 hours um a day. Um
[32:46] my feeling about this sign and its
[32:49] illumination is one it's not truly an
[32:52] internally illuminated sign. It's a sign
[32:55] that's lit from the back so that it um
[32:58] is accented off the wall. And and I also
[33:03] feel like the sign itself
[33:07] is a
[33:08] um is less of an imposition in the
[33:11] residential neighborhood than the
[33:13] monument signs of the wineries that are
[33:14] across the street from. It's not a big
[33:17] placard that's facing you as you're
[33:18] driving down the street. It's a
[33:20] relatively modest more than just a
[33:23] little more than a third of the allowed
[33:25] area or a little less than a third of
[33:27] the allowed area. Um and
[33:31] um I don't really find it objectionable
[33:34] in terms of the encroachment of the
[33:35] commercial district into that
[33:36] residential neighborhood. I know for the
[33:39] 35 years that I've lived here, that's
[33:41] those buildings have been occupied by
[33:44] businesses forever. One of one of them
[33:46] used to be um the adjacent Greyhound bus
[33:51] station. Um, so, you know, I I don't
[33:55] have any problem um making a motion to
[34:00] approve this. I I think it's a really
[34:02] modest improvement on the property. I
[34:04] think that the hours of illumination
[34:07] should be restricted to the hours of
[34:09] business. Um, so that when they're gone,
[34:12] the neighborhood doesn't have to deal
[34:13] with the illumination.
[34:15] >> Thank you. Any other comments,
[34:18] » Thank you. Any other comments,
[34:18] Commissioner Da?
[34:18] >> Thank you. First, I I appreciate the
[34:20] » Thank you. First, I I appreciate the
[34:20] comments from the public and their
[34:22] concerns. Um so um with regard to the um
[34:27] the businesses, my understanding is that
[34:30] that business not only has been there
[34:32] that uh business establishments have not
[34:34] only been there for a while, but it's
[34:36] actually in the retail overlay, I
[34:37] believe. And so technically, it is kind
[34:40] of in the business area. Um but
[34:43] secondly, with regard to the
[34:44] illumination, you know, that was my
[34:46] concern. And I went back and looked at
[34:48] our existing ordinance. Um, and
[34:51] basically it it does say that, you know,
[34:54] it would be inappropriate unless unless
[34:56] a business is operating in the evening
[34:58] hours and that we should um consider it
[35:00] carefully and and I feel that we have
[35:02] considered it carefully. I I would agree
[35:04] with Commissioner Willer's assessment. I
[35:07] think it's a modest backlit sign similar
[35:09] to Moon Mountain which is on the east
[35:11] side and Capoetta on the on the east
[35:13] side and Moon Mountain on the west side.
[35:15] Um, and I I would approve this with the
[35:19] condition of approval that we limit it
[35:21] to business hours.
[35:24] » Any other comments? Commissioner
[35:26] Bernett?
[35:27] >> Well, um, my concern about this
[35:31] » Well, um, my concern about this
[35:32] application has little to do with the
[35:33] design and plans for the sign itself. I
[35:36] certainly would support its use the of
[35:39] the illumination only during business
[35:41] hours. Um, I guess that my concern, and
[35:46] it's not something we can hold against
[35:48] this applicant, is that is this going to
[35:52] begin the process of the other wine
[35:56] tasting operations wanting illuminated
[35:58] signs, too? And are we then going to
[36:02] face, you know, additional applications
[36:07] for illuminated signs in this on this
[36:10] street? And um I can't answer that
[36:13] question, but but business being what it
[36:18] is, I think the likelihood of that
[36:20] happening is probably pretty good. So I
[36:24] throw that in there only as a
[36:26] consideration. The only other thing I
[36:28] will add is that legal non-conforming
[36:32] uses are subject to all kinds of
[36:35] limitations.
[36:36] For example, the footprint of the
[36:39] building cannot be enlarged.
[36:42] Um, and uh, and there may be other
[36:45] conditions that apply to legal
[36:47] non-conforming uses. Um,
[36:51] uh, I don't know if the other
[36:54] commercial uses of residentially zoned
[36:57] properties. Um, uh, is true of all the
[37:03] other commercial uses on that section of
[37:06] the block.
[37:08] Um, I suspect it probably is that they
[37:10] are grandfathered in and uh, as legal
[37:14] non-conforming uses. Um, so I I think
[37:20] imposing a condition such as the
[37:22] illumination be turned off when the
[37:25] property is not in operation as the
[37:28] business is is appropriate and um and in
[37:33] accordance with the typical kinds of
[37:35] limitations that are placed on legal
[37:38] non-conforming uses. Thank you.
[37:42] >> Thank you very much. Are there any other
[37:44] » Thank you very much. Are there any other
[37:44] comments?
[37:47] Commissioner O'Neal.
[37:48] >> Um, I do think that the elimination of
[37:49] » Um, I do think that the elimination of
[37:49] the monument sign is an improvement to
[37:51] the street view and I do think it's um
[37:54] I'd like to go on record saying that I
[37:56] would really be objecting to a
[37:59] illuminated sign that was a monument
[38:01] because I think it's too distracting for
[38:02] people driving up and down the street.
[38:04] Um, the fact that it's placed um back
[38:08] against the structure, even if this is
[38:10] the main structure, I think it's um way
[38:13] more subtle and I I like that. I think
[38:16] it's just a little bit more elegant for
[38:18] the approach to that neighborhood. Um, I
[38:20] also think that visibility of the
[38:22] business is an important thing and using
[38:23] the illuminated sign against the
[38:25] building as opposed to a monument is
[38:27] just um keeping that streetscape nicer.
[38:30] So, I do I like that.
[38:35] >> Any other comments?
[38:39] » All right.
[38:41] I'll make a motion to approve a sign
[38:43] permit for two new illuminated wall
[38:45] signs on a residential property at 383
[38:50] First Street West with the condition of
[38:52] approval that the sign be only
[38:54] illuminated during business hours.
[38:57] >> Is there a second?
[38:58] » Is there a second?
[38:58] >> Second.
[39:00] » Second.
[39:00] >> Roll call, please.
[39:02] » Roll call, please.
[39:02] >> Commissioner Willers,
[39:03] » Commissioner Willers,
[39:03] >> yes.
[39:03] » yes.
[39:03] >> Commissioner Barnett,
[39:04] » Commissioner Barnett,
[39:04] >> I.
[39:05] » I.
[39:05] >> Commissioner Oberman Jenkins.
[39:06] » Commissioner Oberman Jenkins.
[39:06] >> Hi.
[39:07] » Hi.
[39:07] >> Commissioner Donbach,
[39:09] » Commissioner Donbach,
[39:09] >> yes. Commissioner O'Neal.
[39:10] » yes. Commissioner O'Neal.
[39:10] >> Yes.
[39:11] » Yes.
[39:11] >> Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick.
[39:13] » Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick.
[39:13] >> Hi.
[39:14] » Hi.
[39:14] >> The motion passes unanimously.
[39:16] » The motion passes unanimously.
[39:16] >> Thank you. Congratulations to the
[39:17] » Thank you. Congratulations to the
[39:17] applicant. Thank you very much for your
[39:19] time, Mr. Bohar, and your thoughtful
[39:21] comments. Appreciate it.
[39:25] Okay.
[39:26] Moving along to item 4.3 of tonight's
[39:30] public hearing. discussion,
[39:32] consideration, and possible action to
[39:34] approve a modification to a use permit,
[39:36] design review, and variance, including a
[39:39] new variance for the approval of a
[39:41] renovation of the second floor, an
[39:43] increase in the structure height of a
[39:44] duplex built over 45 years ago. This is
[39:47] located at 310
[39:50] 2nd Street East.
[39:53] Is there a staff report? Absolutely. So,
[39:56] I'll clarify as we go through this. Um
[39:59] but yes, this item's for a new variance
[40:01] as well as a modification to the um use
[40:06] permit design review and variance that
[40:08] was previously approved uh at a hearing
[40:11] in May of 2025 and specifically address
[40:14] the remodel and expansion of the duplex
[40:16] which is technically a non-conforming
[40:19] structure due to its setbacks.
[40:21] The property is developed with a 2,829
[40:25] foot duplex on a 6,672
[40:28] foot lot. The property is located in the
[40:30] northeast planning area and is within
[40:32] the historic overlay in its own medium
[40:34] density.
[40:36] So this project will be proposing an
[40:39] increase in the height of the duplex by
[40:41] one foot on the second floor and
[40:43] replacing all of the exterior walls on
[40:45] the second floor so that uh larger
[40:48] flaming sorry flaming framing can be
[40:51] added for support. Um the modification
[40:54] to the design review is necessary due to
[40:57] the enlargement of the windows on that
[40:59] second floor with the increase in height
[41:01] so that there's compatibility with the
[41:02] new height. And the proposal requires
[41:05] the new variance because the demolition
[41:07] of the second floor, the walls on the
[41:09] second floor, uh makes it makes the
[41:12] total change in exterior walls greater
[41:14] than the 50% that's allowed for
[41:16] non-conforming structures. So this would
[41:17] be considered a new structure and needs
[41:20] to be uh reviewed as such.
[41:23] So this is the existing floor plans with
[41:25] the demolition. You can see the first
[41:27] floor is on the right and the second
[41:29] floor is on the left. the second floor
[41:32] with the dotted lines shows you where
[41:34] that demolition will be occurring as
[41:35] well as the first floor um which is what
[41:38] has triggered the new variance to be
[41:40] required.
[41:42] Uh this is an image of the west
[41:45] elevation with the proposed modification
[41:47] along with the previous approval from
[41:49] May. So you can see the height
[41:51] difference along with the change in
[41:54] window height and those entry uh
[41:56] entryway heights.
[41:59] This is the east elevation.
[42:03] Here's the north elevation.
[42:06] Oh, sorry, that was the south. And this
[42:08] is the north elevation. And just to be
[42:10] clear, none of the other additions or
[42:12] changes from the previous approval are
[42:14] being added. There's no uh increase in
[42:17] the in the floor area or anything like
[42:20] that. This is specifically for the
[42:21] height of the structure.
[42:24] So in the analysis uh was found that the
[42:26] project's compliant with all development
[42:28] standards in northeast signing area
[42:29] except for those site setbacks. The
[42:31] changes proposed would not further
[42:33] expand on the non-conformities and is
[42:35] still compliant with the height
[42:36] standards as it will be below 30 ft.
[42:40] The project is compliant with the
[42:41] development code and general plan uh by
[42:43] promoting higher density infill without
[42:45] imposing rigid sty stylistic
[42:47] restrictions and the proposal promotes
[42:50] innovative designs uh to make the duplex
[42:53] more livable for the tenants.
[42:55] The historic resource evaluation that
[42:57] was done previously determined that the
[42:59] duplex didn't qualify as historic and
[43:02] the proposal is consistent with the
[43:03] design standards and doesn't have a
[43:06] historical character characteristic that
[43:07] will be altered and it's not expected
[43:10] that it will be impacting historic
[43:12] characters of the adjacent properties.
[43:15] So the adjustment is consistent with the
[43:17] intent of the zoning uh zoning district
[43:19] for higher density infill and the
[43:21] variance will treat the development as
[43:23] the new construction and intends to
[43:25] continue maintaining its existing
[43:26] setbacks as they were approved in the
[43:28] previous hearing and the increase to the
[43:31] height of structure um is within the
[43:34] height limit that's consistent with the
[43:35] zoning. So the approval of the variance
[43:38] would allow for the property owner to
[43:39] use the existing duplex footprint as is
[43:42] as it is now whereas the current
[43:44] development standards would require them
[43:45] to partially demolish some of that
[43:47] residence to be able to meet those side
[43:49] setbacks.
[43:50] The approval doesn't grant special
[43:53] privileges in our uh in our findings and
[43:56] uh gives the property owner an
[43:58] opportunity to design the duplex in a
[44:00] way that improves that livability
[44:02] overall. So should the planning
[44:04] commission determine that the findings
[44:05] can be met, staff recommends approval of
[44:07] the modification to the design review
[44:09] and variance uh sorry and the new
[44:12] variance including the new variance to
[44:14] allow the reconstruction of the
[44:15] sidewalls within the required setback
[44:17] and increase the height of the duplex
[44:18] and staff's available for any questions.
[44:20] I believe the applicant is available as
[44:22] well.
[44:24] >> Thank you very much. I'll first ask if
[44:27] » Thank you very much. I'll first ask if
[44:27] any commissioners need to disclose any
[44:28] exparte communication with any
[44:30] interested parties to this application.
[44:35] No.
[44:36] Okay. There questions of staff from the
[44:41] commission. Commissioner
[44:43] >> Jacob, I've got two questions. Um the
[44:45] » Jacob, I've got two questions. Um the
[44:45] first is I'm confused as to why this was
[44:49] this extra foot of height wasn't
[44:50] included in the original application for
[44:52] the variance back in May. That's my
[44:54] first question. The second, this
[44:56] property has already been demolished and
[45:00] is under construction now.
[45:03] So why are we getting it now when
[45:04] they're already under construction?
[45:08] So to answer the first question, u from
[45:10] my understanding is they had an
[45:12] architect who passed away prior to the
[45:14] hearing at the previous hearing. Um and
[45:17] so they went forward with what was drawn
[45:19] out in that at that time. Um when they
[45:22] were going into construction, they
[45:24] realized that there was some changes
[45:26] that they wanted to make for the height
[45:28] that felt appropriate for the structure.
[45:30] Um and in doing that, they determined
[45:33] that better framing was going to be
[45:34] needed. So they wanted to request that
[45:37] um that we review that. When it comes to
[45:41] the work that's already been conducted,
[45:44] um that was part of what was previously
[45:47] approved. So they started the work for
[45:49] what was previously approved and then
[45:52] stopped that work once they were from my
[45:54] understanding they stopped that work
[45:56] before uh to get the approval and then
[45:58] they could continue.
[46:02] » Okay. Any any follow-up questions to
[46:03] that or Okay. Any other members of the
[46:06] commission have questions for city
[46:07] staff?
[46:10] I guess my question uh Jacob would be
[46:14] whether a specific reason was provided
[46:16] to you for the request for the um
[46:20] additional elevation. Was it structural?
[46:23] Was it aesthetic? I I recognize that the
[46:25] applicant's here and will come and
[46:26] address us, but I'm I'm wondering
[46:28] specifically if
[46:29] >> it may be better for the applicant to
[46:31] » it may be better for the applicant to
[46:31] address just because I didn't I didn't
[46:33] receive a specific one besides u
[46:35] potentially aesthetic value.
[46:37] >> Okay, great. Thank you. Any
[46:40] » Okay, great. Thank you. Any
[46:40] other questions? Okay. I would invite
[46:42] the applicant to come forward
[46:45] and
[46:47] speak or present. Sir, if you could
[46:49] state your name for the record.
[46:52] Glenn Kamoto. I reside at 324 Second
[46:55] Street East, which is next door to this
[46:57] property. Uh your question about why
[47:00] this hadn't come before the commission
[47:02] initially. Uh the architects
[47:06] initially thought that we would redo the
[47:09] roof using scissor truss and get the
[47:11] height uh as we address the roof and the
[47:15] roof height wouldn't change. But as we
[47:17] started construction, did the
[47:19] demolition, it became very clear that um
[47:22] that we needed to lift the roof and the
[47:24] existing second the whole second story
[47:26] to get the new floor joist in because
[47:29] the first floor has been approved for an
[47:32] addition of one foot to bring it to 9
[47:35] ft. And we're also putting in two inches
[47:38] of of concrete so that you don't catch
[47:41] footfalls between the floors. So, we had
[47:44] a plan and as Jacob said, we lost our
[47:48] architect um unexpectedly
[47:51] and as we st got into construction, we
[47:53] said, "Oh, this this doesn't make
[47:55] sense." And in addition, it's it's 2x4
[47:58] framing. It's not in very good shape.
[48:00] The building was poorly constructed and
[48:02] the contractor's strong preference and
[48:04] my preference is, "Hey, let's demo the
[48:06] thing." And under the code, we can demo
[48:08] everything but 12 feet. and the planner
[48:12] said just demo the whole thing and
[48:14] that's the right way to do it. So the
[48:16] 2x4 framing is going to be replaced by 2
[48:18] by six framing much stronger. It's going
[48:21] to take a lot more insulation. It's
[48:23] going to be warmer and a 9- foot ceiling
[48:26] in these days is
[48:28] considered more livable. It's just just
[48:30] going to be a nicer space. But it's the
[48:32] same square footage. It's just got more
[48:34] volume.
[48:37] >> Was the original plan for an 8ft
[48:39] » Was the original plan for an 8ft
[48:39] ceiling? The original plan was for a 9
[48:41] foot ceiling internally use without
[48:44] changing the exterior structure at all.
[48:46] >> I see.
[48:47] » I see.
[48:47] >> So we thought, oh, it's, you know, we
[48:48] » So we thought, oh, it's, you know, we
[48:48] can just leave it the way it is. Bad
[48:50] idea. Turned out to be a very bad idea.
[48:53] >> Understood.
[48:55] » Understood.
[48:55] While the applicants at the podium, do
[48:56] any members of the commission wish to
[48:58] ask any questions? Okay.
[49:01] Thank you very much, sir.
[49:04] Okay. At this point, I would open this
[49:06] item to public comment. Any members of
[49:08] the public present who wish to come and
[49:09] address the commission on this item can
[49:11] come forward and state their name.
[49:15] >> Claudia Raniker.
[49:18] » Claudia Raniker.
[49:18] >> Okay. The first floor uh walls were
[49:22] » Okay. The first floor uh walls were
[49:22] originally 8 feet. They got they
[49:25] increased that by one foot and there was
[49:28] 20 in of insulation. If you'll look at
[49:30] the plan, a space of 20 in for
[49:34] insulation between the two floors. So
[49:37] that makes the first that makes an
[49:40] increase all of 32 inches.
[49:43] On the application that I've read the
[49:46] from the staff said they wanted to
[49:48] increase that second story another 12 in
[49:53] because they feel that that makes things
[49:56] much more livable another foot. But most
[50:00] of the people in the world live under 8
[50:02] foot ceilings and I don't believe that's
[50:04] going to increase any comfort. So also
[50:07] in that report it says they also wanted
[50:09] to put another two inches for in for uh
[50:12] soundproofing.
[50:14] This all of this together with the t 32
[50:16] in that are approved will bring that
[50:19] total height increase to 46 in
[50:24] the the building is suspended. The top
[50:28] floor is suspended over the first and
[50:30] it's set at 48 in. So there's a 48 inch
[50:33] gap that 48 that
[50:37] and being okay. The variance has allowed
[50:43] Okay. So that the variance from last
[50:45] year has allowed the allowed the
[50:47] building to sit five feet from the fence
[50:49] line under rule of the old code.
[50:54] But the height allowance is being
[50:56] controlled by what code allows today.
[51:02] Today's code holds a 7 and 1/2 ft
[51:06] setback
[51:07] and a 30foot height allowance.
[51:10] But because the building is being held
[51:13] at five feet, two and a half feet closer
[51:17] to the fence line, any height increases
[51:21] will only intensify the force on
[51:24] boundaries.
[51:29] The original building was not aggressive
[51:34] because the setback and height allowance
[51:37] were in sync to prevent that. Height
[51:40] allowances are concerned with the height
[51:42] of the roof.
[51:44] This building has a very low pitched
[51:46] roof of six feet. So very little of the
[51:50] height increase is absorbed by the roof
[51:54] height. It is a sheer wall like Villa
[51:57] Cheese, but the building does not bear
[52:00] down on you because there's space around
[52:04] it. This is overbearing.
[52:09] And because of all that, I am asking you
[52:13] to re-evaluate
[52:15] this current request for more height
[52:19] increases
[52:20] because that will make the building
[52:23] excessively overbearing and excessively
[52:26] dominating
[52:28] and to make a more mutually and I'm
[52:30] asking you if you can
[52:33] to make a more mutually respecting
[52:36] decision for both of us.
[52:40] But before you do that, I would like you
[52:43] to ask the property owners in private
[52:50] if that is okay with them because I
[52:53] think they deserve a decent amount of
[52:55] respect.
[52:56] >> Thank you, Claudia. I appreciate your
[52:58] » Thank you, Claudia. I appreciate your
[52:58] comments.
[52:58] >> Thank you.
[53:03] » Okay. Are any other members of the
[53:05] public wishing to address the commission
[53:08] on this matter tonight?
[53:10] Okay, seeing none, I will close public
[53:12] comment. I will bring it back to the
[53:14] commission for discussion.
[53:17] Any members of the commission wish to
[53:20] >> Yes.
[53:20] » Yes.
[53:20] >> Um Jacob, I'm having trouble reading the
[53:24] » Um Jacob, I'm having trouble reading the
[53:24] um drawings. Can you um between the
[53:28] previous approval and the proposed
[53:30] modification, what is that height
[53:32] difference?
[53:35] the overall height. Is that what you're
[53:36] asking?
[53:38] >> Well, what is the previous approval?
[53:40] » Well, what is the previous approval?
[53:40] What's the height on that one?
[53:41] >> 24 feet and one inch.
[53:44] » 24 feet and one inch.
[53:44] >> Okay. And we're only we're increasing it
[53:46] » Okay. And we're only we're increasing it
[53:46] one foot
[53:47] >> to 25 ft and one inch.
[53:49] » to 25 ft and one inch.
[53:49] >> What is Claudia's comments about the 48
[53:53] » What is Claudia's comments about the 48
[53:53] in increase? My understanding was since
[53:57] she's no longer here is a deviation from
[53:59] baseline from the initial what was the
[54:02] initial the height of the initial
[54:03] structure prior to consider.
[54:04] >> Okay. Not between the first to the
[54:06] » Okay. Not between the first to the
[54:06] second the first approval and what's
[54:10] being considered here.
[54:11] >> Yeah. Um, I did uh speak with her at uh
[54:15] » Yeah. Um, I did uh speak with her at uh
[54:15] one point and it had to do I think part
[54:18] of it had to do with the spacing between
[54:20] the first and the second floor um and
[54:24] the difference there. I I'm not fully
[54:26] understanding it, but um I think that
[54:29] was part of where the height difference
[54:31] was um was between that insulation
[54:34] between those two floors.
[54:38] » Thank you. Any other commissioners
[54:43] wish to apply?
[54:46] >> Mr. Na,
[54:47] » Mr. Na,
[54:47] >> I'll make a comment. Um, again, I
[54:49] » I'll make a comment. Um, again, I
[54:49] appreciate the public's comments. Um,
[54:51] but reading through the report, my
[54:53] understanding is the difference between
[54:55] what was approved in May and now is this
[54:58] 1 inch um increase um one foot. Thank
[55:02] you. More than one inch. Um and that
[55:05] that there's also the same setback issue
[55:08] of not seven feet but 5.3.
[55:11] >> Yeah. Which was approved at that time.
[55:13] » Yeah. Which was approved at that time.
[55:13] >> Right.
[55:14] » Right.
[55:14] >> Um and so when I look at the overall
[55:16] » Um and so when I look at the overall
[55:16] there no there's no change in other
[55:17] aspects F or site coverage. Um and that
[55:22] the 25 ft is within the maximum that's
[55:24] allowable. Um,
[55:27] I would I would say that I'm supportive
[55:30] of the change because it it really
[55:32] doesn't change the overall structure.
[55:34] The only change here is one foot of
[55:36] height, which is within the the code
[55:38] norm. Um, and it is improving the house
[55:42] and improving the structure. Um, and
[55:45] what I heard tonight was also that it's
[55:46] improving the safety and the foundation
[55:48] of the structure. So, I I would be
[55:50] inclined to approve it.
[55:53] >> Thank you. Any other members of the
[55:54] » Thank you. Any other members of the
[55:54] commission have comments?
[55:58] >> Commissioner Bernett,
[55:59] » Commissioner Bernett,
[55:59] >> um what is the um
[56:02] » um what is the um
[56:02] what is the height of the finished
[56:04] building as proposed and what is the
[56:09] permittable or permissible height of a
[56:12] building in that particular situation
[56:16] according to the code?
[56:17] >> So the maximum height for the zoning uh
[56:19] » So the maximum height for the zoning uh
[56:20] for this planning area is 30 feet. The
[56:22] maximum height of this structure will be
[56:24] 25 feet and one inch.
[56:25] >> Thank you.
[56:28] » Thank you.
[56:28] >> Other members of the commission have
[56:29] » Other members of the commission have
[56:29] comments.
[56:32] I will join in the comments of my fellow
[56:34] commissioners and that I support the
[56:36] approval of this application that on
[56:38] balance the additional uh 1 foot in
[56:41] height um doesn't negate any of the
[56:45] findings that were previously made.
[56:47] We're not here to relitigate um the
[56:50] findings of um
[56:53] what was uh what was discussed in May
[56:55] and approved. And uh for that reason and
[56:58] all the reasons previously mentioned, I
[57:00] would be supportive of approving this
[57:02] application.
[57:03] With that said, is there a motion?
[57:07] >> Motion to approve.
[57:10] » Motion to approve.
[57:10] Um you can find it here. the um
[57:17] the variance, including a new variance
[57:19] in the approval of a renovation of the
[57:22] second floor and increase in the
[57:23] structure height of a duplex built over
[57:26] 45 years ago located at 310
[57:29] Second Street East, including the action
[57:32] to approve the categorical exemption.
[57:36] >> A second.
[57:39] » A second.
[57:39] >> Roll call, please.
[57:41] » Roll call, please.
[57:41] Commissioner Willers,
[57:42] >> yes.
[57:43] » yes.
[57:43] >> Commissioner Barnett,
[57:44] » Commissioner Barnett,
[57:44] >> hi.
[57:45] » hi.
[57:45] >> Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins,
[57:46] » Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins,
[57:46] >> hi.
[57:46] » hi.
[57:46] >> Commissioner Donach,
[57:47] » Commissioner Donach,
[57:48] >> yes.
[57:48] » yes.
[57:48] >> Commissioner O'Neal,
[57:49] » Commissioner O'Neal,
[57:49] >> yes.
[57:50] » yes.
[57:50] >> Vice Chair Nent,
[57:51] » Vice Chair Nent,
[57:51] >> I.
[57:51] » I.
[57:51] >> Chair Wyrick,
[57:52] » Chair Wyrick,
[57:52] >> I.
[57:52] » I.
[57:52] >> The motion passes unanimously.
[57:55] » The motion passes unanimously.
[57:55] >> Thank you very much. Thank you to the
[57:56] » Thank you very much. Thank you to the
[57:56] applicant for his presence tonight and
[57:59] uh to the members of the public who came
[58:02] to participate in the discourse.
[58:06] Moving on to item 4.4 four of tonight's
[58:09] public hearing discussion,
[58:10] consideration, and possible action to
[58:12] approve design review and use permit
[58:15] amendment
[58:16] for
[58:22] » may I
[58:26] discuss item 44, discussion,
[58:28] consideration, and possible action to
[58:29] approve design review and use permit
[58:31] amendment for exterior modifications to
[58:33] the front facade and operational
[58:35] conditions located at 9 East Napa
[58:38] Street. If there's a staff report,
[58:41] please.
[58:42] >> Sure thing. Diane Levine, associate
[58:44] » Sure thing. Diane Levine, associate
[58:44] planner. Good evening, commissioners,
[58:46] chair Wyrick, and Vice Chair Nent. Nice
[58:48] to see you.
[58:52] So the item before you uh in summary as
[58:56] Hayrick um chair Hyrick described is for
[58:59] design review for exterior modifications
[59:01] to the front facade located at 9 East
[59:04] Napa Street uh at OSO. It is has a
[59:08] general plan designation of commercial
[59:10] zoning uh commercial. It is within the
[59:14] historic overlay and the plaza retail
[59:16] overlay and it is within the downtown
[59:19] district planning area and there was a
[59:23] previous historical resource evaluation
[59:25] done on it and uh it was determined to
[59:28] not be eligible as a historic resource.
[59:33] So on the right is the exterior of OSO
[59:37] as it is now and then on the left is a
[59:40] rendering of the proposed changes
[59:44] and we can visit back if we need to.
[59:48] So the the proposed changes include uh
[59:51] insetting the front facade to make it
[59:53] flush. Right now it's sort of at an odd
[59:55] angle as you're you're probably aware
[59:57] of. Um it would go from four smaller
[1:00:00] windows to three larger windows. Uh and
[1:00:05] perhaps most notably um moving the the
[1:00:09] entrance from the west side to the east
[1:00:11] side of the front facade. The wood
[1:00:14] awning uh for lack of a better term
[1:00:16] would be removed as well as the um dark
[1:00:20] ac uh wood accents and dark tiling. And
[1:00:24] the a color change would occur and the
[1:00:27] replacement of the existing metal
[1:00:29] windows and door would be replaced with
[1:00:32] um as you can see a green color in that
[1:00:34] same um material. And throughout the
[1:00:38] plan set you you may have noticed um
[1:00:43] alluding to signage and sidewalk seating
[1:00:46] and both of those items will be handled
[1:00:48] uh under separate permit. So, we're just
[1:00:50] sort of focusing on the the changes to
[1:00:52] the front facade and the amendments to
[1:00:54] the existing use permit.
[1:00:59] So, again, here is just providing a bit
[1:01:01] more detail on the materials in color
[1:01:03] and lighting. Um the existing material
[1:01:06] is stucco, so it but you almost can't
[1:01:08] tell due to the dark color that's
[1:01:10] currently on the building. Um, so it' be
[1:01:13] a bit more not noticeable when they go
[1:01:15] to this lighter sort of off green color.
[1:01:18] Um, and then the darker green for the
[1:01:20] windows and doors and um there's just a
[1:01:24] closeup of the the lighting features
[1:01:26] there that would be down lit. Um, and
[1:01:29] there is a time schedule in the lighting
[1:01:31] schedule that's in the plan set. I would
[1:01:34] also like to note um that the you may
[1:01:36] have also noticed that I mentioned in
[1:01:38] the staff report that the location of
[1:01:41] the gas meter was called out to be on
[1:01:43] the front facade of the the building and
[1:01:47] the applicant definitely acted in the
[1:01:50] best interest of the city in regard to
[1:01:53] um operating on the plaza and worked
[1:01:55] with P Gen to apply for an exception in
[1:01:58] order to be able to do the upgrades that
[1:02:01] they're wanting on the interior for
[1:02:03] their tenant improvements with uh while
[1:02:06] still being able to use the existing
[1:02:08] location which is um in the sidewalk
[1:02:10] there.
[1:02:15] So the moving on to the amendments quite
[1:02:18] minor really um and actually a reduction
[1:02:22] in hours for the exterior on Fridays and
[1:02:25] Saturdays. Um so generally staying the
[1:02:28] same um and all the other applicable
[1:02:32] uh conditions that were that are in the
[1:02:35] existing use permit would remain. Um and
[1:02:38] then really it's just a change in the
[1:02:40] arrangement of seating. So they would go
[1:02:43] from 29 interior seats to I I'm sorry uh
[1:02:47] 26 indoor seats to 29 and eight outdoor
[1:02:51] seats to 14 in the rear patio. And
[1:02:55] although the number of employees per
[1:02:58] shift was not um specifically expressed
[1:03:01] previously um that would not go beyond
[1:03:05] six employees uh maximum per shift and
[1:03:09] as in the the existing use permit uh
[1:03:12] with the total occupancy not to exceed
[1:03:14] 49 and that would not change.
[1:03:19] So there are a number of findings
[1:03:21] including the design review findings,
[1:03:23] the use permit findings and then um
[1:03:27] design review within the historic
[1:03:29] overlay um staff does feel that it meets
[1:03:32] all of the findings and we are
[1:03:36] recommending approval of the design
[1:03:38] review and the use permit amendment to
[1:03:40] the front facade and operational
[1:03:42] conditions. and and also asked that the
[1:03:46] project um be considered uh
[1:03:49] categorically exempt pursuant to section
[1:03:52] 15301
[1:03:53] um which is existing facilities. Thank
[1:03:56] you. Oh, I'm sorry. And we do have that
[1:03:58] the owners here should there be any
[1:04:01] questions that should be directed at
[1:04:03] them. We have uh David and Kelly Bush. I
[1:04:05] meant to mention that in the beginning.
[1:04:08] >> Miss Levine, thank you for your report.
[1:04:10] » Miss Levine, thank you for your report.
[1:04:10] Commissioner comments. Commissioner
[1:04:12] Barnett.
[1:04:14] questions. Excuse me.
[1:04:15] >> I noticed on one of the renderings there
[1:04:17] » I noticed on one of the renderings there
[1:04:17] were looked like three tables. I'm not
[1:04:22] sure if it's been proposed formally that
[1:04:25] these become part of the application,
[1:04:29] but um this obviously if if uh approved
[1:04:34] this way and if the drawing indicates a
[1:04:38] change in seating capacity, would this
[1:04:40] not increase the outdoor seating
[1:04:43] capacity by six seats?
[1:04:46] So, uh, that's why I mentioned in the
[1:04:48] beginning the sidewalk permits are, um,
[1:04:51] applied for under a separate permit. So,
[1:04:54] that won't be part of that's not part of
[1:04:57] this application. The 49 is the 49 is in
[1:05:02] reference to an interior occupancy. Um,
[1:05:05] that just they would have to stay under
[1:05:07] 49 on the interior in order to not
[1:05:10] trigger other, you know, fire
[1:05:11] requirements or what have you.
[1:05:13] >> No, I understand, but go back. There was
[1:05:15] » No, I understand, but go back. There was
[1:05:15] one that had to to talked about seating
[1:05:17] in the garden
[1:05:20] and uh there was a change
[1:05:24] uh interior
[1:05:26] 14 rear patio seats from eight outdoor
[1:05:30] seats.
[1:05:32] So that just has to do with the
[1:05:36] >> I Yes. Perhaps I didn't clarify that's
[1:05:39] » I Yes. Perhaps I didn't clarify that's
[1:05:39] in the rear.
[1:05:40] >> So that just has to do with the rear.
[1:05:42] » So that just has to do with the rear.
[1:05:42] >> Yes. And but it's not changing their
[1:05:44] » Yes. And but it's not changing their
[1:05:44] total number of occats.
[1:05:47] >> Correct.
[1:05:47] » Correct.
[1:05:47] >> And so if I understand you correctly, if
[1:05:51] » And so if I understand you correctly, if
[1:05:51] they do want to go forward and apply for
[1:05:55] some seating in the front, they're going
[1:05:57] to have to make a separate application
[1:05:59] to do that.
[1:06:00] >> Yes, that would be done through the
[1:06:01] » Yes, that would be done through the
[1:06:01] sidewalk seating permit.
[1:06:03] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:06:04] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:06:04] >> You're welcome.
[1:06:08] » Thank you. Any other questions?
[1:06:09] Commissioner Dela.
[1:06:10] >> Thank you. I have a clarifying question.
[1:06:12] » Thank you. I have a clarifying question.
[1:06:12] I just want to make sure I understand um
[1:06:14] about the gas meter and and whether we
[1:06:18] have to make that a condition of
[1:06:20] approval. There's there was some
[1:06:21] language in the staff report that
[1:06:23] suggested that. So I just want to make
[1:06:25] sure I understand. So there is a front
[1:06:28] there is a gas meter. It's just not a
[1:06:30] new gas meter. Is that correct?
[1:06:33] >> So the existing gas meter is actually
[1:06:36] » So the existing gas meter is actually
[1:06:36] under the sidewalk there. Um it's not on
[1:06:39] the front. And so I actually did include
[1:06:41] it in the conditions of approval just
[1:06:44] because I really like to have the plans
[1:06:46] match exactly what what's what we see
[1:06:49] come in as a building permit or or
[1:06:52] whatnot. Um and so I didn't have them
[1:06:55] refresh revise the plan set. Um so
[1:06:58] that's why I called it out but it would
[1:07:00] remain as such. They had originally P
[1:07:02] Gen now wants um when certain um
[1:07:06] upgrades are triggered. They want the
[1:07:08] gas meters on the front of the building.
[1:07:11] And um so we had an internal discussion
[1:07:13] because we hadn't heard this come up
[1:07:16] before and there was concern over the
[1:07:19] impact that that would have
[1:07:20] aesthetically on the plaza. Um and so we
[1:07:24] spoke internally and then uh we spoke
[1:07:26] with the applicant and they were um
[1:07:29] willing to apply for an exception with
[1:07:32] PG& to maintain um the location where it
[1:07:36] is now which is not visible. Okay. So
[1:07:38] just two follow-up questions. Um
[1:07:41] so um just a process question. So since
[1:07:45] you already have it in the conditions
[1:07:47] the we if we were to uh recommend a
[1:07:51] motion we wouldn't have to include it.
[1:07:53] >> Correct.
[1:07:53] » Correct.
[1:07:53] >> Okay. The second question I have is
[1:07:55] » Okay. The second question I have is
[1:07:55] around safety and what happened to
[1:07:58] corner 103 with the underground gas
[1:08:00] line. And I I'm do we have any insight
[1:08:05] into whether even though PG& approved
[1:08:08] that that they really refortified that?
[1:08:12] >> That's not a gas vault. That's not gas.
[1:08:15] » That's not a gas vault. That's not gas.
[1:08:15] That it was power. It was
[1:08:16] >> I apologize. I thought it was gas.
[1:08:18] » I apologize. I thought it was gas.
[1:08:18] >> No, it's electricity.
[1:08:19] » No, it's electricity.
[1:08:19] >> Okay. But again, the an underground the
[1:08:22] » Okay. But again, the an underground the
[1:08:22] underground.
[1:08:23] >> So, I'll I'll answer that part of it.
[1:08:25] » So, I'll I'll answer that part of it.
[1:08:25] Okay. So, um after that occurred, um PG&
[1:08:29] did come out, reassess um all of the
[1:08:32] vaults, looked for that specific type of
[1:08:35] electric fault and identified those that
[1:08:39] may be within our sidewalks that are of
[1:08:42] that age and type and have already
[1:08:45] looked into updating all of those. And
[1:08:48] so, it's already in process for all of
[1:08:50] that. Um the um the reason why they want
[1:08:54] them up is really just to read meters
[1:08:57] and accessibility purposes more than
[1:09:00] anything. It's not
[1:09:02] um because of safety.
[1:09:04] >> Okay.
[1:09:04] » Okay.
[1:09:04] >> Thank you so much.
[1:09:06] » Thank you so much.
[1:09:06] >> Great. Any other commissioner questions?
[1:09:08] » Great. Any other commissioner questions?
[1:09:08] Commissioner Bernett?
[1:09:10] >> Um are we being asked to consider the uh
[1:09:14] » Um are we being asked to consider the uh
[1:09:14] color scheme for this in this
[1:09:17] application?
[1:09:18] >> That is within your privy. Yes.
[1:09:20] » That is within your privy. Yes.
[1:09:20] And so were there any I would have liked
[1:09:24] to have seen
[1:09:26] um this color scheme in context with the
[1:09:31] other adjacent properties.
[1:09:35] >> Yeah, that's understandable. Um you can
[1:09:37] » Yeah, that's understandable. Um you can
[1:09:37] see a glimpse of it here or and I can
[1:09:39] also so we have soul desire on the left
[1:09:42] which is the lighter cream and then also
[1:09:46] in the center and then parkside to the
[1:09:49] right. So it would be a tone may perhaps
[1:09:52] it could be referred to as in between
[1:09:54] the two. Um, but I can also we can pull
[1:09:58] up um Google or uh Google Maps right now
[1:10:01] too if if that's something that you want
[1:10:03] >> Well, you know, normally um
[1:10:07] » Well, you know, normally um
[1:10:08] even just a color change on the plaza
[1:10:10] would trigger a robust discussion.
[1:10:14] Uh not to mention a change in the actual
[1:10:18] structure of the facade, which is this
[1:10:20] what this includes. I'm not in love with
[1:10:22] their wooden um uh canopy or whatever
[1:10:27] you want to call it today. Um and they
[1:10:30] haven't indicated
[1:10:32] what kind of signage.
[1:10:35] Uh OSO does have one of those. We were
[1:10:38] discussing them earlier backlit
[1:10:41] type illuminated signs but there's no
[1:10:44] indication on this as to what kind of
[1:10:46] signage they want to do.
[1:10:48] >> Right. So that was the other component
[1:10:50] » Right. So that was the other component
[1:10:50] that will be they wanted to defer that
[1:10:52] to another application.
[1:10:54] >> Okay. Once again, I'm I'm a little
[1:10:57] » Okay. Once again, I'm I'm a little
[1:10:57] concerned about considering each of
[1:10:59] these pieces in isolation when the
[1:11:02] reality is that um we'll be dealing with
[1:11:07] uh a comprehensive change in the context
[1:11:11] of whatever gets approved as the final
[1:11:14] approval for this particular location.
[1:11:17] and I'm not seeing a a submittal
[1:11:20] application that
[1:11:23] um reflects the totality of those
[1:11:26] changes. So, I'm having a little I'm
[1:11:28] finding myself resisting a little bit
[1:11:30] going ahead without more information to
[1:11:34] put this all of these changes in
[1:11:36] context.
[1:11:37] >> Okay. Um and just to note or clarify,
[1:11:41] » Okay. Um and just to note or clarify,
[1:11:41] the sidewalk seating wouldn't be
[1:11:44] something that would come before you. We
[1:11:45] those do get processed administratively,
[1:11:48] but I understand um your concern in in
[1:11:51] regard to the signage. Um if you'd like
[1:11:55] me to pull up the street view, I can do
[1:11:57] that or whatever you prefer.
[1:12:00] Well, I I wouldn't mind seeing it, and
[1:12:03] I'll have to use my imagination for what
[1:12:06] it would look like with these green
[1:12:07] colors rather than a mocked up composite
[1:12:11] of of how the uh final would look. I
[1:12:15] just I'm just surprised there isn't a
[1:12:17] more complete visual presentation on
[1:12:20] this.
[1:12:31] Do you want to ask if there's any more
[1:12:33] questions and then we can pull it up
[1:12:35] while we're
[1:12:36] >> It seems that there is. Uh vice chair na
[1:12:40] » It seems that there is. Uh vice chair na
[1:12:40] >> uh just clarifying question is OSO and
[1:12:44] » uh just clarifying question is OSO and
[1:12:44] uh is it park side are they related? Are
[1:12:46] they the are they in the same Thank you.
[1:12:50] >> We have questions of staff while we're
[1:12:53] » We have questions of staff while we're
[1:12:53] pulling that up.
[1:12:56] Might this be an opportunity to invite
[1:12:58] the applicant to come forward and
[1:12:59] address the commission if they so
[1:13:01] choose? There's no requirement.
[1:13:08] » Great. And if you just say your name for
[1:13:09] the record, I appreciate it.
[1:13:10] >> David Bush ush.
[1:13:13] » David Bush ush.
[1:13:13] >> Um I mean it's it's a pretty simple
[1:13:15] » Um I mean it's it's a pretty simple
[1:13:15] remodel. It's a restaurant now. It's
[1:13:17] going to remain a restaurant. We're just
[1:13:19] improving the space, making it more
[1:13:21] comfortable. Um,
[1:13:23] improving the facade, I believe. Looks a
[1:13:26] little outdated and a little drab. Um,
[1:13:30] and we really just want to create more
[1:13:31] of a neighborhood restaurant on the
[1:13:34] square, casual place, um, and a much
[1:13:37] more comfortable place. The backyard
[1:13:39] obviously needs improvements. Um, and we
[1:13:41] would love to get some sidewalk seating.
[1:13:44] We just think it makes the place more
[1:13:45] vibrant and, um,
[1:13:48] really attracts people more to the
[1:13:50] square. I think people want to sit
[1:13:52] outside. We hardly ever fill up inside
[1:13:54] when it's nice outside and having tables
[1:13:57] out front like when we had the parklets
[1:13:59] really gave us a lot more life,
[1:14:01] especially on that side of the square
[1:14:02] where it's pretty slow sometimes,
[1:14:05] especially as far as foot traffic goes.
[1:14:07] So, you know, that's the goal for the
[1:14:09] project. Um,
[1:14:11] we're just a small family business
[1:14:14] doing our best.
[1:14:16] >> Thank you. I appreciate it.
[1:14:22] Uh, thank you for pulling this up. That
[1:14:26] helps me.
[1:14:32] As I say, I wish um it'd been a mockup
[1:14:34] of the colors
[1:14:37] in a, you know, wouldn't be hard to do
[1:14:40] in Photoshop. And uh so I would have
[1:14:45] hoped and expected and I guess my
[1:14:48] position is that
[1:14:50] any changes to the plaza to me
[1:14:55] um demand an extra level of scrutiny and
[1:15:00] consideration. It's just it's just the
[1:15:04] way I'm built. And I'm not opposed to
[1:15:07] change. I happen to enjoy Oso as a
[1:15:10] restaurant. I've eaten there many many
[1:15:12] times and um um but I think that uh
[1:15:18] going forward at least when we have
[1:15:21] changes to a facade of any
[1:15:26] uh plaza business. Uh I would like to
[1:15:30] see those changes rendered in the
[1:15:33] context of where they are their
[1:15:36] neighbors. And I know it'll be extra
[1:15:39] work for applicants. I'm sorry about
[1:15:41] that. But, you know, I uh having worked
[1:15:44] with Photoshop myself for 35 years, it's
[1:15:47] not that hard to do. So, I'll see where
[1:15:51] the rest of the commissioners.
[1:15:54] >> Thank you very much. Any other
[1:15:55] » Thank you very much. Any other
[1:15:55] commissioner comments? Questions? Excuse
[1:15:58] me. Questions? Any more questions?
[1:16:02] No more questions?
[1:16:04] Um, any comments? Excuse me. I need to
[1:16:08] open public comment on this matter. Are
[1:16:10] there any members of the public wishing
[1:16:12] to address the commission on this agenda
[1:16:13] item
[1:16:17] and see? Oh, Mr. Abadilly, state your
[1:16:20] name, please.
[1:16:20] >> JJ Abdily. Um, I'd just like to state
[1:16:23] » JJ Abdily. Um, I'd just like to state
[1:16:23] that uh I think OSO is a real gem of
[1:16:26] restaurant to have on the plaza. It has
[1:16:28] unique offering um different than most
[1:16:30] any other place. It's one of the rare
[1:16:32] places we can still get a bite at 8:59
[1:16:34] p.m., which I really appreciate. And I
[1:16:37] think we all know how hard it is to run
[1:16:38] a restaurant. I I hope the commission
[1:16:40] can help make it a little easier for a
[1:16:44] business owner to run the business the
[1:16:45] way he wants. And from the looks of it,
[1:16:47] I'm not much of a color guy, but I think
[1:16:49] I can I think I can picture like a dark
[1:16:51] dark green, and I think it'll look well
[1:16:52] look good in the context. So, I
[1:16:54] appreciate that. Thank you.
[1:16:56] >> Thank you very much. Any other members
[1:16:58] » Thank you very much. Any other members
[1:16:58] of the public wishing to come address
[1:17:01] the commission?
[1:17:03] Okay, seeing none, I will close the
[1:17:05] public comment and bring it back to the
[1:17:06] commission for comments.
[1:17:08] Commissioners have comments.
[1:17:10] Commissioner O'Neal.
[1:17:12] >> Um, I like the new design. I think that
[1:17:15] » Um, I like the new design. I think that
[1:17:15] that angle is um awkward and I think
[1:17:19] that this is a really clever way to make
[1:17:21] it a little bit more comfortable there.
[1:17:23] And I do really encourage the outdoor
[1:17:25] seating. I think it makes the look more
[1:17:28] vibrant. I think the plaza would look
[1:17:29] more vibrant. I think that the dated
[1:17:32] reclaimed wood um worked 12 years ago
[1:17:36] about when you guys put it in and a
[1:17:38] refresh is a great way to have people
[1:17:40] remember. Oh, Oso. Yeah, I haven't been
[1:17:42] there in a while. So, I actually am
[1:17:44] fully in support of this. I think it's a
[1:17:46] really nice design and I look forward to
[1:17:48] enjoying it.
[1:17:50] >> Thank you, Commissioner Dbok.
[1:17:52] » Thank you, Commissioner Dbok.
[1:17:52] >> Yes. I I also um really like the design
[1:17:56] » Yes. I I also um really like the design
[1:17:56] and I really appreciate Oso as a
[1:17:58] business in Soma um and as a community
[1:18:01] member. Um one thing I hope is that
[1:18:04] somewhere you'll keep the pig the pig
[1:18:06] bear.
[1:18:10] » Thank you. Any other comments?
[1:18:13] Commissioner Willers. Um, Jacob, can you
[1:18:16] pull up or can you pull up the color
[1:18:18] chart that the colors are were actually
[1:18:20] applied for that you have up in the
[1:18:22] corner of the one slide? So I I think
[1:18:25] this is
[1:18:26] to me this is a failing of SketchUp and
[1:18:30] a and the thing we should be paying
[1:18:32] attention to is are these colors because
[1:18:35] I think that the stucco color the paint
[1:18:37] color of the stucco is actually um very
[1:18:40] close a little bit more vibrant than the
[1:18:43] next door neighbor um to the to the
[1:18:46] west. Um, and is it correct that the
[1:18:50] tile is the internal area?
[1:18:56] » Yes. But that that's how it was labeled
[1:18:58] on the plan set.
[1:19:01] >> So does is it the entire al cove?
[1:19:04] » So does is it the entire al cove?
[1:19:04] >> Here we have Sarah who was the applicant
[1:19:06] » Here we have Sarah who was the applicant
[1:19:06] on on behalf of the owners if you don't
[1:19:08] mind.
[1:19:08] >> I'm Sarah. I'm the architect. Uh, so the
[1:19:11] » I'm Sarah. I'm the architect. Uh, so the
[1:19:11] tile would be right behind where the
[1:19:12] seating is and the rest would be painted
[1:19:15] >> to match the tile color.
[1:19:17] » to match the tile color.
[1:19:17] >> Yes. And I agree the SketchUp colors are
[1:19:19] » Yes. And I agree the SketchUp colors are
[1:19:19] kind of difficult. It's a notoriously
[1:19:22] tricky program with the colors. The top
[1:19:24] right is the best representation of the
[1:19:25] actual colors. So it's darker the
[1:19:28] stuckle color and the tile as well are
[1:19:31] darker than the rendering is showing.
[1:19:34] >> Thank you.
[1:19:36] » Thank you.
[1:19:36] Yeah, I I I think that the you know the
[1:19:39] image that you see of the opening is
[1:19:41] much different than what the final
[1:19:43] appearance is going to be. And so I have
[1:19:45] no trouble with the color selections as
[1:19:47] a design.
[1:19:49] >> Any other comments,
[1:19:51] » Any other comments,
[1:19:52] >> Mr. Bernard?
[1:19:52] » Mr. Bernard?
[1:19:52] >> Okay. So I want to I want to understand
[1:19:55] » Okay. So I want to I want to understand
[1:19:55] the picture we're looking at now with
[1:19:57] the little tables in the front and those
[1:19:59] two versions of greens. These are not
[1:20:01] the accurate colors. Is that what you're
[1:20:03] telling me? So, the colors on the right
[1:20:06] are the accurate colors, which are far
[1:20:08] less
[1:20:10] um
[1:20:12] uh
[1:20:14] >> well, they're they're they're more
[1:20:16] » well, they're they're they're more
[1:20:16] compatible with the neighboring
[1:20:18] properties, but I'm using my imagination
[1:20:20] at this point in order to fill it in,
[1:20:23] which is why I'm concerned that that in
[1:20:26] future applications like this on the
[1:20:28] plaza, we get more detail
[1:20:32] before it comes to this commission.
[1:20:34] because I don't you know I was a graphic
[1:20:36] designer professionally for for 20 years
[1:20:41] uh before I changed careers and um the
[1:20:45] one lesson I learned
[1:20:47] in that craft was don't leave much up to
[1:20:50] the client's imagination because
[1:20:53] everybody imagines things somewhat
[1:20:55] differently. the better that you can
[1:20:57] show in a rendering precisely what it is
[1:21:00] you're intending, the better off you
[1:21:02] are. Otherwise, you run into the
[1:21:03] individual taste of a client that has to
[1:21:06] do with a color that may not be what's
[1:21:08] intended. So going forward, I would I
[1:21:12] would recommend to staff that, you know,
[1:21:15] we not we not have a variation as
[1:21:18] significant as this in terms of
[1:21:20] representation representation of how
[1:21:23] something's going to look when it
[1:21:24] actually is going to look quite
[1:21:26] different. So that being said, um I
[1:21:29] think now that I understand the actual
[1:21:32] colors that are going to be used, I have
[1:21:35] far less concern. And in terms of the
[1:21:38] design and the layout and the removal of
[1:21:40] the existing structures, those are all
[1:21:42] fine with me and I agree with the
[1:21:45] sentiments of the audience. I think the
[1:21:47] that so is a wonderful restaurant to
[1:21:50] have in town and I want to have them
[1:21:52] want to see them continue to succeed.
[1:21:56] >> Great. Thank you. Any other comments?
[1:21:59] » Great. Thank you. Any other comments?
[1:21:59] >> Okay. I will just join in saying that
[1:22:00] » Okay. I will just join in saying that
[1:22:00] I'm supportive of the the changes that
[1:22:02] are proposed in this application. I I I
[1:22:05] will actually joined Commissioner
[1:22:07] Barnett in his comments that I I believe
[1:22:09] that the um plaza facade is deserving of
[1:22:12] a maybe a little higher scrutiny than
[1:22:14] other not as prominently displayed areas
[1:22:18] of our city. But uh what's proposed here
[1:22:20] isn't anything that can't be uh you know
[1:22:23] remedied by a different painkiller in
[1:22:24] the future. So with that I would be
[1:22:26] supportive of uh approving this
[1:22:28] application.
[1:22:31] And with that, there any motions on the
[1:22:34] floor?
[1:22:37] >> A motion to approve.
[1:22:39] » A motion to approve.
[1:22:39] >> Second. Roll call, please.
[1:22:43] » Second. Roll call, please.
[1:22:43] >> Commissioner Willers,
[1:22:44] » Commissioner Willers,
[1:22:44] >> yes.
[1:22:44] » yes.
[1:22:44] >> Commissioner Barnett,
[1:22:45] » Commissioner Barnett,
[1:22:45] >> I.
[1:22:46] » I.
[1:22:46] >> Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins,
[1:22:47] » Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins,
[1:22:47] >> I.
[1:22:48] » I.
[1:22:48] >> Commissioner Donbach,
[1:22:49] » Commissioner Donbach,
[1:22:49] >> yes.
[1:22:49] » yes.
[1:22:49] >> Commissioner O'Neal,
[1:22:50] » Commissioner O'Neal,
[1:22:50] >> yes.
[1:22:51] » yes.
[1:22:51] >> Vice Chair Nent,
[1:22:52] » Vice Chair Nent,
[1:22:52] >> I.
[1:22:53] » I.
[1:22:53] >> Chair Wyrick,
[1:22:54] » Chair Wyrick,
[1:22:54] >> I.
[1:22:54] » I.
[1:22:54] >> The motion passes unanimously.
[1:22:57] » The motion passes unanimously.
[1:22:57] >> Thank you very much. At this time, I
[1:22:59] » Thank you very much. At this time, I
[1:22:59] would call for a fivem minute recess. I
[1:23:01] want to be respectful of the the time
[1:23:03] that uh the members of the audience have
[1:23:05] spent thus far tonight and uh would call
[1:23:09] for a five strict fivem minute recess at
[1:23:11] this time. Thank you.
[1:29:01] members of the public,
[1:29:03] if I can encourage you to take your
[1:29:05] seats, please.
[1:29:12] Director Gates, are you close to being
[1:29:15] prepared?
[1:29:30] Okay. At this point, I will reconvene
[1:29:32] the planning commission meeting and go
[1:29:34] back on the record in item uh 5.2, which
[1:29:38] based on the action earlier will be
[1:29:40] moved to the top of the items for
[1:29:42] discussion portion of our agenda
[1:29:44] tonight. I want to begin by just
[1:29:45] thanking the members of the public who
[1:29:47] have remained here and who have obliged
[1:29:49] us uh after an hour and a half of other
[1:29:52] regular uh calendar agenda items. Um the
[1:29:56] fact that you're here speaks a lot to
[1:29:58] the fact that you believe in this
[1:30:00] process and that you believe in your
[1:30:03] city and uh the fact that there is um a
[1:30:07] pathway forward where I think uh you
[1:30:10] know that there's going to be a there
[1:30:13] can be a happy medium and that uh people
[1:30:16] can be um proud of where we live and um
[1:30:19] so I will reiterate thank you very much
[1:30:22] for being here and being involved. With
[1:30:24] that said,
[1:30:26] we will move forward with 5.2, which is
[1:30:29] discussion of the general plan ad hoc
[1:30:31] committee comments on available draft
[1:30:33] general plan elements. And I will turn
[1:30:35] it over to director Gates.
[1:30:39] >> Thank you. And also based on that
[1:30:42] » Thank you. And also based on that
[1:30:42] reorganization, my understanding is that
[1:30:44] we are going to first focus on the
[1:30:47] discussion around the Soma mixed um
[1:30:50] description. Correct.
[1:30:52] >> That was my understanding. Okay. Um, so,
[1:30:55] » That was my understanding. Okay. Um, so,
[1:30:55] um, to start there, um, and I can bring
[1:30:59] up things that you may request at any
[1:31:02] time, but just to kick it off the
[1:31:05] discussion. So, just as a reminder, on
[1:31:07] January 14th of this year, um, a
[1:31:10] community meeting was held at the
[1:31:11] Vintage House that many of you did
[1:31:13] participate in. It was an agenda
[1:31:16] planning commission um, meeting.
[1:31:19] Um and at that meeting um the goal of
[1:31:22] that was to gather input on what a Soma
[1:31:26] mixuse could look like on the Sebastiani
[1:31:29] property. So participants were asked to
[1:31:32] um participate in a roundt format to
[1:31:34] work together to discuss that potential
[1:31:36] uh uses.
[1:31:38] So each table did color in um different
[1:31:40] land uses on the map and completed a
[1:31:43] land use table to identify the specific
[1:31:46] uses that they would prefer to see in a
[1:31:48] future if a future development was to
[1:31:50] occur. Um at the end each table did
[1:31:52] present their maps to the group and
[1:31:55] those results um for each table were
[1:31:57] uploaded to our general plan website and
[1:31:59] then they were also attached to your um
[1:32:01] staff report. In addition to the maps
[1:32:04] and tables from that meeting, the
[1:32:05] community members were that were unable
[1:32:07] to attend as well as those that did um
[1:32:09] were offered the opportunity to also
[1:32:11] participate in that same exercise. So
[1:32:14] those also um were provided to you and
[1:32:17] attached to the staff report and they
[1:32:18] were available um online um on our
[1:32:22] general plan website.
[1:32:24] So based on the input um and all the
[1:32:27] comments that have been uploaded um
[1:32:29] specifically to the Sebastiani folder um
[1:32:32] we've created one folder in our general
[1:32:33] plan comments just for this purpose um
[1:32:36] based on um just so that we could allow
[1:32:38] for more focused um separation of the
[1:32:42] comments. Um while there were a lot of
[1:32:46] those that participated that would
[1:32:48] rather not see change at all um if the
[1:32:52] change was going to happen that's what
[1:32:54] those maps represented. um the
[1:32:56] Sebastiani, the future land uses that we
[1:32:59] saw the really the focus um and this is
[1:33:02] me summarizing so people may have taken
[1:33:04] different things but um really focusing
[1:33:07] on preserving agriculture and or open
[1:33:09] space where it exists today and to
[1:33:12] increase or create more buffers um using
[1:33:14] landscaping between existing and any
[1:33:16] other commercial or higher density
[1:33:18] housing to preserve the history of the
[1:33:21] Sebastiani Winery.
[1:33:24] um to um if change was to occur. Well,
[1:33:29] again, no change is preferred that the
[1:33:31] commercial hotel or multif family
[1:33:32] development was preferred to be tucked
[1:33:34] away on the sites away from the streets
[1:33:37] and again buffered um from the
[1:33:40] neighboring properties.
[1:33:42] Um also to maintain a small building
[1:33:45] character especially along the street
[1:33:46] edge. And then concerns um were raised
[1:33:49] around noise, traffic, and safety um
[1:33:53] with a new development if that was to
[1:33:55] occur there.
[1:33:57] So based on the input and direction, um
[1:34:01] staff is looking for direction on any
[1:34:02] edits to the proposed cinema mixuse
[1:34:04] description, including the name. Um I
[1:34:07] know a lot of people don't like the
[1:34:08] name, and that's fine, too. Um it's just
[1:34:10] a placeholder. Um but if there's any
[1:34:13] changes at this point, um that's what
[1:34:16] staff is looking for direction from the
[1:34:18] planning commission on. And um again,
[1:34:22] some of the level of detail that um is
[1:34:27] um really would form any future
[1:34:29] development would be part of the zoning
[1:34:31] code. Um which also is um something that
[1:34:35] the general plan ad hoc um group is um
[1:34:39] discussing as well. and that input from
[1:34:41] tonight could also feed that uh
[1:34:44] discussion
[1:34:46] around that future zoning code. So that
[1:34:49] concludes my brief presentation on the
[1:34:53] item. Again, I can bring up anything
[1:34:56] specific that you may want to look at um
[1:35:00] or some of the things that were
[1:35:02] presented. Um there were a number of
[1:35:05] submitts after um so hopefully you had a
[1:35:09] chance to at all of those that were
[1:35:11] uploaded
[1:35:13] um to get different kinds of feedback.
[1:35:15] So with that
[1:35:17] um did want we do have a number of
[1:35:20] people here. I didn't know if you wanted
[1:35:22] to ask me questions and and then do
[1:35:26] public comment before getting into
[1:35:27] discussion or not.
[1:35:31] >> Yes,
[1:35:32] » Yes,
[1:35:32] we can go. Would would there be an
[1:35:35] objection to fielding public comment
[1:35:37] first
[1:35:39] prior to entertaining questions? Yes.
[1:35:47] Yes.
[1:35:50] Has there been a historic resto resource
[1:35:53] evaluation of this site?
[1:35:55] >> Sorry. No, there has not been yet, but
[1:35:57] » Sorry. No, there has not been yet, but
[1:35:57] that would be required with any
[1:35:58] potential development.
[1:35:59] >> Okay. Um, is there any benefit to having
[1:36:03] » Okay. Um, is there any benefit to having
[1:36:03] that completed before we even look at
[1:36:06] the potential of resoning?
[1:36:10] Um,
[1:36:12] so
[1:36:14] even though something is historic
[1:36:17] doesn't mean that development can't
[1:36:19] occur. Correct. Right. So there's an
[1:36:21] environmental process with that. So
[1:36:25] if
[1:36:28] um if anything was proposed on that site
[1:36:31] to change anything, we would require it.
[1:36:33] We're currently in the process of doing
[1:36:35] our uh citywide survey
[1:36:38] >> um for historic resources um to
[1:36:40] » um for historic resources um to
[1:36:40] determine if there are other resources
[1:36:43] in town that haven't been uh identified.
[1:36:46] This is an early California landmark,
[1:36:50] but it's so early that it actually
[1:36:52] doesn't it's not automatically uh on the
[1:36:55] California register.
[1:36:57] Um, so it would need to be actually
[1:36:59] assessed.
[1:37:01] >> Okay. And the reason I'm asking is I'm
[1:37:04] » Okay. And the reason I'm asking is I'm
[1:37:04] I'm thinking that a lot of the property
[1:37:07] is not historic, but certain parts of it
[1:37:09] are truly historic, and it would be I
[1:37:14] would find it very helpful to get
[1:37:15] clarity as to what the different pieces
[1:37:18] are and how we would want to respect
[1:37:21] those going forward. So that's where I
[1:37:23] was coming from. Okay. Thank you.
[1:37:28] questions from the commission.
[1:37:31] >> Mr. Millers,
[1:37:32] » Mr. Millers,
[1:37:32] >> um I just have a general questions for
[1:37:34] » um I just have a general questions for
[1:37:34] for the commission as well as for the
[1:37:36] public so they understand what what are
[1:37:38] the ground rules so to speak in our
[1:37:41] discussion of this item tonight given
[1:37:44] the fact that it's a um general
[1:37:47] discussion of a general plan potential
[1:37:51] zoning change.
[1:37:55] Um,
[1:37:56] so it's not a public hearing for an
[1:37:59] item. It is a discussion, but we're at
[1:38:02] the point in these discussions where
[1:38:04] we're making edits to um the document or
[1:38:09] potentially even the land use map. The
[1:38:12] planning commission is not the deciding
[1:38:14] factor. Um, and again, we would look to
[1:38:19] city council to provide any final
[1:38:21] direction on how we would want to move
[1:38:23] forward on uh any discussion that's
[1:38:26] being had. Um we um staff has just
[1:38:30] scheduled a um item for the city council
[1:38:35] on March the 4th to provide a general
[1:38:38] plan update um with a couple of these
[1:38:41] changes that are presented not um not
[1:38:44] just this but also um the two uh
[1:38:48] requested land use changes that would
[1:38:50] affect the map would be presented as
[1:38:52] well to city council on March 4th for
[1:38:55] final direction so that the EIR studies
[1:38:58] can be finalized um along with that
[1:39:00] draft general plan.
[1:39:03] >> Just a follow-up question to that. So
[1:39:05] » Just a follow-up question to that. So
[1:39:05] fair to say that the planning commission
[1:39:07] in this sense has a acts an advisory
[1:39:10] capacity.
[1:39:11] >> That's correct.
[1:39:11] » That's correct.
[1:39:12] >> And it helps to inform the city council
[1:39:13] » And it helps to inform the city council
[1:39:13] on the direction that they ultimately
[1:39:15] take. Correct.
[1:39:16] >> Correct.
[1:39:16] » Correct.
[1:39:16] >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett.
[1:39:19] » Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett.
[1:39:19] Would it be of value and is it our task
[1:39:24] tonight to
[1:39:27] uh edit or modify the language of the
[1:39:30] proposed
[1:39:32] new
[1:39:34] uh land use category?
[1:39:37] >> Yes, that would be within your purview
[1:39:40] » Yes, that would be within your purview
[1:39:40] tonight. That is um part of that
[1:39:42] discussion is what does that how does
[1:39:44] that read? um and um if there's certain
[1:39:48] things missing from it or other edits to
[1:39:52] anything within the land use element
[1:39:53] that we want to have addressed. There's
[1:39:55] the ad hoc has provided some additional
[1:39:57] comments not just on this but in general
[1:40:00] on the land use element specific to
[1:40:02] Sebastiani mixed use. There's been a
[1:40:05] number of questions around
[1:40:08] um a level of specificity that is um not
[1:40:12] typically seen necessarily in a general
[1:40:14] plan. Um and then concerns raised about
[1:40:17] the unknown um about a future
[1:40:19] development project and what would that
[1:40:21] look like? Um, in this case, a general
[1:40:24] plan again sets kind of the higher level
[1:40:27] policy. The zoning code sets um the
[1:40:30] limitations and the box as well as the
[1:40:32] uses that go inside that box. Um but um
[1:40:38] the uh uh I know that there's some
[1:40:42] concern around mixed use and not you
[1:40:46] know having one use or another use um on
[1:40:49] the site um and things like that. So,
[1:40:53] >> so, um, just to further clarify that,
[1:40:58] » so, um, just to further clarify that,
[1:40:58] um, we're talking about
[1:41:01] to we we can talk about tonight the
[1:41:04] specific words included in the
[1:41:07] definition of a new land use
[1:41:09] designation,
[1:41:10] which which specifically isn't a general
[1:41:14] plan land use designation. and it's a
[1:41:17] zoning map designation, but the two have
[1:41:20] become conflated
[1:41:22] in my mind in that u in that the
[1:41:28] new Soma mixed use designation as it's
[1:41:31] been called um has certain allowances in
[1:41:35] it in terms of what it is
[1:41:39] um permitting as possible uses within
[1:41:43] that designation. So, is that on the
[1:41:46] table tonight? A discussion of that
[1:41:48] specific language?
[1:41:51] >> Yes.
[1:41:51] » Yes.
[1:41:51] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:41:55] » Yeah. Thanks. I I just want to make sure
[1:41:57] I understand. Um, on page 197, you have
[1:42:00] a summary that says Sonoma Sebastian
[1:42:03] property targeted land use framework. Is
[1:42:06] is that is that language from staff
[1:42:10] as a proposed
[1:42:14] I I'm not sure.
[1:42:15] >> Sorry. What page are you on?
[1:42:16] » Sorry. What page are you on?
[1:42:16] >> I think it's 197.
[1:42:19] » I think it's 197.
[1:42:20] >> It says summary Sebastian property
[1:42:22] » It says summary Sebastian property
[1:42:22] targeted land use framework.
[1:42:25] >> I'm looking at the agenda.
[1:42:30] » Okay. I on your computer
[1:42:32] >> page 197 of 286.
[1:42:35] » page 197 of 286.
[1:42:35] >> It's not something that's on the screen
[1:42:36] » It's not something that's on the screen
[1:42:36] though.
[1:42:37] >> No,
[1:42:37] » No,
[1:42:37] >> I don't see anything on the screen.
[1:42:39] » I don't see anything on the screen.
[1:42:39] >> Yeah.
[1:42:39] » Yeah.
[1:42:39] >> Okay. I don't know what it is you're
[1:42:41] » Okay. I don't know what it is you're
[1:42:41] looking at. I'm looking at the agenda,
[1:42:43] page 197, and there's a thing there's a
[1:42:46] there's a under item 5.2 and it says
[1:42:50] summary
[1:42:52] Sebastiani property targeted land use
[1:42:55] framework. That's how it's entitled.
[1:42:56] >> Page 199.
[1:42:58] » Page 199.
[1:42:58] >> Oh, I I'm I apologize. It says 197.
[1:43:01] » Oh, I I'm I apologize. It says 197.
[1:43:01] >> Oh, on mine it says 199.
[1:43:03] » Oh, on mine it says 199.
[1:43:03] >> Okay. Okay. Apologies.
[1:43:06] » Okay. Okay. Apologies.
[1:43:06] >> This one?
[1:43:07] » This one?
[1:43:07] >> Yeah.
[1:43:07] » Yeah.
[1:43:07] >> Yes, that is a public comment.
[1:43:09] » Yes, that is a public comment.
[1:43:09] >> So, the summary is a public comment.
[1:43:11] » So, the summary is a public comment.
[1:43:11] Yes.
[1:43:11] >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to
[1:43:13] » Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to
[1:43:13] understand where that language came
[1:43:14] from. Thank you.
[1:43:18] » Yes. So, it ends. So, the me the the one
[1:43:24] that's right above is our summary of the
[1:43:26] land use tables,
[1:43:28] >> right?
[1:43:29] » right?
[1:43:29] >> Um and then where that ends uh ends that
[1:43:32] » Um and then where that ends uh ends that
[1:43:32] um that item,
[1:43:34] >> okay,
[1:43:34] » okay,
[1:43:34] >> that portion of it. and then the rest
[1:43:37] » that portion of it. and then the rest
[1:43:37] are going to be the public comments
[1:43:40] suggestions.
[1:43:42] >> I would also add that this would also be
[1:43:44] » I would also add that this would also be
[1:43:44] the appropriate time to discuss the
[1:43:46] merits of whether a new land use
[1:43:48] designation is appropriate at all. Am I
[1:43:52] correct?
[1:43:55] >> If that is um
[1:43:58] » If that is um
[1:43:58] going to be that's a possibility so it
[1:44:01] can be removed. Um so any changes to the
[1:44:04] land use um map or descriptions are on
[1:44:08] the table.
[1:44:09] >> Okay.
[1:44:10] » Okay.
[1:44:10] >> Yeah. One other comment. I mean I think
[1:44:12] » Yeah. One other comment. I mean I think
[1:44:12] one of one of the things that came up in
[1:44:15] the ad hoc is is whether to call this a
[1:44:18] specific plan because of the site size
[1:44:22] or versus um just adopting zoning. So I
[1:44:26] just adopting the land use by the zoning
[1:44:29] code. And I just wanted to bring that up
[1:44:31] and ask if that's still an opportunity
[1:44:34] for discussion.
[1:44:36] >> Um, everything is open for discussion.
[1:44:39] » Um, everything is open for discussion.
[1:44:39] So, just as a reminder, a specific plan
[1:44:42] is a zoning code. It's just um includes
[1:44:45] more things than just the zoning code.
[1:44:51] » Any other questions?
[1:44:56] » Okay, I have some questions.
[1:45:02] Uh, Jennifer, could you speak to how
[1:45:05] housing laws like, for example, SB35,
[1:45:11] AB 2011, AB130 could potentially be used
[1:45:16] to maximize residential development at
[1:45:18] this site under a mixeduse
[1:45:23] uh designation as it is reflected in the
[1:45:25] proposed language currently.
[1:45:28] So um
[1:45:30] those are actually not about maximizing
[1:45:33] those are just more about um creating a
[1:45:35] ministerial process um around housing
[1:45:38] developments um
[1:45:41] um and they have to meet certain
[1:45:43] standards um don't typically see SB35
[1:45:46] because they actually require um the um
[1:45:52] the
[1:45:53] wage that the word just escaped me. Amy,
[1:45:56] help me here. um
[1:45:58] >> prevailing wage
[1:45:58] » prevailing wage
[1:45:58] >> prevailing thank you um the prevailing
[1:46:01] » prevailing thank you um the prevailing
[1:46:01] wage requirements um and I can't
[1:46:04] remember 2011 is the same way um the one
[1:46:08] that maximizes and what you're thinking
[1:46:12] about when you say maximize is going to
[1:46:14] be density bonus law so any property
[1:46:17] that um is of a certain size and we
[1:46:21] allow a certain density that gets a
[1:46:23] minimum of five units um is allowed a
[1:46:27] density bonus just by law if they
[1:46:31] provide a certain percentage affordable.
[1:46:33] Um they don't have to use the actual
[1:46:36] density increase but they do get
[1:46:38] incentives um a certain number of
[1:46:40] incentives and then unlimited
[1:46:42] concessions and waivers. Um and the idea
[1:46:45] behind that is that by providing that
[1:46:47] affordable you're reducing your ability
[1:46:49] to get your rate. And so, um, sometimes
[1:46:54] you need those waiverss and concessions.
[1:46:56] Um, maybe it's F, maybe it's setback,
[1:46:59] maybe it's height. Uh, it just depends
[1:47:01] on the project itself and what they're
[1:47:03] looking for um to meet that. So,
[1:47:06] anything that has housing pretty much in
[1:47:10] this town that can have five units can
[1:47:12] have a density bonus project.
[1:47:15] Um, so that's really the only law and
[1:47:18] that is a state law and a state
[1:47:20] requirement and it's an uh code as well.
[1:47:23] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:47:26] » Okay, thank you.
[1:47:26] Um
[1:47:28] kind of on that note,
[1:47:31] um
[1:47:33] how could
[1:47:37] h how could a potential developer of
[1:47:39] that site use a concession or one of
[1:47:42] these incentives um to devel could they
[1:47:45] potentially develop 100% housing a
[1:47:48] residential project at at that location?
[1:47:52] So
[1:47:54] 50% they could have 50% um density bonus
[1:47:59] but they perhap um I can't remember what
[1:48:01] the percentage is. It depends on what
[1:48:03] level of affordability it is. Um then
[1:48:05] yes they could have a 50% um increase
[1:48:09] um in their density. Um
[1:48:13] typically um
[1:48:15] this city's never seen that. Um I
[1:48:18] personally have never seen that um in my
[1:48:21] other jurisdictions but yeah anything's
[1:48:23] possible
[1:48:24] >> and it's all about what the project is
[1:48:25] » and it's all about what the project is
[1:48:25] and what they need to
[1:48:27] >> to get their project.
[1:48:29] » to get their project.
[1:48:29] >> So
[1:48:31] » So
[1:48:31] thank you for obliging me helping me to
[1:48:33] understand. So waiverss and concessions
[1:48:35] could include things like not having a
[1:48:38] parking standard for example.
[1:48:42] So density bonus automatically
[1:48:45] identifies the parking standards that go
[1:48:47] along with density bonus and we actually
[1:48:50] are consistent with that already in our
[1:48:52] code. Um what you're thinking of is um
[1:48:56] the project that we just approved on
[1:48:57] Montalo their density bonus request was
[1:49:00] um to an increase in their F. Um we've
[1:49:04] seen setback reductions.
[1:49:07] um we see typically um sometimes you see
[1:49:12] height increases
[1:49:14] um
[1:49:16] uh site coverage. Um so they just range
[1:49:19] and basically the idea is that those
[1:49:21] development standards um the standard
[1:49:24] that has to be met is that the
[1:49:25] development standard
[1:49:27] um reduction is allowing the
[1:49:29] affordability of the project to move
[1:49:31] forward in the sense that they're
[1:49:33] providing these affordable units. So,
[1:49:35] it's helping helping them either
[1:49:37] increase that density, get more on the
[1:49:40] site, um maybe spread out across the
[1:49:44] site a little bit differently.
[1:49:45] >> Okay. I guess I'm just trying to get my
[1:49:47] » Okay. I guess I'm just trying to get my
[1:49:47] arms around, you know, for I think it's
[1:49:49] 20. Is it 20? We're calling it 22 acres,
[1:49:51] right?
[1:49:52] >> 20.
[1:49:52] » 20.
[1:49:52] >> Okay. So, mixed use, it it allows a
[1:49:56] » Okay. So, mixed use, it it allows a
[1:49:56] residential component in the
[1:49:58] description. That's what mixed use
[1:50:00] intends.
[1:50:02] I'm trying to get my arms around the
[1:50:04] scope of what could be there if a
[1:50:07] developer utilized the tools that are
[1:50:09] available to them to maximize density,
[1:50:13] to maximize
[1:50:15] development.
[1:50:17] Um,
[1:50:20] and that that's where my that's where my
[1:50:22] questions are coming from. I'm trying to
[1:50:23] get my arms around that. I'm trying to
[1:50:25] get a a solid understanding around what
[1:50:28] could potentially be there if they
[1:50:31] potential developer met or crossed the
[1:50:34] threshold that would allow them the
[1:50:36] highest density bonus and the highest uh
[1:50:41] or the the greatest amount of waiverss
[1:50:43] and concessions. What would that look
[1:50:45] like?
[1:50:47] >> Maybe that's too broad a question. Can't
[1:50:49] » Maybe that's too broad a question. Can't
[1:50:49] go there. Okay.
[1:50:50] >> No, it's it's an unknown, right? It's
[1:50:51] » No, it's it's an unknown, right? It's
[1:50:52] all going to come down to what the
[1:50:54] project is and what's being proposed,
[1:50:56] right?
[1:50:57] um what is um that goal of that project
[1:51:02] um every project that I've worked on in
[1:51:05] my other jurisdictions with multif
[1:51:07] family development every single one was
[1:51:09] very different and it all comes down to
[1:51:11] the developer themselves and how they
[1:51:14] develop their properties. Um
[1:51:18] the developers are very different on
[1:51:20] what they're looking for. Um they also
[1:51:22] have different returns on investment,
[1:51:24] right? um depending on what their
[1:51:25] funding streams are. So all those things
[1:51:27] play into what they at the end of the
[1:51:29] day they're going to be asking for. Um
[1:51:33] the aspect of the zoning code too is you
[1:51:37] know what we're trying to do is um
[1:51:42] around this is also
[1:51:44] define the boundaries but also how do we
[1:51:48] incentivize to get what we want out of
[1:51:50] that project.
[1:51:52] Um, is there a way to do that? Maybe,
[1:51:54] maybe not. Um, in that sense of waiverss
[1:51:58] and concessions, but
[1:52:01] um, I'll let developers speak for
[1:52:02] themselves. But, um,
[1:52:06] there are obviously certain cases where
[1:52:08] developers will don't care about
[1:52:10] community um, and just come in for their
[1:52:12] product, but in other cases, some work,
[1:52:16] you know, with that and understand what
[1:52:18] the needs of that community. um at the
[1:52:21] end of the day their project has to be
[1:52:22] marketable to the community.
[1:52:24] >> Sure. So I I guess that inspires a much
[1:52:27] » Sure. So I I guess that inspires a much
[1:52:27] broader question and what tools do we
[1:52:29] have to get what we do want to see? Uh
[1:52:33] we I feel like we've seen this model um
[1:52:37] where
[1:52:39] a developer or an entrepreneur comes and
[1:52:41] they they get a project entitled right
[1:52:44] or a conceptual project entitled and
[1:52:46] then they sell it.
[1:52:49] What mechanisms do we have to tie?
[1:52:54] Maybe that's too broad a question, but
[1:52:57] um I'm trying to understand and I'm
[1:53:01] trying to help the public and my
[1:53:03] commission understand what uh what the
[1:53:07] upsides of this are and what the
[1:53:08] downsides of a reszone are or arts. Um
[1:53:15] fair to say that a reszone
[1:53:19] to what's currently titled as Sonoma
[1:53:23] mixed use commercial
[1:53:26] would open door
[1:53:29] to
[1:53:32] uh state the the impacts of state laws
[1:53:36] that reduces local control over what
[1:53:38] happens there.
[1:53:41] >> Is that is that fair or is that unfair?
[1:53:45] » Is that is that fair or is that unfair?
[1:53:45] So, I'm going to go with it's going to
[1:53:46] be a depends situation. Um, if this was
[1:53:51] a full-on housing reszone to just
[1:53:53] housing, I would say yes. Clearly, yes.
[1:53:57] Um, just because of the way that the
[1:53:59] laws are are now. um the um you know if
[1:54:05] there was only 10 acres or something
[1:54:07] like we have specific regulations and
[1:54:10] there's new ministerial processes um for
[1:54:12] housing multif family housing
[1:54:14] developments in certain instances. Um
[1:54:18] there are also other things um on each
[1:54:21] site that may be different that affect
[1:54:23] that ability to develop. um
[1:54:27] mixed use. The way that we have it
[1:54:29] written is that it's not just a housing
[1:54:32] project. It's housing and commercial,
[1:54:35] >> right?
[1:54:36] » right?
[1:54:36] >> Um there is um a mixed use in density
[1:54:39] » Um there is um a mixed use in density
[1:54:40] bonus that has specific um uh ratios um
[1:54:45] as well as other um aspects of that. Um
[1:54:50] so is it there? Yes. Is it always going
[1:54:54] to be there? Yes. Um at this time frame
[1:54:57] in the foreseeable future uh the state
[1:55:00] is going to continue to move in this
[1:55:01] motion. Um they've already I mean it's
[1:55:05] already been said that even shopping
[1:55:07] centers um can be changed to housing. Um
[1:55:10] so
[1:55:12] in this case the
[1:55:16] the city can take the the front end of
[1:55:20] it and say okay this is what we want
[1:55:23] with change. Um or you don't have change
[1:55:28] and maybe in the future somebody wants
[1:55:31] to come and make that change and then
[1:55:34] then you're getting a proposal of
[1:55:36] something that you would then be
[1:55:37] reviewing as a proposal. Would
[1:55:42] the elimination of a residential
[1:55:44] component
[1:55:46] in what's allowed in the zone
[1:55:51] help to
[1:55:53] protect I'll use the word protect our
[1:55:56] community from the impacts of what I
[1:55:59] consider overreaching state laws?
[1:56:03] >> So
[1:56:05] » So
[1:56:05] if you have no housing and you just
[1:56:09] continue to allow commercial or expanded
[1:56:11] commercial potential. Um then yeah, you
[1:56:14] wouldn't have
[1:56:17] per se those I'd have to look
[1:56:20] specifically at that commercial uh
[1:56:23] process, but
[1:56:25] >> Okay. Feel like I've had the microphone
[1:56:27] » Okay. Feel like I've had the microphone
[1:56:27] for a long time. I'm willing to uh let
[1:56:30] anybody else get in here who's
[1:56:31] interested in Commissioner Don.
[1:56:33] >> Yeah. I have a couple follow-up
[1:56:34] » Yeah. I have a couple follow-up
[1:56:34] questions to that. I mean um the first
[1:56:36] question is even if it's a commercially
[1:56:38] zoned property, you can still build
[1:56:40] residential property on that. Correct.
[1:56:43] >> Unless we spec specifically state in
[1:56:46] » Unless we spec specifically state in
[1:56:46] this zone type that there's no housing
[1:56:49] allowed in our commercial zone. So let's
[1:56:53] say we just in the same sense that here
[1:56:56] we've identified it to be a special
[1:56:57] zone. Right now it is a wine production
[1:57:00] zone and it has its only one uh in the
[1:57:03] city. um and it has its specific uses
[1:57:06] that are allowed. So if you added
[1:57:08] additional commercial types to that then
[1:57:13] and didn't include residential, our res
[1:57:16] our commercial and our mixed use zones
[1:57:18] do allow multifamily residential in them
[1:57:21] and have identified a density. That
[1:57:24] doesn't mean that
[1:57:26] um you didn't you have to.
[1:57:30] >> Okay. And and the second question, you
[1:57:32] » Okay. And and the second question, you
[1:57:32] know, um the public came and they and
[1:57:35] I've looked at the tables and they've
[1:57:37] put their preferences down and in other
[1:57:40] of our um our uh municipal code for
[1:57:44] other designations of land use, we have
[1:57:46] these tables that we allow things to be
[1:57:49] permitted or use permit or not
[1:57:51] permitted. And I think that that's
[1:57:53] something that um we use, we understand,
[1:57:59] and seems like um a lever that the city
[1:58:02] can use to really designate
[1:58:05] like other land use um parcels what we
[1:58:10] what we accept and don't accept. So with
[1:58:13] the input that we've received from the
[1:58:15] public around that kind of use table
[1:58:18] is that one mechanism where we can
[1:58:20] actually kind of construct what's
[1:58:23] allowed and not allowed on the parcels
[1:58:24] and um along that line there are several
[1:58:29] small parcels in the 20 acres. Correct.
[1:58:32] And we talked about it there's some that
[1:58:33] are more agg and some that have a winery
[1:58:35] and and um there was a request for
[1:58:38] preservation of that winery the the
[1:58:40] historic portion. So,
[1:58:43] how do we how do we craft that into a
[1:58:48] code? Um, you know, there's a table of
[1:58:51] use, but how do we craft the subparcals?
[1:58:56] Sorry. Is your is your question is there
[1:58:59] a way to modify allowable or allowed
[1:59:02] uses in the existing zone to achieve
[1:59:06] what we see as the will of the
[1:59:09] community? Well, that's I I that's why,
[1:59:11] you know, I brought up kind of a a sight
[1:59:14] specific plan because this is a unique
[1:59:16] property. It's 20 acres. It has multiple
[1:59:19] components to it. And um we've heard the
[1:59:23] summary from the public that some areas
[1:59:26] want to be buffered. We want, you know,
[1:59:28] we want to have some A. I saw that there
[1:59:31] was residential that people were okay
[1:59:33] with and certain kinds of commercial. So
[1:59:36] I think that from my perspective reading
[1:59:37] all of that, we do have a framework and
[1:59:41] I'm just wondering how we put that
[1:59:43] framework into this unique parcel um by
[1:59:47] designating different areas if we can do
[1:59:50] that as part of this um unique
[1:59:55] code. You know, because what we have
[1:59:57] here is like I'm not sure if somebody
[2:00:00] could bulldoze the Sebastiani
[2:00:02] building or they could take that
[2:00:04] building and make a m a multi- uh family
[2:00:07] unit. That that's what I'm not clear
[2:00:09] about. So, are there ways that part of
[2:00:12] the part of the area would be uh
[2:00:15] designated commercial or residential,
[2:00:17] part would be designated open space?
[2:00:20] That's what I'm I'm not clear of what
[2:00:22] what levers we have as um a city to help
[2:00:26] direct that.
[2:00:27] >> Yeah. I ask a clarifying question of
[2:00:30] » Yeah. I ask a clarifying question of
[2:00:30] commissioner.
[2:00:32] Um are you basically asking whether or
[2:00:35] not it's possible to have multiple land
[2:00:39] use designations applied to this overall
[2:00:43] 20 acres rather than a single
[2:00:45] designation? Is that the question you're
[2:00:47] asking? I guess my question is since
[2:00:49] we're this is a new designation, are
[2:00:51] there ways that we can specify just like
[2:00:54] we did with four corners, are there ways
[2:00:55] that we can have a a a specific
[2:00:58] specification of what can be in that
[2:01:01] parcel?
[2:01:02] >> Well, no parcels. Yeah.
[2:01:04] » Well, no parcels. Yeah.
[2:01:04] >> No, I understand we're we're that that
[2:01:07] » No, I understand we're we're that that
[2:01:07] was related to the issue I brought up
[2:01:09] earlier about, you know, modifying the
[2:01:12] language of the proposed designation.
[2:01:14] But I hear underlying your question, the
[2:01:17] question is rather than having one
[2:01:20] designation apply to the 20 acres,
[2:01:24] can we instead is there an option to
[2:01:28] create multiple land use designation
[2:01:32] within those 20 acres? I guess that's an
[2:01:35] alternative way to do it. So,
[2:01:44] » it's probably not ideal, but
[2:01:45] >> it is not ideal. Um, it's not good
[2:01:47] » it is not ideal. Um, it's not good
[2:01:47] planning practice. Um, we actually have
[2:01:50] an area of town where we have two land
[2:01:52] uses on same parcels. Per law, those
[2:01:56] zoning, those setbacks and things have
[2:01:58] to occur um from the actual location of
[2:02:03] this arbitrary line that's not actually
[2:02:05] a parcel line. Um and it doesn't quite
[2:02:10] work the way you would think. The other
[2:02:13] aspect is we cannot down zone.
[2:02:18] So you can't take away the development
[2:02:21] rights of these parcels that already
[2:02:24] have development rights to make them
[2:02:27] open space. Um the aspect that is
[2:02:34] more difficult in the conversation has
[2:02:36] been because of the variety I would say
[2:02:41] of uh parcel sizes, shapes
[2:02:46] um historic uses. Um the railroad
[2:02:48] corridor went through here, right? So
[2:02:50] that's why we have little slivers um of
[2:02:52] parcels.
[2:02:54] Um and so
[2:02:58] there's
[2:03:00] the idea behind a mixed use and having
[2:03:03] one is that when somebody comes forward
[2:03:06] with the um a subdivision or new parcel
[2:03:11] map and reorganizes all the lines or
[2:03:14] reduces the number of lines
[2:03:16] that you have one zone already. When you
[2:03:19] have two zones, the fun begins. Um, and
[2:03:24] where those lines are.
[2:03:26] Um,
[2:03:28] so that is the reasoning behind applying
[2:03:33] a broader um zone criteria to such a
[2:03:38] variety of parcels at this point.
[2:03:42] Um,
[2:03:45] I in my head cannot envision how we
[2:03:48] would separate
[2:03:51] the parcels
[2:03:54] by use type.
[2:03:57] >> Mr. Millers,
[2:03:58] » Mr. Millers,
[2:03:58] >> therein lies the rub.
[2:04:01] » therein lies the rub.
[2:04:01] >> We live in a community that is exactly
[2:04:03] » We live in a community that is exactly
[2:04:03] what you're talking about. And yet law
[2:04:06] wants us to create a community where
[2:04:08] everything's perfect.
[2:04:09] >> All one color here, all one color there.
[2:04:12] » All one color here, all one color there.
[2:04:12] And we live in a tapestry. We don't live
[2:04:15] in the one color there, one color here.
[2:04:18] And so compatibility
[2:04:20] is the tapestry.
[2:04:22] Law is the one color. And we're
[2:04:25] struggling because we have a we have one
[2:04:27] of the largest parcels aggregated, one
[2:04:30] of the largest parcels in our community
[2:04:32] to deal with. and it doesn't feel right
[2:04:36] to put one thing on it that allows all
[2:04:40] kinds of things because we don't know
[2:04:41] what that future is. And and so that to
[2:04:46] me is the real issue on on this parcel
[2:04:50] or these parcels I should say and we
[2:04:53] should continue to save these parcels
[2:04:55] even though it's one zone as a as a wine
[2:04:58] production zone zone primarily because
[2:05:02] that's what was happening on the at the
[2:05:04] time and made it conforming.
[2:05:07] Um, it's difficult because all of those
[2:05:10] issues that are raised by taking the
[2:05:15] taking what would normally be a series
[2:05:17] of small parcels and allowing something
[2:05:20] to happen on the 20 acre parcel in our
[2:05:22] community is not the tapestry that we
[2:05:25] live in. And so, um, I've been
[2:05:28] struggling with this and it's the first
[2:05:30] opportunity we have to talk about it,
[2:05:32] but there's so many external forces on
[2:05:34] it that it really takes, in my opinion,
[2:05:37] it's going to take very careful
[2:05:39] consideration and applying a single zone
[2:05:42] to all of the parcels doesn't feel
[2:05:45] right. And I think it needs more study
[2:05:47] to do it correctly. Um, and
[2:05:53] >> yeah, and I'd like to add to that. I
[2:05:55] » yeah, and I'd like to add to that. I
[2:05:55] mean, I'll put it out there. I'm a
[2:05:56] Strong Towns fan, and I really do think
[2:06:00] that this that, you know, that infill um
[2:06:03] that we had in the early part of last
[2:06:06] century, it is more compatible with with
[2:06:09] this town. And if there's a way that we
[2:06:11] can really roll up our sleeves and
[2:06:14] figure out how to I know it's hard, but
[2:06:17] the current design standards, good
[2:06:20] planning may not be good planning. you
[2:06:22] know, it's just kind of what we've all
[2:06:24] accepted over the last century. So, I I
[2:06:28] would um I want to solve this problem. I
[2:06:31] I want it to be good for this community.
[2:06:33] H want housing, want commercial that's
[2:06:35] compatible,
[2:06:37] open space. So, I I really would love us
[2:06:40] to to be able to do what's practical and
[2:06:43] what's feasible for this 20 acres um of
[2:06:48] land that we have. Um, and I I I
[2:06:52] still would like it to be a very
[2:06:54] specific kind of zoning.
[2:06:59] >> So, seems like we're kind of getting
[2:07:01] » So, seems like we're kind of getting
[2:07:01] away from questions, which is okay. But,
[2:07:03] um, do right. I want to give I want to
[2:07:06] start a good round of of uh of public
[2:07:09] comment here. Are there any final um
[2:07:12] maybe broader questions from the
[2:07:14] commission of of Director Gates before
[2:07:16] we jump into public comment?
[2:07:19] Commissioner Millers.
[2:07:20] >> So if we left it as wine production
[2:07:23] » So if we left it as wine production
[2:07:23] and made no change to the parcel parcels
[2:07:27] um and a
[2:07:34] uh I can say a developer, we'll just put
[2:07:38] it that way. The developer decided that
[2:07:40] they wanted to take on the 20 20 acres
[2:07:43] of land and come forward with a project.
[2:07:48] It would simply require if it included
[2:07:51] things that are not in the wine
[2:07:52] production zone, it would require a
[2:07:55] general plan amendment to allow a
[2:08:00] project that is acceptable at the
[2:08:03] community level if it met those
[2:08:06] standards to make the general plan
[2:08:09] amendment.
[2:08:11] So you would probably do a general plan
[2:08:15] amendment with either
[2:08:18] specific plan that you want or a new
[2:08:22] designation with that zoning.
[2:08:25] >> But the evaluation of that project
[2:08:27] » But the evaluation of that project
[2:08:27] wouldn't be dependent on the zoning. It
[2:08:29] would be dependent on the application.
[2:08:31] >> Correct.
[2:08:31] » Correct.
[2:08:31] >> And the review.
[2:08:32] » And the review.
[2:08:32] >> Correct.
[2:08:33] » Correct.
[2:08:33] >> So
[2:08:33] » So
[2:08:33] >> as one total project. as one total
[2:08:36] » as one total project. as one total
[2:08:36] project
[2:08:37] >> including subdivision yards.
[2:08:40] » including subdivision yards.
[2:08:40] >> But the but the city at that point would
[2:08:42] » But the but the city at that point would
[2:08:42] not be setting the precedent for the
[2:08:45] development of the property and thereby
[2:08:48] wouldn't be um
[2:08:53] wouldn't have to accept an application
[2:08:55] if it was non-conforming.
[2:08:58] >> Well, it wouldn't be non-conforming
[2:08:59] » Well, it wouldn't be non-conforming
[2:08:59] because it didn't exist. Well,
[2:09:01] non-conforming being that it isn't wine
[2:09:03] production and doesn't you and it
[2:09:04] doesn't meet the uses of the land that
[2:09:06] way. You know, it's, you know, people
[2:09:10] can propose whatever they'd like to
[2:09:12] propose and the community can come out
[2:09:14] and say yes, we like that or no, we
[2:09:15] don't, but we don't have to define our
[2:09:18] laws on on proposals. And so, so in my
[2:09:22] mind is if we don't change the zoning,
[2:09:25] we have a quasi derelict land use.
[2:09:30] Um but it doesn't have the a potential
[2:09:34] negative impact of
[2:09:37] of all of the things that you chair have
[2:09:41] brought up and that is we have a very
[2:09:42] aggressive state housing law. We have
[2:09:45] very aggressive state housing laws right
[2:09:47] now that don't allow very much community
[2:09:50] input and and while we all want housing,
[2:09:54] we all want to be able to also know what
[2:09:56] that's going to be and how to control
[2:09:57] it. and we don't have a lot of
[2:09:59] discretion as soon as we open that box.
[2:10:03] So, you know, I I'm just asking that
[2:10:06] because in some ways the protective
[2:10:08] thing is to leave it as it is.
[2:10:16] » Did I have a question mark on the end?
[2:10:21] » I said yes.
[2:10:22] >> Oh, you said yes. Okay.
[2:10:25] » Oh, you said yes. Okay.
[2:10:25] At this point, I would like to give the
[2:10:27] public a stab at coming and addressing
[2:10:30] this issue. There's enough hot air up
[2:10:31] here as it is. So, we'll turn that down
[2:10:33] for a minute and uh turn it over to the
[2:10:35] public. And I'll just remind everyone if
[2:10:38] uh we're tonight because of the uh the
[2:10:41] audience members here in attendance,
[2:10:43] we're going to try to abide by our three
[2:10:45] minute maximum. And um another way to
[2:10:49] show support for the comments of someone
[2:10:51] who's at the podium is to raise your
[2:10:53] hand. Um, we I pay attention to that and
[2:10:57] um we'll go ahead and move forward. So,
[2:11:00] if you could state your name, please.
[2:11:01] Thank you.
[2:11:02] >> Janet Bole. B as in boy. O Y L E. Good
[2:11:04] » Janet Bole. B as in boy. O Y L E. Good
[2:11:04] thing I talk fast. Even though my blood
[2:11:06] sugar is dropping, I'm going to talk in
[2:11:07] faster. Um, unlimited concessions and
[2:11:10] waivers. Scares the heck out of me. Um,
[2:11:12] and it is five parcels. We shouldn't
[2:11:14] have to treat it all as one. Uh, I like
[2:11:16] tapestry. That is the world. So, okay.
[2:11:19] Uh, good evening. My name is Janet Bole
[2:11:21] and I'm here to provide comment on the
[2:11:22] proposed land use change for Sebastian
[2:11:23] parcels. After attending the January
[2:11:26] 14th public meeting, it is clear that
[2:11:28] many engaged residents have serious
[2:11:30] concerns about redesating this site in
[2:11:32] total. So as Sonoma mixeduse, the
[2:11:35] consistent theme was that the
[2:11:36] designation feels too broad, too
[2:11:38] undefined for a property with this level
[2:11:40] of historic significance and community
[2:11:42] impact. For that reason, I respectfully
[2:11:46] urge the city to designate the Spastiani
[2:11:48] site as a special planning area rather
[2:11:50] than applying this newly created
[2:11:51] mixeduse category before any specific
[2:11:53] project has been proposed. We're getting
[2:11:55] the cart before the horse. A special
[2:11:56] planning or area would allow the city to
[2:11:59] evaluate actual sight specific proposals
[2:12:01] when they are submitted instead of
[2:12:03] pre-approving a wide range of uses in
[2:12:05] advance. This is not an unusual request.
[2:12:08] Across California, sensitive and
[2:12:10] historic sites are commonly governed
[2:12:12] through sight specific planning
[2:12:13] frameworks rather than broad mixeduse
[2:12:16] designations.
[2:12:17] My concern is practical. Under current
[2:12:20] state housing laws, once zoning and land
[2:12:22] use standards are adopted, cities are
[2:12:24] often required to approve projects with
[2:12:26] very li limited ability to deny or
[2:12:28] modify them. We just saw this play out
[2:12:30] last week in St. Helina. The city
[2:12:32] attorney explained that once they their
[2:12:33] zoning was changed, the city had to
[2:12:35] approve the project. In fact, the mayor
[2:12:37] expressed in quotes
[2:12:40] quote deeply he was deeply
[2:12:41] disappointment that this project was not
[2:12:43] really delivering what our community
[2:12:45] needed. However, he had to approve it.
[2:12:47] Um, we all know the Sebastiani property
[2:12:49] is special. A special planning area
[2:12:51] designation would allow the city to
[2:12:52] define sub areas, preserve agricultural
[2:12:55] and historic elements, establish clear
[2:12:57] limits, and ensure the development
[2:12:59] aligns with infrastructure and fire and
[2:13:01] evacuation realities. Just like what
[2:13:03] happened last week in St. in Helina once
[2:13:05] a broad designation is adopted that
[2:13:07] prudent management may be lost. There is
[2:13:10] a broader uh uh implication if this
[2:13:13] precedent is set here in the city. Think
[2:13:15] about 27 acres at Cherry Block. If we
[2:13:19] approve this this if the city classifies
[2:13:22] this land use as a proposal, the county
[2:13:24] could follow suit. I met I took the
[2:13:25] initiative. I met with our supervisor
[2:13:27] Hermaceia and she was not able to assure
[2:13:29] me that such an expansion is unlikely.
[2:13:32] So current, think about it. 50 acres in
[2:13:35] our backyard could be all development.
[2:13:38] This is a slippery slope. Let's wait
[2:13:39] till the proposal is presented. I got 22
[2:13:42] seconds. Okay. We currently have over
[2:13:43] 1,200 signatures on petition calling for
[2:13:45] responsible land use. Responsible land
[2:13:48] use does not mean no. It means
[2:13:49] evaluating each proposal carefully,
[2:13:51] transparently, and on merits when it is
[2:13:53] actually before us. Therefore, I
[2:13:55] respectfully request that we designate
[2:13:57] the bastion as a special area planning.
[2:14:00] Thank you,
[2:14:00] >> Miss Bole. I'm impressed. Two seconds to
[2:14:03] » Miss Bole. I'm impressed. Two seconds to
[2:14:03] spare.
[2:14:05] Sir, if you come forward, please, and
[2:14:07] state your name. Thank you.
[2:14:08] >> Yeah. Hi, I'm John Edelman, and thank
[2:14:09] » Yeah. Hi, I'm John Edelman, and thank
[2:14:09] you for letting me speak to you tonight.
[2:14:11] So, I'm going to be brief. I've
[2:14:12] submitted this before, but I want to to
[2:14:14] you in writing, but I'm going to read it
[2:14:16] to you. So, a case against the proposed
[2:14:19] uh mixeduse changes to the Sebastian
[2:14:21] property. Uh the proposed general land
[2:14:23] use plan changes allow mixeduse
[2:14:25] development on historic Seab Sebastian
[2:14:27] properties to represent a fundamental
[2:14:29] departure from Sonoma's adopted planning
[2:14:31] principles community values and public
[2:14:33] safety obligations while exposing
[2:14:35] taxpayers to unknown and potentially
[2:14:37] substantial infrastructure costs and
[2:14:39] insurance related costs. Framed as an
[2:14:42] economic solution, the proposal rests as
[2:14:44] an optimistic assumptions that are
[2:14:46] unlikely to materialize and would
[2:14:48] instead produce irreversible harm.
[2:14:50] increased wildfire risk, evacuation
[2:14:52] failures, loss of agricultural land,
[2:14:54] historic resources, erosion of Sonoma's
[2:14:57] identity and the sense of place, retail
[2:14:59] bleed possibly from the historic core
[2:15:02] and a precedent that undermines
[2:15:03] integrity of the uh general land use
[2:15:05] plan itself and all goals uh uh LU 2,
[2:15:09] three, four, and five when you read
[2:15:11] them. Apply it. Applying a single
[2:15:13] mixeduse designation as we just spoke
[2:15:15] and everybody in the room did with a
[2:15:17] wide residential density range to
[2:15:18] Sebastian properties departs from common
[2:15:21] California planning practice for
[2:15:23] historically significant fire
[2:15:25] constrained and partially operational
[2:15:27] sites. Um comparable jurisdictions
[2:15:29] typically rely on sight specific
[2:15:31] planning thank you um tools to manage
[2:15:34] sensitive properties, limit residential
[2:15:37] intensity and preserve historic and
[2:15:38] agricultural assets. uh blanket zoning
[2:15:41] approach risks irreversible impacts on a
[2:15:44] site that functions as a historic winery
[2:15:46] and agricultural campus. Uh it offers
[2:15:49] the current owners and potential futures
[2:15:50] investors a vacant redevelopment
[2:15:52] opportunity. Do we want to do that is
[2:15:54] the real question. Uh, critically, the
[2:15:57] proposal ignores viable and safer
[2:15:59] alternatives already available to the
[2:16:01] city, including vacant parcels along
[2:16:03] established commercial corridors and the
[2:16:05] adaptive reuse or repurposing of
[2:16:07] outdated commercial buildings for
[2:16:08] residential and mixed residential uses.
[2:16:11] It also fails to account for the likely
[2:16:13] bleeding of the retail and uh visitor
[2:16:15] serving uses away from the plaza
[2:16:17] Broadway and existing commercial
[2:16:18] districts, weakening Sonoma's historic
[2:16:21] commercial core. The treatise sort of
[2:16:24] consolidates the principal arguments
[2:16:26] raised by citizens, experts, and
[2:16:28] community stakeholders and sets forth a
[2:16:30] clear alternative path. So I that's what
[2:16:32] I would say is a clear alternative path
[2:16:35] to recognizing development,
[2:16:36] preservation, transparency and adherence
[2:16:39] of the adopted plan that you already
[2:16:41] have. Um risks of a pro profit
[2:16:45] extraction by out of area development
[2:16:47] interests is a a real reason. the
[2:16:50] permanent loss of historic buildings,
[2:16:51] the agricultural land loss, and the
[2:16:53] Sonoma way of life. So, I urge you to
[2:16:56] reconsider this blanket mixeduse plan
[2:16:59] and let a developer come forward with a
[2:17:01] plan that's acceptable for the community
[2:17:02] and propose it here in front of you all.
[2:17:05] Thank you for your time.
[2:17:06] >> Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your
[2:17:08] » Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your
[2:17:08] comments.
[2:17:10] Sir,
[2:17:13] » good evening. Uh, my name is Marty
[2:17:15] Bennett Bennett TT. I'm a longtime
[2:17:20] consultant for the hotel workers
[2:17:21] unionite here local too. I've lived in
[2:17:25] the city for more than 30 years.
[2:17:28] I urge that the general plan draft land
[2:17:31] use element conditionally permit any new
[2:17:34] hotels and that you require a study
[2:17:37] demonstrating that the hotel would not
[2:17:40] increase the demand for affordable
[2:17:42] housing.
[2:17:43] Hotels can increase demand for
[2:17:45] affordable housing because they often
[2:17:48] pay workers low wages, few benefits, and
[2:17:52] these are not sufficient to live in the
[2:17:54] valley. In 2025, the California
[2:17:57] Employment Development Department
[2:18:00] reported that entrylevel Sonoma County
[2:18:03] hotel housekeepers earn 1832 an hour and
[2:18:07] an annual income of about 38,000.
[2:18:11] However, MIT economists calculate that
[2:18:14] in Soma County, two full-time working
[2:18:17] parents with two children each need to
[2:18:21] earn $33 an hour or an annual income of
[2:18:24] $108,000
[2:18:26] before taxes to cover basic expenses,
[2:18:29] food, housing, health care,
[2:18:31] transportation, and child care. In 2025,
[2:18:35] United Ways of California reported that
[2:18:38] nearly onethird of households in Sonoma
[2:18:40] County are working poor, meaning at
[2:18:43] least one member earns income from work
[2:18:46] but still can't cover basic expenses.
[2:18:49] Most hotel workers and their families
[2:18:51] are working poor, struggling to make
[2:18:53] ends meet. The UC Berkeley Labor Center
[2:18:57] studies revealed that if service sector
[2:18:59] workers wages are so low, many will be
[2:19:02] forced to commute to less expensive
[2:19:05] housing markets in Solano, Lake
[2:19:07] Mendescino counties, particularly given
[2:19:10] the long-term trend of stagnant wages
[2:19:13] and raising rents.
[2:19:16] Commutes roughly double for costburden
[2:19:18] renters who move to more affordable
[2:19:20] housing markets. If hotel workers rent
[2:19:24] locally, many will live in overcrowded
[2:19:27] housing, impacting family health and
[2:19:29] their children's educational
[2:19:31] achievement.
[2:19:32] In addition, many low-wage hotel workers
[2:19:36] will be forced to rely on public
[2:19:38] subsidies like medical, cow works, and
[2:19:41] food stamps because of low wages. Thank
[2:19:44] you very much.
[2:19:47] >> Thank you, Mr. Bennett.
[2:19:52] Hello, I'm Sonia Caribel. I'm also with
[2:19:54] the hotel workers union, Unite Here
[2:19:56] Local 2. Um, I submitted a letter and
[2:19:58] I'm going to read from that. Um,
[2:19:59] although maybe condense it a tiny bit.
[2:20:01] Um, so, uh, again, my name is Sonia
[2:20:04] Carabel and I'm with Here Local 2, the
[2:20:06] hotel workers union for the Bay Area
[2:20:08] including Sonoma County. We represent
[2:20:10] workers at the Fairmont Sonoma Mission
[2:20:12] Inn, Hyatt Regency Santa Rosa, AC Hotel
[2:20:14] Santa Rosa, and Pedaluma Sherin. Our
[2:20:16] sister local, Unite Here at 49, rep
[2:20:18] represents workers at the Great and
[2:20:20] Casino and Resort. Together, we
[2:20:22] represent around 1500 hospitality
[2:20:23] workers in Sonoma County. Our mission is
[2:20:26] to improve working conditions and build
[2:20:27] worker power in the hospitality
[2:20:29] industry. Uh, this draft used land
[2:20:32] element, draft land use element creates
[2:20:33] the new Sonoma mixed commercial use
[2:20:35] designation on the Sebastian Winery
[2:20:37] site, permitting mixeduse housing and
[2:20:39] commercial development. We have no
[2:20:40] problem with denser mixeduse
[2:20:42] development. Our members struggle to
[2:20:43] find affordable housing and we support
[2:20:45] building housing particularly when it is
[2:20:47] affordable to hotel workers. However, we
[2:20:50] are skeptical about permitting hotels as
[2:20:52] part of this new zoning designation. We
[2:20:54] are in a housing crisis, not a hotel's
[2:20:56] crisis. A mixeduse development with
[2:20:58] housing and groundf flooror commercial
[2:21:00] could help to alleviate the housing
[2:21:01] crisis in Soma. However, a hotel could
[2:21:04] make the problem worse if it creates
[2:21:05] low-wage jobs without creating enough
[2:21:07] affordable housing to offset demand.
[2:21:10] Hotel jobs in the Sonoma Valley usually
[2:21:12] pay low wages, which means workers
[2:21:14] generally cannot afford decent housing
[2:21:16] nearby. Soma's economy is already very
[2:21:19] tourism focused, and this has led to
[2:21:21] extreme inequality. We don't need more
[2:21:23] bad tourism jobs. We need more housing
[2:21:25] for workers. The draft land use element
[2:21:28] says of the Soma mixeduse commercial
[2:21:30] designation, allowed uses may include
[2:21:32] wine production, agricultural uses,
[2:21:34] hotels, and other visitor serving uses.
[2:21:37] Um, we suggest that hotels, if they are
[2:21:39] permitted at all, be conditionally
[2:21:41] permitted so that the specific impacts
[2:21:43] of the hotel on the local economy can be
[2:21:45] evaluated. If they are simply permitted
[2:21:48] by right, there will be no opportunity
[2:21:50] for the public and local officials to
[2:21:51] weigh in other than potentially on the
[2:21:53] design of the hotel. Uh we have a
[2:21:56] suggested amendment uh which says
[2:21:57] allowed uses may include wine
[2:21:59] production, agricultural uses, hotels
[2:22:01] and other visiting serving uses with the
[2:22:03] addition hotels will be a conditionally
[2:22:05] permitted use with a required study that
[2:22:08] demonstrates that the hotel would not
[2:22:10] increase overall demand for affordable
[2:22:11] housing in Soma. Thank you.
[2:22:14] >> Thank you very much.
[2:22:20] » Hi. Hi commissioners. My name is Becky
[2:22:22] Sager. It's s a g- e r. Um I'm going to
[2:22:25] assume as they often do in these
[2:22:26] meetings that you've read the
[2:22:27] submissions and I could I I I've sent
[2:22:31] one in. I've sent many in and I couldn't
[2:22:33] say it better than my friend Janet did
[2:22:35] tonight. We share the same concerns. Um,
[2:22:38] I want to make one small point, maybe
[2:22:40] not so small before I say what I came up
[2:22:42] here to say, and that is I'm looking at
[2:22:44] the land use map before and after from
[2:22:46] the current general plan to the
[2:22:48] proposed. And there are two sections of
[2:22:50] the Sebastian property that are
[2:22:52] agricultural. It's not all wine
[2:22:54] production. So there are two land uses
[2:22:56] there now, as far as I understand.
[2:22:58] Three. Yeah, there's one tiny
[2:22:59] commercial, right? Mixed use. So we we
[2:23:02] do have existing and to your point, if
[2:23:05] we left it, we do have agriculture and
[2:23:08] wine production. And the one thing I've
[2:23:10] heard so consistently from everyone who
[2:23:12] gives feedback is keep the green space
[2:23:15] green. But what I really want to say
[2:23:17] tonight is thank you. Um this is the
[2:23:20] first time um in this whole excruciating
[2:23:24] process that I've felt like we've been
[2:23:25] heard and that we share concerns that
[2:23:29] are real and based on common sense and
[2:23:32] reasonable and critical to this
[2:23:34] community that we all love. And that's
[2:23:36] why we're here. We're not here because
[2:23:37] we don't want housing for people. We're
[2:23:39] here because you think about the last
[2:23:41] five or six years in this town and in
[2:23:43] this country. You can't predict what's
[2:23:45] going to happen five years from now,
[2:23:47] right? You can't predict that somebody
[2:23:50] might not come in here and say, "I want
[2:23:51] to take advantage of the bonus density
[2:23:53] laws and build a thousand housing units
[2:23:56] there." And then what do we do when we
[2:23:57] have a fire? We're already sleeping with
[2:24:00] our go bags, folks. We've seen the
[2:24:02] studies. We don't need the studies. This
[2:24:04] is basic common sense. So, I am getting
[2:24:08] all worked up here, not because I
[2:24:10] disagree with you, but because I love
[2:24:12] the conversation that's happening. I
[2:24:14] appreciate it. As someone who cares
[2:24:16] deeply about this along with my
[2:24:18] neighbors, please continue to listen to
[2:24:20] your constituents. We've got,270 people
[2:24:23] so far signing a petition for
[2:24:25] responsible land use. Read it. It's what
[2:24:28] we keep saying. Readsoma.org.
[2:24:31] We are not against development. We just
[2:24:33] want it to make sense and we wanted to
[2:24:35] keep this town as wonderful as it is.
[2:24:38] Um, so thank you for listening to us and
[2:24:41] let's keep this dialogue going because
[2:24:43] we got to come to a solution that works
[2:24:44] for Sonoma. Thank you.
[2:24:56] Hi, my name's Jeannie ShraMM and Sm
[2:25:02] um on the January 14th uh community
[2:25:07] planning session. Uh it was an excellent
[2:25:10] beginning and I want to commend you for
[2:25:12] organizing it in the first place to
[2:25:14] stimulating creative input from the
[2:25:16] community. At that meeting, I met Mitch
[2:25:20] back there and a lot of us met other
[2:25:22] people that we never knew and it got the
[2:25:24] discussion going. The land use
[2:25:27] designation determines what the
[2:25:29] proposals are in the first place. So,
[2:25:30] I'm thrilled that we're having this
[2:25:32] conversation today and that you are, as
[2:25:36] uh the lady just as Miss Sager just
[2:25:38] said, listening to us. I think the issue
[2:25:41] here, the key issue for all of us is how
[2:25:44] can this property be best used to
[2:25:47] support community and civic priorities
[2:25:51] and values while also addressing the
[2:25:53] economic and sustainability issues.
[2:25:58] Mitch and I worked together with a
[2:26:01] couple of other people and we handed in
[2:26:03] a submission late today, a submission of
[2:26:06] ideas because anybody can't write a and
[2:26:09] especially inexperienced people in 40
[2:26:12] minutes. So we got together, we got some
[2:26:14] ideas and our priorities that under
[2:26:17] underpin these ideas were evacuation,
[2:26:20] safety, density, vehicle and foot
[2:26:23] traffic, maintaining the physical,
[2:26:25] functional and aesthetic integrity,
[2:26:27] transparent, visionary, and
[2:26:28] participative decision-making process
[2:26:31] and recognition that Sebastian winery
[2:26:34] property, though unique in size for the
[2:26:36] city of Soma, will set a precedent for
[2:26:38] how other agricultural properties in
[2:26:41] Soma County will be considered in the
[2:26:43] future. And that's a very important
[2:26:45] thing for all of you here to keep in
[2:26:47] mind. The property is boarded by county
[2:26:50] residents. And some of the things that
[2:26:53] I'd like to point out in the evacuation
[2:26:55] report, three of the seven uh reports
[2:26:59] that uh that dangerous areas, three of
[2:27:03] those seven border this property. Um
[2:27:06] there is a we want to
[2:27:11] any housing, senior housing, a third of
[2:27:14] our population is seniors. That is
[2:27:17] expected to grow, according to county
[2:27:19] statistics, countywide, 26%
[2:27:22] from that number by 2030.
[2:27:25] That would enable people who live in the
[2:27:27] area to age in place. and
[2:27:31] we want to see um
[2:27:35] the things that we love about Soma
[2:27:37] preserved and to have visionaries. We
[2:27:42] have a we are very lucky to have amazing
[2:27:44] professionals in our community who are
[2:27:47] extremely accomplished internationally
[2:27:49] renowned architects and others. So we
[2:27:52] would like to say let January 14th be
[2:27:54] the beginning not the end. We'd like to
[2:27:57] encourage you to form a community
[2:28:00] advisory board where we can have
[2:28:02] continue to have discussion like this.
[2:28:05] Thank you.
[2:28:11] » My name is David Dixon, DIX. I actually
[2:28:13] live in the county on Level Valley Road
[2:28:16] and uh I was looking at the agenda
[2:28:17] tonight and I saw a memorandum from
[2:28:20] Jennifer Gates about uh 577 and 511
[2:28:23] Level Valley Road which they wish to uh
[2:28:26] have a land use change to allow them to
[2:28:28] develop housing there. I I'm a big
[2:28:30] believer also of of I don't know if it's
[2:28:33] going to be housing I guess but change
[2:28:35] the land use from a to something else.
[2:28:37] And I know that we have what we call
[2:28:39] downgrading where you don't take a you
[2:28:41] don't take a commercial or residential
[2:28:42] area and downgrade it to uh rec space or
[2:28:45] agriculture. Is there a possibility that
[2:28:48] the city can look at the same rule of
[2:28:51] not downgrading a to make a mixeduse
[2:28:55] residential use or commercial use
[2:28:57] because you're losing all the a place
[2:29:00] about you can really make a difference
[2:29:02] if you think about it. I don't and also
[2:29:04] I don't know if 577 7-Eleven Valley Road
[2:29:08] is related at all to the Sebastian
[2:29:11] project or not. So, thank you.
[2:29:15] >> Thank you very much.
[2:29:18] » Thank you very much.
[2:29:18] >> Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is
[2:29:19] » Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is
[2:29:19] Mitchell Price. P R I C E. Uh, a lot's
[2:29:22] been said tonight, but I wrote this out
[2:29:24] earlier, so um, I'll just go from my
[2:29:26] script. Good evening, commissioners. My
[2:29:28] name is Mitchell Price. I am an
[2:29:30] architectural designer and a lifelong
[2:29:31] Sonoma resident. I've spent the last
[2:29:33] several weeks studying this site
[2:29:35] carefully, not just as a development
[2:29:37] opportunity, but as a civic
[2:29:39] responsibility and uh for the next
[2:29:41] generation of Sonoma residents. The
[2:29:44] Sebastian property sits within an
[2:29:46] established residential fabric with
[2:29:48] limited evacuation routes and
[2:29:50] circulation capacity. That physical
[2:29:52] reality should guide our land use
[2:29:55] decisions. The question before us is not
[2:29:58] whether this site should evolve, it's
[2:30:00] how.
[2:30:01] It's a fire constrained residential uh
[2:30:04] context. We should be deliberate about
[2:30:06] introducing higher intensity destination
[2:30:09] oriented uses that increase peak traffic
[2:30:11] and emergency complexity.
[2:30:14] This is also an opportunity for the city
[2:30:16] to think more broadly about economic
[2:30:18] resilience. A balanced revenue base, one
[2:30:20] that includes community serving and
[2:30:22] locally rooted uses can strengthen
[2:30:24] Sonoma over time.
[2:30:27] This 20 acre site is one of the uh last
[2:30:31] large centrallylo properties within the
[2:30:33] city. That makes it rare. Rare sites
[2:30:35] deserve long-term thinking.
[2:30:39] Uh this property could, excuse me, this
[2:30:42] property could support lower intensity
[2:30:43] uses that strengthen residents first and
[2:30:45] generate steady daytime activity without
[2:30:48] overwhelming the neighborhood. This
[2:30:50] approach allows us to reuse uh would
[2:30:54] allow us to reuse and thoughtfully adapt
[2:30:56] the existing structures to the greatest
[2:30:58] extent possible. We have an opportunity
[2:31:00] to demonstrate that economic vitality
[2:31:02] and stewardship are not opposites. The
[2:31:05] physical character of Soma, its
[2:31:07] walkability, its historic fabric, its
[2:31:10] human scale uh was created by restraint.
[2:31:13] I encourage you to approach this
[2:31:15] property not as a blank slate but as one
[2:31:17] act of stewardship for the next 50 years
[2:31:20] of Sonoma. Thank you very much.
[2:31:22] >> Thank you
[2:31:25] » Thank you
[2:31:25] Miss Cornwall.
[2:31:27] >> Good evening. Um Caitlyn Cornwall Soma
[2:31:30] » Good evening. Um Caitlyn Cornwall Soma
[2:31:30] Ecology Center. Um
[2:31:32] uh I am notly not sure if this is the
[2:31:35] right time to make this comment but
[2:31:36] other people are making comments about
[2:31:37] things that are not exactly their South
[2:31:38] Aian properties. So, just uh wanted to
[2:31:41] make a comment about 577 Level Valley
[2:31:43] Road. Um uh uh there have been a lot of
[2:31:49] public money spent over the last 10
[2:31:52] years or so looking for places um
[2:31:56] upstream of the city of Sonoma for uh
[2:31:59] water during storms to spread out and
[2:32:02] reduce flood risk in the city and also
[2:32:04] to recharge groundwater. and um Sonoma
[2:32:08] Water and the Ecology Center with
[2:32:10] various sources of public money have
[2:32:12] looked pretty hard in the Nathansson
[2:32:14] Creek wershed for opportunities to let
[2:32:16] water spread out in the winter. Um and
[2:32:20] uh it was very very hard to find places
[2:32:22] that where that's possible and the best
[2:32:25] the highest priority location for
[2:32:27] allowing that to happen is that
[2:32:28] property. And so um I think before the
[2:32:32] city decides to change its uh land use
[2:32:36] designation, there should be some
[2:32:38] thought given to whether there are parts
[2:32:40] of that parcel that should be um uh
[2:32:44] where future uses must allow the ability
[2:32:47] for water to spread out there. um and it
[2:32:48] connects hydraologically to uh parts of
[2:32:51] the Sebastian properties. The some of
[2:32:53] the topography is still there. So we
[2:32:56] haven't had major flooding in the city
[2:32:57] for a while, but we have had really
[2:32:59] major flooding in the city over the last
[2:33:02] 30 years and it will get worse in the
[2:33:03] future. So um that's one point and my
[2:33:06] other point is um about the Sebastian
[2:33:10] properties. Um, for the first time ever,
[2:33:13] uh, in my long time at the ecology
[2:33:14] center, I went last year to the Sonoma
[2:33:16] County A Summit. And, um, it is a time
[2:33:19] of real hand ringing in agriculture
[2:33:21] right now. And one of the big challenges
[2:33:25] that agriculture faces is the loss of
[2:33:28] agricultural processing facilities. Um,
[2:33:31] we have amazing food growers in Sonoma
[2:33:33] Valley and increasingly they don't have
[2:33:35] a place to make value added products or
[2:33:37] even to um, process and clean what
[2:33:40] they're harvesting. So, um, I'm sure a
[2:33:43] use like this would require some kind of
[2:33:45] public assistance or subsidy or
[2:33:48] something, but I think that's something
[2:33:49] to consider with a historic processing
[2:33:51] facility like the one at Sebastian that
[2:33:52] it could be used for food um, and local
[2:33:55] businesses uh, in the future. Thank you.
[2:33:58] >> Thank you, Miss Formal. Mr.
[2:34:02] » Thank you, Miss Formal. Mr.
[2:34:02] Grandy, come forward, please.
[2:34:07] » Evening, commission. Um, Art Grandandy,
[2:34:10] 1314th Street East of Gr.
[2:34:14] So, I live just up the street from the
[2:34:16] Sasiani uh main building and pass it
[2:34:19] regularly every day. And I'm not going
[2:34:21] to repeat a lot of the things that uh I
[2:34:24] agree with that have been said just to
[2:34:26] make this shorter. But um I wanted to
[2:34:29] express I think a couple of main things.
[2:34:32] If one is one of my suggestions and it's
[2:34:35] not just my idea but endorsing others is
[2:34:38] a special planning area allows the
[2:34:40] planning process to go forward but
[2:34:43] require
[2:34:45] um further detailed exploration of any
[2:34:47] proposal for the property without having
[2:34:50] to define upfront uh the the accepted
[2:34:53] uses and that's clearly something that
[2:34:55] that ought to be considered. I don't we
[2:34:57] don't need to debate it now, but I think
[2:34:58] it sounds like from what I read about
[2:35:00] it, it's it's a very useful thing. The
[2:35:02] second thing is if any changes are being
[2:35:06] made to this property, density is the
[2:35:09] key a key concern and it was just
[2:35:12] outrageous that we had seven to 25 in
[2:35:16] the proposed wording of of the document.
[2:35:19] I mean totally incompatible with the
[2:35:22] neighborhood on all sides of that
[2:35:24] property. Um we have in our zone in our
[2:35:29] coding zones uh the medium medium
[2:35:32] density residential which is 3 to eight
[2:35:35] density and even given the possibility
[2:35:37] that that might be doubled still would
[2:35:39] allow you to be uh within possible
[2:35:43] reasonable uh range. So there are
[2:35:46] choices within the current uh coding
[2:35:51] choices zone to uh
[2:35:54] uh control the risk.
[2:35:57] The an additional thought is we need to
[2:36:00] have an alternative some alternative
[2:36:02] uses as possible for that property if
[2:36:05] eventually there is some commercial uh
[2:36:10] aptitude
[2:36:11] or acceptance of of commercial and um a
[2:36:15] senior residential facility of which
[2:36:18] there are many types around uh stages of
[2:36:21] living uh CCRC
[2:36:24] profit nonprofit all of that is is
[2:36:26] details in the weed s of what is done.
[2:36:30] But um we did have some of a small group
[2:36:33] of neighbors there had a conversation
[2:36:36] with a major uh developer and operator
[2:36:39] of uh homes and uh he knows the site and
[2:36:43] they said this would be an ideal one to
[2:36:46] look at for a residential facility. And
[2:36:48] I'll just point out that uh these count
[2:36:52] as uh housing units for meeting the uh
[2:36:55] target target goal. And as addition uh
[2:36:59] res people who are residents in a
[2:37:01] community like that are members of a
[2:37:03] community, they will the the certainly
[2:37:06] the uh independent living ones will be
[2:37:08] able to be customers in town and join
[2:37:11] the community.
[2:37:13] And I think that's all I have to say.
[2:37:17] >> Thank you. All
[2:37:22] right. Uh JJ Abdily and um I think it
[2:37:25] may be helpful to have the description
[2:37:26] on and on on the screen because like
[2:37:28] that's what we're talking about. But I
[2:37:30] want to echo I I do also appreciate it
[2:37:32] seems like some like conversations that
[2:37:35] haven't been been able to be have in
[2:37:36] public form or being had. So I
[2:37:38] appreciate that. I also appreciate uh
[2:37:40] Commissioner Willer's consternation
[2:37:42] about the process of like trying to put
[2:37:46] together a single definition on what is
[2:37:48] actually 17 parcels, not five, that have
[2:37:50] three different zoning designations
[2:37:52] currently. Um I've kind of struggled
[2:37:54] with the same thing. I'd love to learn
[2:37:55] more about the specific plan process. I
[2:37:57] think the reason to have the
[2:37:59] conversation today and the reason that
[2:38:01] this general plan process which is now
[2:38:03] almost two years underway is it's an
[2:38:05] opportunity for the community to send a
[2:38:07] signal out on what it wants. And let's
[2:38:11] also be clear that that the description
[2:38:13] here is not talking about what is what
[2:38:16] is desired like it's not really talking
[2:38:18] about um you know what um should be done
[2:38:22] there or can't. It's what what you said
[2:38:24] this best. what is the community willing
[2:38:26] to accept or not accept? It's it's not a
[2:38:29] preapproval of any kind. It's it's quite
[2:38:32] the opposite. It's a it's an opening of
[2:38:34] a door that says bring a project that um
[2:38:39] can fit to meeting our goals in the
[2:38:41] general plan which are stated as
[2:38:42] housing, economic development, and
[2:38:44] maintaining community character and do
[2:38:46] it in a way that um that then this is
[2:38:50] the idea that I've had I think to maybe
[2:38:52] address Commissioner Willer's concern
[2:38:54] that I shared as well, which is use the
[2:38:56] development code to get specific about
[2:38:59] the restrictions. Nobody wants to tear
[2:39:01] up the vineyards that exist there.
[2:39:03] Nobody wants to remove the green space
[2:39:05] that exists there. So use the
[2:39:07] development code to put the
[2:39:08] restrictions. We have actually really
[2:39:09] great opportunity because
[2:39:12] I will call it heritage mixed use
[2:39:13] because I think it's much better because
[2:39:15] it also reminds us of how long it's been
[2:39:18] there and how important it is. But we
[2:39:20] have the opportunity to create specific
[2:39:23] restrictions, constraints in the
[2:39:25] development code that will be specific
[2:39:27] to Sebastiani and it won't apply
[2:39:29] anywhere else because it's the only
[2:39:30] place in town that has this zoning
[2:39:32] designation. So I would really urge us
[2:39:34] to keep the door open, send the signal
[2:39:37] that these parcels have a role to play
[2:39:40] in the asset base of the future of
[2:39:42] Sonoma, a very important role, one that
[2:39:44] is probably uniquely positioned to
[2:39:45] provide unlike any other. and let the
[2:39:50] development code guide the rest
[2:39:52] constraints that I think we all want to
[2:39:53] place on it regarding protecting certain
[2:39:56] aspects of it, maintaining residential
[2:39:58] feel in certain places. All of those
[2:40:01] things can be done in the development
[2:40:02] code and should be done in the
[2:40:03] development code. Um, and I agree with
[2:40:05] most of everything I've heard regarding
[2:40:08] um, the challenges with density bonus
[2:40:10] law and having too high of a zoning
[2:40:12] standard or sorry, too high of a zoning
[2:40:15] a a density range particularly on the
[2:40:18] upper end. And I I've looked at that
[2:40:21] site and you when you break it into
[2:40:22] parcels, you look at keeping the
[2:40:24] vineyards on the west side. Five acres
[2:40:26] is pretty much what you're left with on
[2:40:27] the west side and that's a lot of 15
[2:40:29] units per acre is plenty of units over
[2:40:31] there. You couldn't fit much more on
[2:40:32] there anyway. Thank you. Thank you very
[2:40:35] much.
[2:40:40] » Hi guys. Uh my name is Bill Couturier.
[2:40:43] Uh c u t u r i e. Um I live on loitus.
[2:40:50] My wife and uh we're right next to the
[2:40:54] place that we're talking about and they
[2:40:57] are thinking of putting a whole bunch of
[2:41:00] town houses right in our backyard. We're
[2:41:03] not happy about that. Maybe that'll
[2:41:05] change because I know nothing is
[2:41:07] concrete, but just the idea of having 50
[2:41:12] town houses right behind Los Cacitus
[2:41:14] would
[2:41:17] not be in keeping with GLU2, let's say.
[2:41:20] Um, but my other thing here is people
[2:41:24] are thinking, well, it's just is it a
[2:41:26] hotel? Is it a bunch of condos? Is it
[2:41:31] I think there's a we could take a little
[2:41:33] bit out of the box. And it seems to me
[2:41:36] everybody
[2:41:38] that I think is here um
[2:41:41] is worried about their house burning
[2:41:43] down. They're worried about being able
[2:41:45] to afford insurance because it's going
[2:41:48] up thousands of dollars every year and
[2:41:50] it's not sustainable. Um
[2:41:55] there's a bunch of water out there in
[2:41:58] this property. There's a giant well.
[2:42:00] There's there's a problem with much
[2:42:02] water coming in. Right.
[2:42:04] I'm
[2:42:06] was up in Portland for a while at the
[2:42:09] Washington Park there. They built a
[2:42:11] reservoir. Beautiful,
[2:42:14] bigger than we need, 12 million gallon,
[2:42:16] but it's it's hit and they have a little
[2:42:19] lake on top of it that's beautiful. And
[2:42:22] it's this charming place that people can
[2:42:24] walk around, dogs play. We could have
[2:42:27] something like that built and have
[2:42:33] a little place lost the side of it where
[2:42:35] there's like drones that carry water and
[2:42:40] could fight fires and this could be a
[2:42:42] central place where it would be both
[2:42:44] recreational.
[2:42:47] Uh
[2:42:50] >> you're good.
[2:42:51] » you're good.
[2:42:51] >> Okay. I'm just saying we could save
[2:42:54] » Okay. I'm just saying we could save
[2:42:54] SNOVA, create a beautiful recreational
[2:42:58] place
[2:42:59] and uh lower our insurance costs because
[2:43:03] we're in a high fire zone, right? So,
[2:43:06] good things could happen. It doesn't all
[2:43:08] have to be about
[2:43:10] housing and there's plenty of places to
[2:43:13] build houses.
[2:43:16] >> Thank you very much.
[2:43:23] I'm Richard Trant. You heard from my
[2:43:26] wife Bert earlier.
[2:43:28] I think if you think about what
[2:43:32] this town is,
[2:43:34] it becomes to me to be very vivid that
[2:43:37] this is an opportunity for people that
[2:43:40] live here that might want to stay here
[2:43:45] in their oldest oldest ages. Why can't
[2:43:48] this be
[2:43:49] a community for
[2:43:52] people that are here in this room and in
[2:43:55] the in the future. It would be so great
[2:43:57] to be able to be close to your your
[2:44:01] loved ones in a place where you know
[2:44:02] you're safe as the as the
[2:44:07] the
[2:44:10] as you get older.
[2:44:12] So I think it would be amazing for for
[2:44:15] Sonoma to have something like this to go
[2:44:19] to the next stage. It would be un it
[2:44:24] would be absolutely amazing. And I think
[2:44:27] it would I think it would just be for so
[2:44:31] many reasons the right thing to do. If
[2:44:34] you think about what it is, it's
[2:44:35] glorious. And um please don't let it go.
[2:44:40] Thank you very much.
[2:44:44] Okay.
[2:44:52] Thank you for everything tonight. I
[2:44:54] really appreciate all of what you've
[2:44:55] said and such a great deal of thought
[2:44:57] put into it. Um, which makes me feel
[2:45:00] relieved because I have felt like this
[2:45:02] was going towards mixed use and it was
[2:45:06] going to be like stopping a train. Um, I
[2:45:10] forgot I think I forgot to say my name.
[2:45:11] Pat Summers. Uh, su ms.
[2:45:14] Um, I was fresh out of knee surgery at
[2:45:17] the meeting in January, so I did not get
[2:45:19] to participate. But from what a few
[2:45:22] people told me, they felt like the map
[2:45:25] project was kind of putting the cart
[2:45:27] before the horse and they had to put on
[2:45:30] that map where a hotel should go, etc.
[2:45:33] Well, who says we need a hotel? And
[2:45:36] where did that even come from? Um, I
[2:45:39] happen to be in the hospitality industry
[2:45:42] and I've been dealing with the fact that
[2:45:46] we have a lot of changes going on in
[2:45:48] this county. We have um a wine industry
[2:45:51] that has a lot on their plate and a lot
[2:45:54] to deal with. We have a reduction in um
[2:45:57] hos in a hotel occupancy and
[2:46:03] it's not a thing that's going to be
[2:46:05] fixed in the immediate future. It's
[2:46:07] going to take time. Um, basically it is
[2:46:10] my firm belief that we do not need any
[2:46:12] more hotels. Occupancy is around 55% and
[2:46:16] we don't need them. Uh, I live on Geroke
[2:46:19] Road. I'm a board member of the Geroke
[2:46:21] Road Fire Safe Council. I'm extremely
[2:46:24] concerned about overpopulation
[2:46:26] and increased nonviability of of uh
[2:46:30] evacuation.
[2:46:32] We have a lot to deal with and we don't
[2:46:34] need hundreds of more people at the
[2:46:36] bottom of Gerokei Road. It's um not that
[2:46:40] I am opposed to very thoughtful
[2:46:43] development that can enhance the
[2:46:46] community, but we need to retain our
[2:46:47] pockets of agriculture and the beauty of
[2:46:50] of what we have here. It's very very
[2:46:52] special. It's irreplaceable and I don't
[2:46:55] want to see it go away. I want to see it
[2:46:57] continue and thrive. So, thank you for
[2:47:00] your good thoughts on all of that. Um,
[2:47:03] very much appreciated.
[2:47:05] >> Thank you very much for your comments,
[2:47:07] » Thank you very much for your comments,
[2:47:07] S.
[2:47:13] » Thanks to everyone and for all of your
[2:47:15] questions and insights uh from the
[2:47:17] commission and everyone who has already
[2:47:19] spoken. My name is Ray Shik. I live uh
[2:47:22] on uh East Napa Street uh with my wife
[2:47:26] Diane. And I think what uh was very
[2:47:28] interesting actually about your your uh
[2:47:31] question um Commissioner O'Neal is the
[2:47:34] idea of possibly
[2:47:37] um stepping back and thinking a little
[2:47:39] bit about the process differently
[2:47:41] because fundamentally the the notion of
[2:47:43] a land use plan is about setting the
[2:47:46] direction the vision of the the
[2:47:48] community that we're planning for and
[2:47:51] that's not simply a physical vision.
[2:47:53] It's the vision of what the economy
[2:47:55] should be. It's the vision of what the
[2:47:57] businesses should be here. It's the
[2:47:59] vision of how do we place properties in
[2:48:01] a way that it actually accentuates the
[2:48:03] current businesses and has plans for
[2:48:05] where new businesses and where new
[2:48:07] housing goes. But fundamentally, it's
[2:48:09] it's about defining the experience of
[2:48:12] the future of Sonoma. And I think
[2:48:14] there's an important conversation around
[2:48:16] that because Sonoma is a destination
[2:48:19] about experience. It's a destination for
[2:48:21] all of us moving here because of the
[2:48:24] experience of Sonoma. And this parcel
[2:48:26] has such a significant impact uh on the
[2:48:29] community in many ways. It was mentioned
[2:48:31] about the retail bleed, but you know, if
[2:48:33] we if we flip the plan and say, "No,
[2:48:35] let's think about this more holistically
[2:48:38] in the overall plan of the city, not as
[2:48:40] an isolated piece of property kind of at
[2:48:43] the edge of the city. Now, how do we
[2:48:45] really reinforce retail behavior in the
[2:48:47] downtown? What about putting more hotels
[2:48:49] downtown to drive uh the economy of the
[2:48:52] square which is struggling at times and
[2:48:55] the businesses are struggling there. So
[2:48:56] to me I think there's some steps that
[2:48:59] would be valuable in the process that
[2:49:01] maybe have happened and we may not have
[2:49:03] seen them already which is a true
[2:49:05] economic analysis uh of the potential
[2:49:08] uses of this property and their impact
[2:49:10] on the city. an analysis of the de the
[2:49:13] demographics of the city and where the
[2:49:15] city is going in terms of the population
[2:49:17] in terms of age in terms of economic
[2:49:20] strata. So that we're planning for the
[2:49:22] overall experience of the city and not
[2:49:25] just looking at this as a use plan but a
[2:49:27] plan that really defines where we
[2:49:29] believe the city should go uh overall as
[2:49:32] a as an integrated component of the city
[2:49:35] not as a separated uh parcel from the
[2:49:38] city. So everything from a historic uh
[2:49:41] analysis, an economic analysis to a
[2:49:43] certain degree the environmental
[2:49:44] analysis. It feels to me that those
[2:49:47] should be part of this conversation.
[2:49:49] Understanding that in typical uh
[2:49:51] planning there's sometimes the steps
[2:49:53] happen a little later but having those
[2:49:56] having that analysis done so that we can
[2:49:59] make the decisions properly around the
[2:50:02] land use having the the information and
[2:50:05] the data around what we've learned with
[2:50:07] that kind of analytics ahead of time the
[2:50:10] housing analytics ahead of time as an
[2:50:12] example would be extraordinarily
[2:50:14] valuable in this process.
[2:50:16] >> Thank you.
[2:50:17] » Thank you.
[2:50:17] >> Thank you very much.
[2:50:23] Mr. Barnett, state your name, please.
[2:50:28] Uh, Chair Hyrick, members of the
[2:50:30] commission. Um,
[2:50:32] Council Barnett, um, I have a few
[2:50:35] thoughts here, so I'm going to go
[2:50:36] through them as quickly as possible. Um,
[2:50:38] this is obviously a very important
[2:50:40] discussion. Um, I think we would all
[2:50:42] agree Soma's number one goal throughout
[2:50:44] this general plan process is to preserve
[2:50:46] community character and authenticity.
[2:50:48] And that means historic significance,
[2:50:50] our quality of life. Um, this is also
[2:50:52] people, making sure that Sonoma
[2:50:55] continues to be or, you know, continues
[2:50:57] to be what it used to be, a full
[2:50:59] spectrum community. And that means all
[2:51:00] different people, all different ages.
[2:51:02] Um, it also means securing our economic
[2:51:05] future. That means considering new
[2:51:06] sources of revenue and also housing.
[2:51:08] Housing is an economic issue as well and
[2:51:12] it also is preserving as much local
[2:51:14] control as possible in an era of new
[2:51:16] state housing laws and so there are
[2:51:18] smart strategies to make sure all of the
[2:51:20] above happen but some modifications need
[2:51:23] to be made in this general plan uh
[2:51:25] proposal and draft going forward. First
[2:51:28] I want to talk about the Sonoma mixeduse
[2:51:29] plan. Um, if we are updating the land
[2:51:32] use, if we are updating our general plan
[2:51:34] for the next 25 years, I really think
[2:51:36] now is the time to discuss this area and
[2:51:39] and honestly take the time to get it
[2:51:41] right. I mean, don't decide tonight.
[2:51:42] Don't decide next month. Take as much
[2:51:44] time as you need to get this right. Um,
[2:51:46] but in my view, status quo is not the
[2:51:48] option. I think that would be
[2:51:49] irresponsible. I think that would be a
[2:51:51] failure of your fiduciary duty and the
[2:51:54] city council's fiduciary duty. Um,
[2:51:57] uh, Commissioner Willer's proposal, you
[2:51:59] know, to, uh, accept applications as
[2:52:02] they come in and do a general plan
[2:52:03] amendment is not a bad idea. The reality
[2:52:06] is through that process, once the land
[2:52:08] is reszoned, that plan could change and
[2:52:10] those new state housing laws could apply
[2:52:12] anyway. Um, spe special planning areas
[2:52:14] are ideas as well, but state density
[2:52:16] bonus law, all the new state laws apply
[2:52:19] to special planning use areas as well.
[2:52:22] And so I think a hotel use should be
[2:52:24] considered. Of all the hotels that have
[2:52:26] been considered over the last tw since
[2:52:28] 1999, I think this is actually the most
[2:52:30] natural place for one instead of right
[2:52:32] on the plaza or on our public lands over
[2:52:34] the hill. When it comes to housing, um
[2:52:37] that has been the number one priority of
[2:52:38] the Sonoma Council for the last 10
[2:52:40] years. And I think it would be a little
[2:52:42] contradictory or hypocritical not to
[2:52:44] consider housing for these properties.
[2:52:46] Um, that said, neighbor concerns, all of
[2:52:48] our concerns about the new state housing
[2:52:50] laws are are real. Um, and that's why I
[2:52:54] think the current proposed densities are
[2:52:55] way too high, not just in the Sonoma
[2:52:57] mixed use zone, but every zone
[2:52:59] throughout Soma, because state density
[2:53:00] bonus law allows you not to just get
[2:53:02] 50%, but through AB1287, you can do a
[2:53:05] stackable density bonus, and you can
[2:53:07] double the maximum density. And when you
[2:53:10] double the maximum density, you often
[2:53:11] require the waiverss and concessions
[2:53:13] needed from the development code. And so
[2:53:15] in my view, we should be lowering all of
[2:53:17] the densities. And besides, we've had
[2:53:19] maximum densities of 20 units an acre
[2:53:21] over the last 25 years in Soma. And no
[2:53:25] project has been built. I don't think
[2:53:26] economics justify those higher densities
[2:53:29] in Soma. I think, you know, they sound
[2:53:31] good often, but they oftent times don't
[2:53:33] come to fruition for a variety of
[2:53:35] reasons, and the economics don't just
[2:53:37] pencil. And so I think there are, if I
[2:53:39] can just have a few few seconds. Chair
[2:53:41] Wy,
[2:53:42] >> 20 more seconds.
[2:53:43] » 20 more seconds.
[2:53:43] >> All right. I have three solutions. We
[2:53:45] » All right. I have three solutions. We
[2:53:45] have to lower the minimum and maximum
[2:53:47] densities, not just here, but throughout
[2:53:49] throughout the city. Um, and another uh
[2:53:52] potential solution is the historic
[2:53:54] district. I think the Sebastian um
[2:53:57] historic district along First Street
[2:53:59] East should expanded to include the
[2:54:00] entire property. A lot of the new state
[2:54:02] housing laws do not apply to sites that
[2:54:04] have historic structures or historic
[2:54:06] districts on them. And while the density
[2:54:08] bonus still does, it is much easier for
[2:54:10] the city and Jennifer over there to deny
[2:54:13] waiverss or concessions by making a
[2:54:15] finding that impairs the character of a
[2:54:17] historic district. So I think now is the
[2:54:19] time to do this, but there are solutions
[2:54:21] that we haven't been discussing that I
[2:54:23] think would make everyone happy with
[2:54:24] this process. Thank you.
[2:54:26] >> Thank you,
[2:54:33] » Mr. Woods. Step forward and state your
[2:54:35] name, please.
[2:54:37] Michael Woods, M chairman and members of
[2:54:39] the commission. Um I agree with Ko to
[2:54:42] the extent that the densities are are an
[2:54:45] issue. I also think that amending the
[2:54:48] general plan to accommodate a project
[2:54:51] that you don't have in front of you is
[2:54:54] challenging. It's challenging for the
[2:54:56] community. I'm usually here with
[2:54:58] developers as you know. Um so so so my
[2:55:02] view is sort of taken from lots of
[2:55:05] projects that I've been involved with
[2:55:06] and also working with cities over the
[2:55:08] years. Your general plan jurisdiction is
[2:55:13] one of the few tools in your bag of
[2:55:16] municipal tricks so to speak where
[2:55:18] you've still got some control. And I say
[2:55:21] that some control underscore some. Um, I
[2:55:25] don't think you can put it past the
[2:55:26] legislature to at some point in the next
[2:55:28] couple of years say that if you've got a
[2:55:30] mixeduse district that allows commercial
[2:55:32] and residential, thou shalt not prohibit
[2:55:34] a 100% residential project. And if
[2:55:37] you've got a 25 DU per density, you
[2:55:40] know, units per acre in your general
[2:55:43] plan, theoretically, you could have a
[2:55:46] very large project and theoretically it
[2:55:49] could be exempt from seeker review and a
[2:55:51] ministerial approval. And giving up that
[2:55:53] discretion to me is not advisable. You
[2:55:57] know, I'm used to seeing the planning
[2:55:58] commission exercise its discretion, use
[2:56:01] SQA as a tool, impose mitigation
[2:56:04] measures to reduce potentially
[2:56:06] significant environmental impacts to a
[2:56:08] level of insignificance. You know, we're
[2:56:10] used to those tools, but in the current
[2:56:12] environment, if you don't keep your
[2:56:15] discretion alive to control your general
[2:56:18] plan, I think you're giving up a lot.
[2:56:20] Um, and I'm I'm I would think that if if
[2:56:23] you have a binary choice of either to
[2:56:26] adopt Sonoma mixed use for this site
[2:56:28] with a lot of density involved or leave
[2:56:31] it at the status quo, I think you should
[2:56:33] leave it at the status quo. I don't know
[2:56:36] that that's a binary choice for you, but
[2:56:39] minimally the densities would have to go
[2:56:42] way way down. Thank you very much.
[2:56:44] >> Thank you very much for your comments.
[2:56:49] Okay. Are there any other members of the
[2:56:51] public who wish to come forward and
[2:56:53] address the commission on this topic?
[2:56:58] Okay. Seeing none, I will close public
[2:57:00] comment and I will bring back to the
[2:57:02] commission for discussion.
[2:57:05] Let me ask a process question.
[2:57:10] >> Um, what do we want to try to accomplish
[2:57:12] » Um, what do we want to try to accomplish
[2:57:12] going forward tonight on this topic?
[2:57:17] Garter Gates,
[2:57:19] do you what type of what what type of
[2:57:22] feedback or direction would be the most
[2:57:25] helpful for you in light of the public
[2:57:27] comment we heard and in light of the
[2:57:30] comments
[2:57:31] uh thus far by the commission.
[2:57:35] So, um
[2:57:38] I
[2:57:40] would like to hear
[2:57:43] kind of a straw vote of what um
[2:57:48] individually so I can get my straw vote
[2:57:52] um what they're your guys are thinking
[2:57:56] um individually um in regards to Sonoma
[2:58:00] mixed use um and then I can present that
[2:58:04] to city council.
[2:58:06] >> So the straw vote suggests that it is a
[2:58:08] » So the straw vote suggests that it is a
[2:58:08] binary choice. So
[2:58:11] >> well it's not necessar like straw vote
[2:58:13] » well it's not necessar like straw vote
[2:58:14] in the sense of continue to work on it.
[2:58:17] Let's just keep it the same or um you
[2:58:21] know we've have some edits some small
[2:58:24] edits being proposed. Um,
[2:58:28] so
[2:58:31] it's just going to depend on kind of
[2:58:32] where you're saying. And when I say
[2:58:34] straw, that's me going, okay, that's
[2:58:38] pause, you know, from this individual.
[2:58:41] Pause. Pause. Or no, I won't continue to
[2:58:45] work on it. It's still a goal on this
[2:58:48] general plan. Um
[2:58:51] the
[2:58:53] um so again March 4th is the meeting
[2:58:56] that we're going to city council and so
[2:58:58] I'll be preparing that staff report next
[2:59:01] week. So I'm going to give an update on
[2:59:04] all of the elements to them and where we
[2:59:07] are in the process. So tonight is the
[2:59:10] last bit of the elements. There's no
[2:59:12] more elements after tonight if we can
[2:59:14] get through them. Um
[2:59:17] I there's not a lot of on the other two.
[2:59:21] Um
[2:59:23] but in that in that sense so I will
[2:59:28] put that forward.
[2:59:29] >> Okay. So so to
[2:59:31] » Okay. So so to
[2:59:31] >> ask a clarifying followup.
[2:59:32] » ask a clarifying followup.
[2:59:32] >> Yes you can.
[2:59:34] » Yes you can.
[2:59:34] >> Okay. Just so just so I understand,
[2:59:38] » Okay. Just so just so I understand,
[2:59:38] are you saying that that you're going to
[2:59:44] uh I guess I'm a little concerned that
[2:59:48] that we're going to the city council at
[2:59:50] this point.
[2:59:53] I is it going to the city council for
[2:59:55] them to render a decision about anything
[2:59:58] or is this just information? So, um,
[3:00:01] based on the discussion tonight, any
[3:00:03] changes, right, we're making
[3:00:05] modifications to the different elements.
[3:00:07] Yeah. So that we can finalize these
[3:00:09] drafts to get them, um, get into the
[3:00:12] finish up the environmental review
[3:00:13] process. So that is the goal for
[3:00:17] tonight. And then the goal for the March
[3:00:19] 3rd is to kind of finalize these drafts.
[3:00:22] So in that sense it is a kind of
[3:00:26] direction I'm seeking um to move forward
[3:00:31] versus pause the general plan.
[3:00:36] >> Okay. So um um the this timetable
[3:00:42] » Okay. So um um the this timetable
[3:00:42] is this um
[3:00:46] uh is this something where that is a
[3:00:48] self-imposed timetable? In other words,
[3:00:51] what I'm what I'm sensing is that uh
[3:00:56] there are a lot of opinions out there
[3:01:00] about how to go forward and they range.
[3:01:05] And if I were asked tonight to render a
[3:01:10] final opinion as to what I think we
[3:01:12] should do, for example, with this land
[3:01:14] use designation we're talking about. Um,
[3:01:18] I would do it if I had to, but I hate to
[3:01:21] feel pushed to do it um without
[3:01:28] uh more opportunity for conversation and
[3:01:31] discussion. It's already 9:00. We're not
[3:01:34] going to go on for another two hours.
[3:01:36] At least I'm not.
[3:01:39] And and um I'm concerned that that we're
[3:01:44] moving ahead
[3:01:45] quickly,
[3:01:47] but I'm not sure what the what the
[3:01:50] timetable or the establishment of the
[3:01:53] deadlines for these timetables where
[3:01:56] they're coming from. Is this something
[3:01:58] we've self-imposed? Is something that
[3:02:00] you want to do? Is it something the city
[3:02:02] council has imposed? Is it the
[3:02:04] consultantism?
[3:02:05] Where are these where are these dates
[3:02:07] coming from?
[3:02:08] >> Um so it is um a goal to complete the
[3:02:15] » Um so it is um a goal to complete the
[3:02:15] process by the fall before the fall
[3:02:18] except September. And so working
[3:02:21] backwards within an EIR and another 60
[3:02:24] days of public comment still to occur.
[3:02:27] That's where we're kind of falling into
[3:02:30] it is that the edits and everything need
[3:02:34] to get to the consultant, finalize the
[3:02:37] EIR so that we can release it for that
[3:02:39] 60-day um time frame.
[3:02:43] >> Okay. And and the and the completion
[3:02:45] » Okay. And and the and the completion
[3:02:45] date that you've targeted in the fall
[3:02:48] and I don't know whether we're talking
[3:02:51] October.
[3:02:52] >> Okay. So, you've got a clear date in
[3:02:55] » Okay. So, you've got a clear date in
[3:02:55] mind. Is that once again is that
[3:02:57] something that is being imposed upon us
[3:03:00] by the consultant? Is it being imposed
[3:03:02] upon us by anybody?
[3:03:05] Or is it just simply what you would like
[3:03:08] to do so you can get on with business.
[3:03:12] Not to I'm not I'm not saying that in a
[3:03:15] in a derogatory way. And
[3:03:17] >> what are the what are the repercussions
[3:03:19] » what are the what are the repercussions
[3:03:19] of not meeting the goal?
[3:03:21] >> Um that we probably will delay for
[3:03:23] » Um that we probably will delay for
[3:03:23] another year.
[3:03:26] Why is that?
[3:03:27] >> Um just because of timing of what's um
[3:03:32] » Um just because of timing of what's um
[3:03:32] going to be occurring in the fall.
[3:03:34] >> Okay. And that that doesn't if let's
[3:03:38] » Okay. And that that doesn't if let's
[3:03:38] explore that just for a moment. If we
[3:03:41] delayed for another year, we're not
[3:03:42] violating state laws.
[3:03:44] >> I have two elements that do need to get
[3:03:46] » I have two elements that do need to get
[3:03:46] done. Yes.
[3:03:47] >> My safety element is already
[3:03:49] » My safety element is already
[3:03:49] >> Yes.
[3:03:50] » Yes.
[3:03:50] >> should have been done two years ago. Um
[3:03:53] » should have been done two years ago. Um
[3:03:53] and then I um one other element needs to
[3:03:57] get done. I think it was the circulation
[3:03:59] that's
[3:04:01] >> okay. But but the but the overall
[3:04:03] » okay. But but the but the overall
[3:04:03] general plan update accepting those
[3:04:05] elements that are that are overdue. Um
[3:04:09] uh there's no we're not in risk of
[3:04:13] violating some timetable of the state
[3:04:15] for the approval of the new general
[3:04:17] plan. Right.
[3:04:18] >> Not for the rest of it.
[3:04:19] » Not for the rest of it.
[3:04:19] >> Okay. Um, you know, for example, you
[3:04:22] » Okay. Um, you know, for example, you
[3:04:22] mentioned the safety element. I mean, we
[3:04:24] haven't had a robust discussion yet
[3:04:27] about the nexus of the safety element
[3:04:33] and where development ought to occur in
[3:04:35] the community based on the high fire
[3:04:38] risk zones. There may be that with a
[3:04:43] further exploration of a topic like
[3:04:45] that, the conclusion that would be drawn
[3:04:48] would be that if development or
[3:04:50] expansion of the city uh development
[3:04:54] should occur, it should occur
[3:04:58] in some place not adjacent to a high
[3:05:02] fire risk zone. I mean, that's that's a
[3:05:06] possible. I'm not saying that that
[3:05:08] that's what will happen, but that's a
[3:05:10] possibility that an analysis would say
[3:05:13] we'd be better off having development on
[3:05:15] the southern end of the city, which is
[3:05:17] not a fire high fire risk zone than on
[3:05:20] the northern end of the city, which is I
[3:05:22] mean, anything north of Napa Street, as
[3:05:24] I understand it, is high fire risk. So,
[3:05:28] um I'm just I just I I guess what I'm
[3:05:30] saying is I I feel like all of a sudden
[3:05:33] we're rushing, and I don't like feeling
[3:05:35] rushed. I hate to make decisions feeling
[3:05:43] » So I think in the straw poll, you know
[3:05:45] where Larry stands.
[3:05:50] » Would it be helpful to go commissioner
[3:05:52] by commissioner and have each give
[3:05:58] three minutes
[3:06:00] of where they stand on the issue? Is
[3:06:02] that how you like to frame a straw poll
[3:06:04] or would you like to frame it in a more
[3:06:07] um what would be the most helpful for
[3:06:09] you to say
[3:06:11] or go commissioner by commissioner and
[3:06:13] say
[3:06:16] give three options do nothing leave it
[3:06:19] as it exists adopt SMU as it's written
[3:06:24] or come back to the table is that
[3:06:26] helpful to simplify things or no
[3:06:30] >> I'd rather have more general eneral
[3:06:32] » I'd rather have more general eneral
[3:06:32] conversation around it than making it so
[3:06:36] strict because I don't think that's
[3:06:38] really quite as applicable. Um, I think
[3:06:42] I already have a general idea of where
[3:06:45] some people sit in that and I can re I
[3:06:49] can state to you all what I hear after
[3:06:51] you say it and then you can nod, shake,
[3:06:55] disagree
[3:06:58] >> um afterwards. But I think just getting
[3:07:00] » um afterwards. But I think just getting
[3:07:00] an understanding of the where you you
[3:07:04] sit on the topic of the Sonoma mixed
[3:07:06] juice. Um that would be helpful. We can
[3:07:10] go from there.
[3:07:11] >> Does everybody understand the
[3:07:15] » Does everybody understand the
[3:07:15] directions? Okay. Commissioner Willers,
[3:07:18] we'll start with you.
[3:07:20] >> Me. Um so I'll try to keep my three
[3:07:24] » Me. Um so I'll try to keep my three
[3:07:24] minute promise here. Uh where I stand is
[3:07:27] I don't think we're in a position to
[3:07:29] make a decision that I I've been
[3:07:32] through, you know, we've been dealing
[3:07:34] with this for over a year. We've been
[3:07:36] talking about it for over We haven't
[3:07:38] been talking about it for over a year.
[3:07:39] We've been able to think about it for
[3:07:41] over a year. Um
[3:07:45] there are too many external influences
[3:07:48] on this general area to responsibly make
[3:07:53] a decision without more information. But
[3:07:57] one piece of information that we do have
[3:07:59] that was the safe study that came along
[3:08:02] that was a very thorough document that I
[3:08:04] spent a lot of time reading and it
[3:08:07] essentially says no hotel
[3:08:10] low density housing
[3:08:12] and you can't do it without improving
[3:08:14] your infrastructure.
[3:08:16] So to me that says if I'm going to pay
[3:08:18] attention to what the study says which
[3:08:21] is an independently
[3:08:23] um you know financed study and has
[3:08:25] people behind it that that aren't a
[3:08:28] third party so to speak. Um what it says
[3:08:32] to me is we have to study the situation
[3:08:34] more before we start applying um uses to
[3:08:37] a property that we don't know enough
[3:08:39] about.
[3:08:41] Um and I and I also think that the
[3:08:46] The special study area is something that
[3:08:49] we could possibly use within the general
[3:08:53] plan context to say that we recognize
[3:08:56] that this is an important piece of
[3:08:58] property that we're going to have to
[3:08:59] deal with in the future and what we need
[3:09:02] to do it as a community via
[3:09:05] the typical process of implementation
[3:09:08] measure. we have to do this within a
[3:09:10] certain period of time to meet the goals
[3:09:12] of our general plan and give us
[3:09:14] ourselves the time to do it and agree
[3:09:17] that we're going to do it so that it
[3:09:19] meets the goals of the 45 general plan.
[3:09:24] So I I my personal opinion is we either
[3:09:28] leave the zoning as it is and let pro
[3:09:31] projects come forward or we take the
[3:09:34] tact of introducing this as a special
[3:09:36] plan area and doing the studies in the
[3:09:39] future so that we can make a reasonable
[3:09:41] decision.
[3:09:44] >> Okay.
[3:09:46] » Okay.
[3:09:46] Bernett.
[3:09:48] Well, I've already said that I I feel
[3:09:50] rushed and I don't like feeling rushed.
[3:09:53] And uh so if that implies that uh we
[3:09:58] just leave things as they are for now, I
[3:10:01] guess that's where I would have to lean
[3:10:04] that um I don't I wouldn't feel prepared
[3:10:07] tonight to highly define how we're going
[3:10:11] to use these this uh these parcels. um
[3:10:16] because I I I don't feel we've had a
[3:10:19] robust enough examination or discussion.
[3:10:21] This is really the first time we've had
[3:10:25] uh back and forth or the opportunity to
[3:10:27] respond to the concerns of the
[3:10:30] residents. And I will characterize
[3:10:32] myself as I always have in any public
[3:10:35] capacity as resident centric. Um and uh
[3:10:40] I believe that um all decisions that the
[3:10:44] city makes
[3:10:46] have to be considered in light of what
[3:10:48] does the community want. And it's only
[3:10:52] through forums like this and
[3:10:53] opportunities like this that you can get
[3:10:56] a sense of it unless you put something
[3:10:58] on the ballot and have a vote. I've done
[3:11:00] that too. Um so um I I would support um
[3:11:07] Commissioner Willer's point of view in
[3:11:09] terms of the potential of looking at uh
[3:11:13] uh special plan
[3:11:15] or leaving it alone for now and um with
[3:11:19] all due respect to Jennifer and her
[3:11:21] goals and and and your timetable and the
[3:11:25] pressures you feel in the job you've
[3:11:27] got. I just I I hate making decisions
[3:11:31] and going with recommendations to the
[3:11:33] city council prematurely.
[3:11:37] » Thank you, Commissioner N.
[3:11:43] » I don't need three minutes. Um I feel
[3:11:46] strongly that I'm not uh after tonight's
[3:11:48] discussion, which is really the first
[3:11:50] discussion that we've had at at this
[3:11:53] capacity of a of a commission.
[3:11:56] Um, I'm not personally uh informed
[3:12:00] enough and would uh welcome further
[3:12:03] discussion. Um, it would be
[3:12:06] irresponsible for me to um to weigh in
[3:12:13] further until we had an opportunity for
[3:12:16] further discussion and I would want that
[3:12:18] further discussion for my own
[3:12:19] edification so that I can make a
[3:12:21] responsible uh decision on this.
[3:12:24] >> Great. Thank you, Commissioner
[3:12:27] » Great. Thank you, Commissioner
[3:12:27] Yes, thank you. Um, I I actually agree
[3:12:30] with all the comments that have been
[3:12:31] expressed by my colleagues. I came into
[3:12:33] this tonight not comfortable with a
[3:12:36] Sonoma mixeduse designation. Um, but I
[3:12:40] was unclear of some of the options. Um,
[3:12:43] I think uh, Commissioner Willer's
[3:12:45] recommendation for status quo is
[3:12:47] intriguing. I think there are still some
[3:12:49] inherent risks to that that I want to
[3:12:52] examine further. I appreciate the
[3:12:54] public's um recommendation for, you
[3:12:57] know, an SRRA. Um but I also think there
[3:13:00] are inherent risks associated with that.
[3:13:02] As some of you know, I'm very involved
[3:13:04] in state policy. I am not responsible
[3:13:06] for the land use policies and the
[3:13:09] housing policies that have been
[3:13:10] implemented at the state level, but I do
[3:13:12] watch them carefully. And so I'm trying
[3:13:15] to balance the risks of some of these
[3:13:17] recommendations because I think that's
[3:13:19] important. And I'm I'm equally intrigued
[3:13:22] by some of the other comments that were
[3:13:24] made about a historic overlay, maybe
[3:13:27] further examination of of our density
[3:13:30] designations. Um, I'm not trying to open
[3:13:33] up a whole can of worms here, but there
[3:13:35] those are intriguing proposals and so I
[3:13:38] don't feel terribly informed enough to
[3:13:41] make a a recommendation to the council.
[3:13:44] And I also really want to express my
[3:13:46] appreciation to the public. We have
[3:13:49] heard you. I did read those comments, by
[3:13:51] the way. There were there were a few um
[3:13:53] in the hundreds of letters we received
[3:13:55] that we're not reading them. And I can
[3:13:57] assure you that all of us here are and
[3:13:59] we've taken this very seriously. But we
[3:14:01] also have a job and um sometimes
[3:14:03] maintaining poker face is important, but
[3:14:05] we hear you and we value your opinions
[3:14:08] and I think we want to make the most
[3:14:10] informed decision that guides the future
[3:14:12] of this community. And I I do support a
[3:14:15] diverse community. So, I think um this
[3:14:17] general plan update is extremely
[3:14:19] important and we need more time.
[3:14:22] >> Thank you, Mr. Nova.
[3:14:25] » Thank you, Mr. Nova.
[3:14:25] >> So, um I too am not comfortable moving
[3:14:27] » So, um I too am not comfortable moving
[3:14:27] forward with just an overlay of the this
[3:14:30] snow and mixed use. And what I um you
[3:14:34] know, I agree we've been I've been
[3:14:36] really thinking about this a lot. I've
[3:14:38] heard from a lot of folks um and I
[3:14:40] really appreciate the comments and I
[3:14:42] think what I've heard tonight were also
[3:14:45] a lot of new ideas around um this idea
[3:14:49] of maintaining control, the idea of
[3:14:51] being creative about this. And I
[3:14:54] personally would like us to to move
[3:14:57] forward and try to incorporate some of
[3:14:59] the things we heard today as a a way to
[3:15:02] refocus the ability for us to maintain
[3:15:04] control um while at the same time not
[3:15:07] keeping the status quo because do we
[3:15:09] want the status quo for another 20
[3:15:11] years? I mean, I don't think so. But I
[3:15:13] do think there's an opportunity for us
[3:15:15] to create um a plan and I'm a fan of
[3:15:20] specific area plans um that that would
[3:15:24] allow us as a city to direct what we
[3:15:27] want and not be passive about it. Um, if
[3:15:31] there's a way, for instance, that we can
[3:15:33] have a specific area plan and also bring
[3:15:35] in an historic overlay to maintain
[3:15:36] control. I mean, I'd like to think about
[3:15:38] those kinds of ideas
[3:15:41] um for us to be able to direct where we
[3:15:44] want to go and have some control over
[3:15:45] it. So, I too would like to incorporate
[3:15:48] some of the things that we've heard and
[3:15:50] and refocus what's possible um with
[3:15:53] regard to not only the development code,
[3:15:56] but also the general plan and the land
[3:15:58] reuse.
[3:16:00] Thank you, Mr. O'Neal.
[3:16:02] >> Okay, set my three minute timer.
[3:16:06] » Okay, set my three minute timer.
[3:16:06] Um,
[3:16:08] I have to agree with everyone here. Um,
[3:16:10] one of my first concerns was I felt like
[3:16:13] we were jamming things when we really
[3:16:15] didn't understand the project that was
[3:16:16] coming before us. Um, hotels are not
[3:16:20] that
[3:16:22] in demand right now. They're hard to
[3:16:24] finance. If anybody was really excited
[3:16:26] about building a hotel, I know Darius
[3:16:28] Anderson is still trying to secure
[3:16:30] financing for his hotel. Um, the fact
[3:16:33] that this is a very high fire zone makes
[3:16:36] insurability a really important issue
[3:16:38] and for housing that's such an important
[3:16:40] issue. I think it needs to be uh
[3:16:42] understood very well before any housing
[3:16:46] can be built there. I think as we have
[3:16:49] any projects come before us, we'll have
[3:16:50] SQA that we have to go through. A lot of
[3:16:53] the SQA process we can't do until we
[3:16:55] have a project, but I think the HRE is
[3:16:58] one we could. I'm wondering how we could
[3:17:01] possibly because the site is there.
[3:17:03] That's not going to change. I'm
[3:17:05] wondering if there's a way that we can
[3:17:07] actually um
[3:17:10] get a historic resource evaluation for
[3:17:13] the site so that any developer coming
[3:17:15] forward knows precisely what they're
[3:17:17] dealing with, what's historic there,
[3:17:19] what isn't historic, what do we wish to
[3:17:21] save, what do we not need to save. And I
[3:17:24] know that's not typically done. We
[3:17:26] always do the HRE after the project
[3:17:28] comes to us, but I'd like to see that as
[3:17:31] a possibility.
[3:17:33] I agree that with uh Commissioner
[3:17:35] Donbach, we wouldn't really want the
[3:17:37] status quo. If Sebastian came to us
[3:17:40] right now and said, "I want to put in
[3:17:41] wine production in this neighborhood."
[3:17:42] We'd all go, "Heck no." And if you ask
[3:17:46] August Sebastian about when he was a
[3:17:48] little kid and they had uh grapes coming
[3:17:50] in at harvest time and he was the kid
[3:17:51] who had to go around and tell all the
[3:17:53] neighbors trucks are coming through and
[3:17:55] the neighbors weren't very happy. So,
[3:17:56] no, we don't want status quo. That's
[3:17:58] definitely not what we want there. But I
[3:18:00] think we do have an asset there that is
[3:18:04] a treasure but not the entire thing. I
[3:18:07] think parts of it are a treasure and
[3:18:08] parts of it we really want to maintain
[3:18:11] and we want to keep as part of our
[3:18:12] heritage and then other parts we want to
[3:18:16] repurpose and see them flourish and be
[3:18:19] more useful going forward. So I'm not
[3:18:22] ready to jump into the Soma mixed use
[3:18:26] commercial whatever zone. Um I I don't
[3:18:29] feel comfortable with that. I think this
[3:18:31] is too big of a test case for us to have
[3:18:33] a new designation on that makes me
[3:18:35] nervous because I personally don't feel
[3:18:37] smart enough to look at all the ways
[3:18:39] that somebody could take advantage of
[3:18:40] that. Um so my biggest ask is um what
[3:18:44] can we do about potentially getting some
[3:18:47] kind of HRE as we go through this
[3:18:49] process and having a community task
[3:18:52] force as was suggested that we could
[3:18:55] actually take this as a task force
[3:18:57] continue to on this, not wait till the
[3:19:00] next general plan, but continue to work
[3:19:02] on this knowing that we want to get this
[3:19:04] incorporated and get it taken care of
[3:19:06] very quickly. My three minutes went up.
[3:19:08] Sorry.
[3:19:09] >> Thank you.
[3:19:11] » Thank you.
[3:19:11] Um, I will join wholeheartedly in what
[3:19:15] my colleagues up here on the dis have to
[3:19:17] say. Um, I come from a position of
[3:19:20] wanting to preserve the last remaining
[3:19:22] levers of local control that we have.
[3:19:25] And in this case, um, what's represented
[3:19:28] by the the proposed
[3:19:32] Soma mixeduse zone, I think, seeds, uh,
[3:19:36] too much, um, you know, could seed too
[3:19:41] much local control to a level to an
[3:19:43] extent that I'm uncomfortable with.
[3:19:45] Um, I would like to see more
[3:19:48] incremental, gradual steps taken to
[3:19:50] marshall the evolution of this extremely
[3:19:53] special and historic place that
[3:19:55] contributes so much to the sense of
[3:19:56] place
[3:19:58] um
[3:19:59] of Soma. Um, it's just too important to
[3:20:03] to rush. Um, I'd be interested to hear
[3:20:07] to hearing more about a sight specific
[3:20:10] plan. I'd be uh really interested in
[3:20:13] hearing about specific projects. Um I
[3:20:17] think that this conversation has to
[3:20:19] continue. Um I'm not anti-housing. I'm
[3:20:22] not anti-development. In fact, I'm pro
[3:20:24] both. But I'm pro- responsible
[3:20:27] development.
[3:20:29] and
[3:20:31] uh in an environment, a legislative
[3:20:33] environment where the inclusion of
[3:20:35] housing where there wasn't formerly
[3:20:37] housing, it opens up a floodgates to to
[3:20:40] potential disaster in my opinion.
[3:20:43] Um
[3:20:45] that said, if there's a decision or a
[3:20:47] recommendation that has to be made
[3:20:49] tonight, it would be mine would be to
[3:20:51] abandon the concept of Sonoma mixed use
[3:20:54] and to stay with what we have and to
[3:20:56] explore options in the next five or 10
[3:20:59] years going forward. Maybe even
[3:21:01] curtailing what exists in the wine
[3:21:03] production zone to allow additional
[3:21:05] uses, light retail, wine adjacent uses,
[3:21:09] maybe even a boutique hotel. I have no
[3:21:11] problem with that if it's done well. Um,
[3:21:15] but opening the floodgates, which I
[3:21:17] think the language in this mixed use
[3:21:19] zone as proposed effectively does, I'm
[3:21:22] uncomfortable with it. Those are my
[3:21:24] thoughts.
[3:21:31] » You want your summary now?
[3:21:35] >> All right. Um, so I heard mostly keep it
[3:21:41] » All right. Um, so I heard mostly keep it
[3:21:41] the same, but there's a butt there,
[3:21:44] right? It's continue the conversation.
[3:21:46] Um, that they something it's going to
[3:21:50] change and helping it change in the way
[3:21:53] the community wants is important to the
[3:21:55] plane commission.
[3:21:57] That can lend itself in different ways.
[3:22:00] Um right now it would be to um just keep
[3:22:06] it the three different designations it
[3:22:09] is right now and then
[3:22:12] um two options. One a project gets
[3:22:16] proposed for that site.
[3:22:19] Um another option is that the you know
[3:22:24] go back to the table if we did do a
[3:22:26] specific plan we would need to give
[3:22:30] budget um to do such thing um or we
[3:22:34] would wait for a project to come through
[3:22:37] um so there's there's a different
[3:22:40] options out there um for this. I'm sorry
[3:22:44] that you feel rushed Larry don't want
[3:22:46] you to feel rushed. Um,
[3:22:50] I don't want you guys to feel rushed on
[3:22:51] any of this. Um, I know it's a big deal.
[3:22:53] I know that it's 20 years of planning uh
[3:22:57] into the future that we know is we don't
[3:23:00] know what that looks like in the next
[3:23:02] six months. Uh, and I know that's really
[3:23:04] hard. So, I recognize that. Um, so that
[3:23:08] is what I heard. Um, I do have questions
[3:23:11] around what that looks like just
[3:23:15] because part of that change that um is
[3:23:20] being proposed
[3:23:22] that Sebastiani historic district is all
[3:23:25] currently um zoned
[3:23:29] um actually wine production. Um, and so
[3:23:32] one of the changes that was being
[3:23:35] proposed is to modify that wine
[3:23:37] production on those lots to residential
[3:23:40] low.
[3:23:42] So I wanted to um clarify that keeping
[3:23:46] that change is still
[3:23:49] um good to go.
[3:23:54] >> Just those specific homes,
[3:23:57] » Just those specific homes,
[3:23:57] those single those little single
[3:23:59] residential homes
[3:24:03] on
[3:24:04] >> the Sebastian cottages.
[3:24:06] » the Sebastian cottages.
[3:24:06] >> Yeah, the little cottages. The
[3:24:08] » Yeah, the little cottages. The
[3:24:08] Sebastian, it's the residential historic
[3:24:10] district.
[3:24:12] Um,
[3:24:14] so those would be
[3:24:16] these little yellow ones right there.
[3:24:20] >> Sorry, what what was it?
[3:24:32] But they're consistent with all the load
[3:24:33] that's below it.
[3:24:38] » That density that density might be 15
[3:24:40] units to the It might be 10 units to the
[3:24:43] acre.
[3:24:45] >> I think it's around the medium is
[3:24:47] » I think it's around the medium is
[3:24:47] between the low and the medium. Um but
[3:24:50] it's reflective of the zoning that's
[3:24:52] across the street.
[3:24:56] So that's what that small change
[3:25:01] that I just wanted to make sure that I
[3:25:03] clarify. If that those little yellow
[3:25:06] >> if if you're asking for opinions on
[3:25:08] » if if you're asking for opinions on
[3:25:08] that, I have no problem converting what
[3:25:12] are currently residential uses to
[3:25:14] residential zoning.
[3:25:15] >> Okay,
[3:25:16] » Okay,
[3:25:16] >> that's just double checking. I just
[3:25:18] » that's just double checking. I just
[3:25:18] >> I would join in that.
[3:25:20] » I would join in that.
[3:25:20] >> Okay,
[3:25:22] » Okay,
[3:25:22] I am doing some cleanup. So those were
[3:25:24] one of the things. So I just wanted to
[3:25:25] clarify that that that would still
[3:25:27] change. Um okay.
[3:25:31] So I think that ends that discussion. I
[3:25:34] do I know it's 9:24
[3:25:38] but I do want the other two lots
[3:25:41] discussed please if possible.
[3:25:46] the other two lots,
[3:25:48] >> the memo on the f the um request
[3:25:55] » the memo on the f the um request
[3:25:56] >> on Levelvel Valley and then also on
[3:25:58] » on Levelvel Valley and then also on
[3:25:58] Sonoma Highway.
[3:26:05] » So, are we complete with this session?
[3:26:07] >> Yes.
[3:26:08] » Yes.
[3:26:08] >> Okay.
[3:26:13] » Five minute stretch.
[3:26:18] At this yeah at this point I will call
[3:26:20] for a fivem minute recess but a strict
[3:26:21] fivem minute recess reconvene at 9:30
[3:26:24] please.
[3:32:20] Yes,
[3:32:28] » we need to reconvene. It is uh about 30
[3:32:31] seconds past my strict five minute
[3:32:33] stretch break.
[3:32:35] At this point, I'd like to thank the
[3:32:37] remaining members of the the community
[3:32:39] who are in the room still. And uh thank
[3:32:41] you for your insight. Thank you for your
[3:32:43] time. Thank you for your your care and
[3:32:46] consideration and uh we're we're happy
[3:32:48] and we're glad you're here and uh your
[3:32:50] opinions and your comments help us to
[3:32:53] formulate our opinions and move forward.
[3:32:55] So again, thank you. And with that,
[3:32:59] uh I believe we are still on item 5.2.
[3:33:04] >> We are still on item 5.2. Um in front of
[3:33:07] » We are still on item 5.2. Um in front of
[3:33:07] you right now is the uh memo that was
[3:33:10] written in regards to land use change
[3:33:12] requests that have come in from specific
[3:33:15] property owners um um in regards to
[3:33:18] their own properties andor in
[3:33:20] collaboration with the property owner.
[3:33:22] So the first one is 577 um it's two
[3:33:25] parcels 577 and 711 Level Valley Road.
[3:33:30] Um the request is from agricultural to
[3:33:32] rural residential. Um staff did
[3:33:35] originally incorporate that into a draft
[3:33:38] future land use map for consideration
[3:33:41] um to incorporate it into the secret
[3:33:44] process. The request came in late um and
[3:33:48] knowing that we would still have
[3:33:49] multiple opportunities to discuss um it
[3:33:53] is um a request that would modify
[3:33:57] those two parcels. one is both are
[3:34:01] smaller than the 10 acre requirement um
[3:34:03] which is a one dwelling unit per 10 acre
[3:34:05] um on those agricultural parcels and
[3:34:08] then the change of those land use um
[3:34:10] property would allow two dwelling units
[3:34:12] per acre. Uh I do recognize that that's
[3:34:14] a big change um but rural residential
[3:34:17] does allow continued agricultural um use
[3:34:20] which is currently being done on the
[3:34:23] larger of the two parcels.
[3:34:26] Um so that is one. The other one um is
[3:34:32] on 1934
[3:34:35] zero and through 9360
[3:34:38] Soma Highway. Um these two um the
[3:34:43] request came in to do a mixeduse land
[3:34:45] use designation.
[3:34:47] Um there is mixed use on the property
[3:34:49] just to the south that is um a little
[3:34:53] smaller actually um in the commercial
[3:34:56] component part of it. Um this is all
[3:34:58] mixed use down here. Um this whole area
[3:35:02] was identified um as housing
[3:35:05] opportunity. I did double check these
[3:35:07] lots specifically are not identified to
[3:35:10] meet our regional housing needs
[3:35:12] allocation. Um unlike the Montalo
[3:35:16] property which was
[3:35:18] um housing opportunity is uh 30 dwelling
[3:35:21] units per acre maximum. A mixed use
[3:35:25] under the proposed change would be 25
[3:35:28] dwelling units per acre which would be a
[3:35:30] reduction of about five um dwelling
[3:35:32] units on these specific sites. Um and um
[3:35:37] that request came in. Both of them have
[3:35:40] uh letters attached and I do not see
[3:35:44] owner of Levelville Valley, but I do see
[3:35:47] um the director of the community health
[3:35:50] center.
[3:35:51] So with that, that concludes staff's
[3:35:54] very brief presentation.
[3:35:56] >> Great. Okay. Any commissioner comments
[3:36:00] » Great. Okay. Any commissioner comments
[3:36:00] or sorry questions? Commissioner
[3:36:02] questions based on director's
[3:36:04] recitation.
[3:36:06] >> I do have a clarifying question for the
[3:36:09] » I do have a clarifying question for the
[3:36:09] the first one is 577. I just want to
[3:36:12] make sure I understand the the image.
[3:36:15] >> So when looking at it on the right side
[3:36:19] » So when looking at it on the right side
[3:36:19] is that 577 that property that has a
[3:36:24] home on it and then the and that's 577.
[3:36:28] Uhhuh. This whole thing to here.
[3:36:31] >> What? Which one is 711?
[3:36:33] » What? Which one is 711?
[3:36:33] >> This one. This piece.
[3:36:36] » This one. This piece.
[3:36:36] >> Okay. So 711
[3:36:39] » Okay. So 711
[3:36:39] um
[3:36:41] already has a home. It's a smaller lot.
[3:36:44] So is is that it's but it's all on the
[3:36:46] same lot. I'm just really confused about
[3:36:48] >> it's two parcels.
[3:36:49] » it's two parcels.
[3:36:49] >> Okay.
[3:36:49] » Okay.
[3:36:49] >> The lot line is right here. Okay.
[3:36:51] » The lot line is right here. Okay.
[3:36:51] >> Right where you see those trees.
[3:36:53] » Right where you see those trees.
[3:36:53] >> All right.
[3:36:54] » All right.
[3:36:54] >> That's the lot line.
[3:36:55] » That's the lot line.
[3:36:55] >> And so the request is to change So,
[3:36:57] » And so the request is to change So,
[3:36:58] there's already a home on one of them.
[3:36:59] >> There is one home on this one. And then
[3:37:01] » There is one home on this one. And then
[3:37:01] there's two small units over here on
[3:37:03] this one.
[3:37:05] >> And so, the proposal would be to change,
[3:37:08] » And so, the proposal would be to change,
[3:37:08] let's just talk about the 711 that
[3:37:13] >> the proposal would be to change that
[3:37:15] » the proposal would be to change that
[3:37:15] potentially to the rural which would
[3:37:18] allow another unit on that even though
[3:37:21] it's not 10 acres. This is I'm kind of
[3:37:23] really confused about this. Agriculture
[3:37:25] is one per 10 acres.
[3:37:28] >> Um the change of land use would allow
[3:37:32] » Um the change of land use would allow
[3:37:32] two units per acre. So these two parcels
[3:37:36] are around nine acres of land.
[3:37:39] >> That little parcel 711 is nine acres.
[3:37:42] » That little parcel 711 is nine acres.
[3:37:42] >> No, combined it's nine acres.
[3:37:47] » Okay.
[3:37:47] >> So So for a total of 18,
[3:37:51] » So So for a total of 18,
[3:37:51] >> no,
[3:37:52] » no,
[3:37:52] >> it's nine acres total. line. Yeah.
[3:37:54] » it's nine acres total. line. Yeah.
[3:37:54] >> No, no, no.
[3:37:57] » No, no, no.
[3:37:57] >> Oh, yes, yes, yes. Sorry.
[3:37:59] » Oh, yes, yes, yes. Sorry.
[3:37:59] >> Total total potential
[3:38:00] » Total total potential
[3:38:00] >> total potential. Yeah.
[3:38:01] » total potential. Yeah.
[3:38:01] >> Units is 18.
[3:38:03] » Units is 18.
[3:38:03] >> Okay. And and and that's where I was
[3:38:04] » Okay. And and and that's where I was
[3:38:04] going. Thank you. But but obviously
[3:38:06] those 18 would be on that open a space
[3:38:10] because there's already home on part of
[3:38:11] it, right? It would be on the space
[3:38:14] where the lot line is going toward.
[3:38:18] >> Yeah.
[3:38:22] » Okay. Thank you.
[3:38:25] >> On that note, do we know the intent of
[3:38:29] » On that note, do we know the intent of
[3:38:29] the um applicants? What their intention
[3:38:32] is?
[3:38:33] >> Well, he he says in his letter that he
[3:38:36] » Well, he he says in his letter that he
[3:38:36] wants to continue the agricultural use.
[3:38:39] The the issue is is that if we change
[3:38:41] the designation, some future owner of
[3:38:44] the property then is governed by the new
[3:38:49] designation, not the intention of use.
[3:38:53] So what the present owner intends to do
[3:38:56] is less significant than what the zoning
[3:39:01] designation of the parcel is
[3:39:05] historically.
[3:39:08] I have a question. The
[3:39:12] land to the south,
[3:39:14] is that county or is that city?
[3:39:16] >> County.
[3:39:17] » County.
[3:39:17] >> Okay. And what is the zoning?
[3:39:21] » Okay. And what is the zoning?
[3:39:21] >> It's uh their version of a rural
[3:39:26] » It's uh their version of a rural
[3:39:26] residential. It
[3:39:27] >> varies. The density is
[3:39:29] » varies. The density is
[3:39:30] >> um
[3:39:30] » um
[3:39:30] >> attached to the counties.
[3:39:33] » attached to the counties.
[3:39:33] >> Sorry, I was looking for Mr. Woods. Um
[3:39:36] » Sorry, I was looking for Mr. Woods. Um
[3:39:36] he knows
[3:39:37] Um I can't remember off the top of my
[3:39:39] head. Um what
[3:39:42] >> one unit per two
[3:39:43] » one unit per two
[3:39:43] >> true something like that.
[3:39:45] » true something like that.
[3:39:45] >> So
[3:39:50] » so it it typically two acre minimum
[3:39:54] parcels
[3:39:55] >> one unit but it's heavily controlled by
[3:40:00] » one unit but it's heavily controlled by
[3:40:00] not public sewer.
[3:40:02] >> Okay. So the allowed densities in the
[3:40:05] » Okay. So the allowed densities in the
[3:40:05] county and their version of rural
[3:40:06] residential would not be
[3:40:09] not be equal, but it also not wholly
[3:40:12] dissimilar from what they're asking for,
[3:40:13] right?
[3:40:16] » So the difference would be nine.
[3:40:21] >> Does this have city water?
[3:40:24] » Does this have city water?
[3:40:24] >> I'd have to look to see if it's already
[3:40:26] » I'd have to look to see if it's already
[3:40:26] serviced or not. I don't I do not know
[3:40:28] off the top of my head.
[3:40:28] >> And it does not have city sewer.
[3:40:31] » And it does not have city sewer.
[3:40:31] >> I would have to look to see if it's been
[3:40:33] » I would have to look to see if it's been
[3:40:33] serviced or not. I mean, we do have lots
[3:40:35] within our city that are still on city
[3:40:37] water or sewer.
[3:40:39] >> Well, I'm just looking from a future
[3:40:40] » Well, I'm just looking from a future
[3:40:40] development perspective. Um, it if it
[3:40:43] has water and sewer and Yeah, I'd like
[3:40:47] to know
[3:40:47] >> it can have it.
[3:40:50] » it can have it.
[3:40:50] Where is it now? Where does it end? I
[3:40:53] mean, that's could be cost prohibitive
[3:40:55] if it's too far away.
[3:40:57] >> And that's something I don't exactly
[3:40:59] » And that's something I don't exactly
[3:40:59] remember where it ends. I think it's
[3:41:01] going to end probably at the development
[3:41:03] if it hasn't already been extended.
[3:41:05] It'll end at the development that's just
[3:41:06] north of Sebastiani.
[3:41:11] That's where currently it ends even
[3:41:13] going up Fourth Street. It was just
[3:41:15] extended to Brazil this year.
[3:41:19] >> Any more questions for staff before we
[3:41:21] » Any more questions for staff before we
[3:41:21] open public comment?
[3:41:24] Okay, this time I would open public
[3:41:26] comment. Anybody wanting to come speak
[3:41:30] on this matter?
[3:41:35] » Good evening.
[3:41:36] >> Evening.
[3:41:37] » Evening.
[3:41:37] >> Uh I'm Sarah Brewer. I'm the CEO of
[3:41:38] » Uh I'm Sarah Brewer. I'm the CEO of
[3:41:38] Sonoma Valley Community Health Center.
[3:41:40] Very nice to meet you all and be here.
[3:41:42] Um so we are um federally qualified
[3:41:45] health center. We serve 6,500 patients a
[3:41:47] year and we're also looking at the
[3:41:49] trends of healthcare needs in the valley
[3:41:51] and are interested in expanding and
[3:41:53] providing more care and better serving
[3:41:55] the needs of the community so we don't
[3:41:57] have to leave go to other parts of the
[3:41:59] county. Um we're also interested in
[3:42:02] providing housing. One of the challenges
[3:42:03] that we have is in recruiting and
[3:42:05] retaining staff and especially
[3:42:06] healthcare providers is housing. So
[3:42:08] looking to see if we can use this as an
[3:42:10] innovative way to retain staff and
[3:42:12] continue to provide the healthcare in
[3:42:14] the valley. That's our That's our hope.
[3:42:16] >> Okay.
[3:42:17] » Okay.
[3:42:17] >> Yes.
[3:42:18] » Yes.
[3:42:18] >> So, do you own these parcels? Is the the
[3:42:22] » So, do you own these parcels? Is the the
[3:42:22] health center owned the parcels in
[3:42:24] question that are being considered for
[3:42:27] this change?
[3:42:28] >> No, we don't own them, but we are hoping
[3:42:29] » No, we don't own them, but we are hoping
[3:42:29] to acquire them.
[3:42:31] >> Okay. So, um your intention is then to
[3:42:36] » Okay. So, um your intention is then to
[3:42:36] acquire them and with the change in in
[3:42:41] uh the zoning designation
[3:42:43] uh have the opportunity to construct
[3:42:48] lowincome or workforce housing on this
[3:42:51] parcel.
[3:42:51] >> Yeah. In in addition to the clinic.
[3:42:55] » Yeah. In in addition to the clinic.
[3:42:55] >> How do you mean in addition to the
[3:42:57] » How do you mean in addition to the
[3:42:57] clinic?
[3:42:57] >> Well, the idea Yeah. Well, we haven't
[3:42:59] » Well, the idea Yeah. Well, we haven't
[3:42:59] designed it yet, but the idea is to have
[3:43:00] there be housing and the the healthcare
[3:43:02] provided there.
[3:43:03] >> Oh, so you would move from the location
[3:43:05] » Oh, so you would move from the location
[3:43:05] that you were in.
[3:43:06] >> No, keep that one as well. But this is
[3:43:08] » No, keep that one as well. But this is
[3:43:08] just a few parcels down.
[3:43:10] >> Uhhuh. And so you would com you would
[3:43:12] » Uhhuh. And so you would com you would
[3:43:12] have both health serving use on the
[3:43:16] parcels as well as housing.
[3:43:18] >> Exactly. On this one on that the housing
[3:43:19] » Exactly. On this one on that the housing
[3:43:19] would not be on the one that's existing.
[3:43:21] >> That's quite an ambitious plan.
[3:43:25] » Yeah.
[3:43:25] >> Well, we have a lot of healthcare needs
[3:43:26] » Well, we have a lot of healthcare needs
[3:43:26] that we need to
[3:43:27] >> Well, I understand. in an era of federal
[3:43:29] » Well, I understand. in an era of federal
[3:43:29] government cuts to community health
[3:43:32] >> centers.
[3:43:34] » centers.
[3:43:34] >> Um so you have a assume a robust
[3:43:37] » Um so you have a assume a robust
[3:43:37] fundraising plan in mind as well.
[3:43:39] >> That's the idea. Yeah. Along with a lot
[3:43:40] » That's the idea. Yeah. Along with a lot
[3:43:40] of other
[3:43:41] >> Okay.
[3:43:41] » Okay.
[3:43:41] >> innovative strategies. Yeah.
[3:43:43] » innovative strategies. Yeah.
[3:43:43] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:43:44] » Okay. Thank you.
[3:43:44] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[3:43:46] » Yeah. Thank you.
[3:43:46] >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
[3:43:50] » Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
[3:43:50] >> Any other members of the public?
[3:43:53] » Any other members of the public?
[3:43:53] >> Mr. Granny, come forward. State your
[3:43:54] » Mr. Granny, come forward. State your
[3:43:54] name.
[3:43:57] Art Randy. Um
[3:44:01] I go up and down Levelvel Valley Road
[3:44:03] quite often walking, bike riding.
[3:44:06] I don't think the possibility of having
[3:44:09] that developed to the the rate of two
[3:44:13] per acre for roughly 10 acre site and
[3:44:17] that location uh suits the uh the scene.
[3:44:23] So there are a lot of practical issues
[3:44:26] as well which obviously everybody
[3:44:27] already knows about water, sewage,
[3:44:29] whatever lots of complications. Money
[3:44:32] can solve some of those to some degree
[3:44:34] but not at this time. Thank you.
[3:44:38] Any other public comments?
[3:44:44] Okay, I'll close public comment at this
[3:44:47] time. Bring back to the commission for
[3:44:48] commissioner comments.
[3:44:50] Any comments? Commissioner Willers.
[3:44:53] Um, for me it's all about edge condition
[3:44:57] and and it's and it and it does link
[3:45:00] back to our earlier discussion. Um,
[3:45:04] one of the one of the reasons that's
[3:45:07] stated in the letter is because we're
[3:45:10] considering adding housing to the
[3:45:13] Sebastian property. Well, we're not. We
[3:45:15] don't know what we're going to add to
[3:45:17] the Sebastian property at this point.
[3:45:20] And so, you know, you create an edge
[3:45:22] condition of growth
[3:45:25] and the other edge, the edges around it
[3:45:27] respond. It's California development.
[3:45:32] It grows from the edge out. And and so
[3:45:36] my I don't think that there's a reason
[3:45:38] to reszone this land. There's a request
[3:45:41] to reszone it. And I think the
[3:45:43] implications of reszoning it in my
[3:45:46] opinion are too great given the edge
[3:45:49] condition
[3:45:51] to to make it reasonable.
[3:45:53] So I am not in favor of this request
[3:45:57] for those reasons.
[3:46:00] >> The other one, you know, it's it's
[3:46:02] » The other one, you know, it's it's
[3:46:02] intriguing. It's zoned housing
[3:46:04] opportunity. Um I think the mixeduse
[3:46:08] zone is almost equal.
[3:46:12] Um I don't I have no issue with the
[3:46:15] mixed use zone being applied on the
[3:46:17] corridor here. It's the place where it
[3:46:19] probably makes sense to do it. Um it is
[3:46:22] also the area where we have opportunity
[3:46:26] to have you know it's good to know that
[3:46:28] it's not being used for reena numbers at
[3:46:31] this point. Um
[3:46:34] and it's current zoning is
[3:46:37] what's it?
[3:46:39] >> It's housing opportunity.
[3:46:40] » It's housing opportunity.
[3:46:40] >> It's housing opportunity. So it doesn't
[3:46:41] » It's housing opportunity. So it doesn't
[3:46:41] allow anything but multif family.
[3:46:45] >> You know, it's currently a mixeduse
[3:46:47] » You know, it's currently a mixeduse
[3:46:47] corridor already as a corridor. So I
[3:46:49] don't have any issues with that with
[3:46:51] changing that. I don't think the density
[3:46:54] the 30 dwelling units per acre is that
[3:46:56] great of an impact on these parcels even
[3:47:00] in their aggregate because
[3:47:03] it's all about parking cars as you can
[3:47:06] see next door to it. So
[3:47:10] >> great. Thank you. Any other commissioner
[3:47:12] » great. Thank you. Any other commissioner
[3:47:12] comments? Commissioner D.
[3:47:14] >> I will make a comment. Um I am also
[3:47:18] » I will make a comment. Um I am also
[3:47:18] supportive of um the um redesation um of
[3:47:23] to mixed use in this parcel. I think
[3:47:26] it's a reasonable plan. It it fits in
[3:47:29] with the you know the zoning around
[3:47:31] there and I'd love to support what your
[3:47:33] efforts in trying to bring housing and
[3:47:36] uh expanded healthcare to the community.
[3:47:40] With regard to the other property, um I
[3:47:44] I would agree. I I think that um I was
[3:47:48] also um moved by the fact that this is a
[3:47:51] zone where we need to have perk and we
[3:47:54] need to to, you know, recharge our
[3:47:56] aquifers. And I think we need to really
[3:47:58] pay attention to that, especially here
[3:48:01] in the south end where our aquifers are
[3:48:05] really drying up the deep deep aquifers
[3:48:07] and soon seawater will come in and that
[3:48:09] will affect our ability to be
[3:48:12] agricultural.
[3:48:14] So I
[3:48:16] I really don't support that change
[3:48:19] because of the density that would be
[3:48:21] impacted there. Um and not knowing about
[3:48:25] the sewer or the water also um adds to
[3:48:30] that. Um and thirdly, this idea that we
[3:48:34] also have to really think about our
[3:48:37] other water resources um and our
[3:48:39] environmental resources
[3:48:41] um I think are for me it's it's
[3:48:46] not appropriate to approve.
[3:48:50] » Commissioner O'Neal. Um, I'm in
[3:48:52] agreement. Um, the Arnold Drive, that
[3:48:54] sounds like a great opportunity. And
[3:48:57] further up the street there is some of
[3:48:59] the live work condos that, you know,
[3:49:01] there's a mixed juice area there. So,
[3:49:02] that just to me looks excellent. Um,
[3:49:07] Levelville Valley, uh, as a runner going
[3:49:10] up and down Level Valley, we call it
[3:49:11] Lake Level, and if you ride your bike or
[3:49:15] run out there right now, it's a very
[3:49:17] large pond, and you have to time it to
[3:49:19] get through before the spray you. Um,
[3:49:22] that area definitely has some water
[3:49:25] pooling issues and I think that there's
[3:49:28] just too much that we don't understand
[3:49:30] there to be able to jump and just say,
[3:49:33] uh, yeah, let's go ahead and do this,
[3:49:35] especially not understanding the intent
[3:49:37] and what where it's going to go with it.
[3:49:39] If we just go ahead and say, "Yeah, they
[3:49:41] can develop this property, put two units
[3:49:42] per acre, but we don't have the
[3:49:44] infrastructure to deal with that water,
[3:49:46] and we don't have what we need. that the
[3:49:50] runoff goes somewhere because if it's
[3:49:52] not going to go out into those vineyards
[3:49:54] right now, where's it going to go? So,
[3:49:56] I'm definitely not okay with making any
[3:49:59] changes on that until we have a much
[3:50:01] clearer picture of it.
[3:50:04] >> Your comments?
[3:50:08] » Um, I concur with the um
[3:50:12] uh the um
[3:50:16] what the hospital wants to do with those
[3:50:18] properties. And yes, It makes it makes
[3:50:21] all the sense in the world. It's already
[3:50:22] there. Um, regarding Level Valley, um,
[3:50:26] with a lack of intention,
[3:50:30] I'm not compelled to, um, I and a lack
[3:50:34] of information about what's going on
[3:50:36] there. Um, I'm not compelled to
[3:50:40] approve that. There's just I just don't
[3:50:42] know enough.
[3:50:45] >> Anybody else?
[3:50:47] » Anybody else?
[3:50:47] Okay, I'll just join in the comments of
[3:50:49] my fellow commissioners. I don't have
[3:50:50] much to add other than um I I join them
[3:50:54] in their analysis of uh finding that a
[3:50:58] reszone to to rural residential doesn't
[3:51:01] quite meet the test um as far as you
[3:51:05] know edge conditions and and um
[3:51:09] I could see if we were entertaining the
[3:51:12] idea of um housing on the adjacent site
[3:51:15] then it might be a little bit more
[3:51:16] applicable, but and by the consensus
[3:51:20] tonight, it sounds like we are not. Um,
[3:51:22] so for those reasons, I join in not
[3:51:25] supporting the reszone for Level Valley,
[3:51:27] but supporting uh the change to mixed
[3:51:32] use on this other site.
[3:51:37] And I will
[3:51:38] >> Does it need to be? I
[3:51:39] » Does it need to be? I
[3:51:39] >> I didn't think so.
[3:51:42] » I didn't think so.
[3:51:42] Okay. Um
[3:51:45] >> um
[3:51:46] » um
[3:51:46] question.
[3:51:48] >> Yes.
[3:51:49] » Yes.
[3:51:49] >> Um in the if there was anything in
[3:51:53] » Um in the if there was anything in
[3:51:53] regards to the elements, I mean in
[3:51:56] instead of going through them unless
[3:51:58] anybody had some very specific comments
[3:52:01] um is it possible to move those uh edits
[3:52:05] forward or do you want them I know or do
[3:52:09] you want them
[3:52:13] moved again to the March meeting because
[3:52:16] we've moved them so
[3:52:17] >> three meetings now. I think
[3:52:19] » three meetings now. I think
[3:52:19] >> I I would be willing to entertain what
[3:52:21] » I I would be willing to entertain what
[3:52:21] my colleagues have to say, but I would
[3:52:24] prefer to move them forward to March. I
[3:52:26] think that they're deserving of a little
[3:52:28] bit more conversation we can have at
[3:52:30] this point. And I I would like to hear
[3:52:31] 5.1 tonight, too. Um
[3:52:35] so it would be my opinion to to continue
[3:52:40] the the balance of 5.2 to forward to to
[3:52:42] the March date
[3:52:44] >> and uh and to hear 5.1 before the 10
[3:52:46] » and uh and to hear 5.1 before the 10
[3:52:46] o'clock hour
[3:52:50] » is there any
[3:52:54] » so the only input that I would make is
[3:52:56] that both of those both of those
[3:52:58] elements have very minor edits from the
[3:53:00] ad hoc because most of the um both most
[3:53:06] of the elements are driven by
[3:53:10] things we really don't have the
[3:53:11] opportunity to have any input on. Right.
[3:53:15] Um the safety element and the cultural
[3:53:18] resource element are primarily directed
[3:53:21] other than the way in which we're going
[3:53:23] to implement the the cultural resource
[3:53:26] are primarily directed by state law and
[3:53:29] so our general plan is consuming state
[3:53:32] law and putting it within it and
[3:53:35] structuring it. So I think the
[3:53:38] discussion would be relatively short
[3:53:41] um around those two because the edits
[3:53:43] are so minimal. In fact, one of them one
[3:53:46] of them we didn't really even edit. The
[3:53:49] cultural resource one we didn't even
[3:53:51] have any comment on.
[3:53:54] Okay. I I'd be willing to entertain a
[3:53:56] poll of who would like to continue those
[3:53:59] items within 5.2 to March versus uh
[3:54:03] hearing them tonight. Um, I want to
[3:54:06] understand if we do hear them tonight,
[3:54:08] what happens with 5.1
[3:54:16] » because I think that's a higher
[3:54:17] priority. But, um,
[3:54:21] >> so I I don't know. I'm I'm willing to go
[3:54:24] » so I I don't know. I'm I'm willing to go
[3:54:24] for another 20 minutes and we probably
[3:54:26] in my opinion we could probably get done
[3:54:28] and be done.
[3:54:30] >> I I suggest we deal with 5.1 first. See
[3:54:33] » I I suggest we deal with 5.1 first. See
[3:54:33] how quickly we can get it out of the
[3:54:35] way.
[3:54:35] >> That is my suggestion.
[3:54:36] » That is my suggestion.
[3:54:36] >> Not that I want to rush.
[3:54:39] » Not that I want to rush.
[3:54:39] >> That is that is my suggestion.
[3:54:42] » That is that is my suggestion.
[3:54:42] >> And and then we'll do it.
[3:54:43] » And and then we'll do it.
[3:54:43] >> Wasn't one of those colors tonight.
[3:54:46] » Wasn't one of those colors tonight.
[3:54:46] Sloth.
[3:54:48] >> Yes.
[3:54:48] » Yes.
[3:54:48] >> Yeah.
[3:54:50] » Yeah.
[3:54:50] >> Where did that come from? I don't know,
[3:54:52] » Where did that come from? I don't know,
[3:54:52] but it was on one of the colors. It was
[3:54:54] a sloth gray. And I was thinking of you
[3:54:56] not wanting to rush. Not that you're a
[3:54:58] sloth.
[3:54:58] >> What color is your house?
[3:55:00] » What color is your house?
[3:55:00] >> Sloth.
[3:55:02] » Sloth.
[3:55:02] >> Okay. So, that said, we are going to
[3:55:05] » Okay. So, that said, we are going to
[3:55:06] table 5, the balance of 5.2,
[3:55:10] and move on to uh item 5.1,
[3:55:15] interpretation of multifamily dwelling.
[3:55:17] And director dates, if you would please.
[3:55:20] >> Sure. Um
[3:55:23] » Sure. Um
[3:55:23] and there it goes. Um so um before you
[3:55:28] is an interpretation um for your
[3:55:31] consideration tonight. So again, strict
[3:55:33] adherence um it's about multif family
[3:55:36] dwelling. Strict adherence to of the
[3:55:38] definition in the land use tables um for
[3:55:41] multif family dwelling would preclude
[3:55:44] multifamily residential development from
[3:55:46] including multiple structures being
[3:55:48] plural containing one unit each on a
[3:55:51] single lot because the definition of
[3:55:53] multif family dwelling refers to a
[3:55:55] structure being singular
[3:55:58] in order to allow mix of residential
[3:56:00] building typologies and a multif family
[3:56:02] residential development. the existing
[3:56:04] definition of multifamily development is
[3:56:06] more accurate um as a land use type
[3:56:10] rather than um multifamily dwelling.
[3:56:14] So interpreting multif family dwelling
[3:56:16] to allow mix um of building types also
[3:56:20] um comports with our development codes
[3:56:21] rules of interpretation in that a
[3:56:24] development code provides structure that
[3:56:27] should be interpreted as structures and
[3:56:29] the term structure is defined as
[3:56:31] buildings being plural. So there's two
[3:56:33] different um ways to interpret that. In
[3:56:36] addition, while not specifically listed
[3:56:39] in the land use table, a multif family
[3:56:41] development does meet the same intent as
[3:56:43] a multifamily dwelling in the zoning
[3:56:45] district and is substantially similar to
[3:56:47] a multifamily dwelling in the sense that
[3:56:50] it contains more than two dwelling units
[3:56:52] on a single parcel.
[3:56:56] And so recommendation is to approve the
[3:56:58] resolution accepting the zoning code
[3:57:01] interpretation. So that would be for
[3:57:03] purposes of the use table under um our
[3:57:07] section 191050.
[3:57:09] Multifamily dwelling shall have the same
[3:57:11] meaning as multifamily development which
[3:57:14] already is defined in our code.
[3:57:17] That concludes my presentation.
[3:57:19] >> Amazing. Any questions of director
[3:57:22] » Amazing. Any questions of director
[3:57:22] Gates?
[3:57:26] Do I
[3:57:28] >> I need to open public comment.
[3:57:31] » I need to open public comment.
[3:57:31] Any members of the public wishing to
[3:57:32] address the commission? I see none.
[3:57:34] >> Also, don't you
[3:57:37] » Also, don't you
[3:57:37] >> bring it back to the commission for
[3:57:39] » bring it back to the commission for
[3:57:39] comment? Does anybody have comment?
[3:57:41] >> Okay. Neither do I. Is there a motion?
[3:57:44] » Okay. Neither do I. Is there a motion?
[3:57:44] Motion to approve the recommendation to
[3:57:48] change um the use tables under SM's E
[3:57:52] section 1910
[3:57:55] 050.
[3:57:58] >> Second.
[3:58:01] » Roll call, please.
[3:58:04] >> Commissioner Willers.
[3:58:05] » Commissioner Willers.
[3:58:05] >> Yes.
[3:58:05] » Yes.
[3:58:05] >> Commissioner Barnett.
[3:58:06] » Commissioner Barnett.
[3:58:06] >> Hi.
[3:58:07] » Hi.
[3:58:07] >> Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.
[3:58:08] » Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.
[3:58:08] >> Hi.
[3:58:08] » Hi.
[3:58:08] >> Commissioner Donbach.
[3:58:10] » Commissioner Donbach.
[3:58:10] >> Commissioner O'Neal.
[3:58:12] » Commissioner O'Neal.
[3:58:12] >> Yes. Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick
[3:58:15] » Yes. Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick
[3:58:15] >> I.
[3:58:16] » I.
[3:58:16] >> Motion passes unanimously.
[3:58:19] » Motion passes unanimously.
[3:58:19] >> Okay. Can we continue the discussion on
[3:58:23] » Okay. Can we continue the discussion on
[3:58:23] the remaining points of 5.2? Is there
[3:58:25] any objection?
[3:58:26] >> I I have a question. Does that include
[3:58:28] » I I have a question. Does that include
[3:58:28] the land use element or just the because
[3:58:31] the land use element is there. So that's
[3:58:34] three.
[3:58:35] >> So my recommendation is let's do
[3:58:39] » So my recommendation is let's do
[3:58:39] historic and safety. I'm fine with
[3:58:42] continuing for the fourth time the land
[3:58:45] use element or third time. I don't know.
[3:58:48] I think we started in December. Um but
[3:58:50] we'll get there. Um but these two I
[3:58:52] think are really short and I think we
[3:58:54] can get through them.
[3:58:55] >> Is there any objection to hearing those
[3:58:56] » Is there any objection to hearing those
[3:58:56] two?
[3:58:58] >> Okay.
[3:58:58] » Okay.
[3:58:58] >> And the first being historic and
[3:59:00] » And the first being historic and
[3:59:00] cultural resources. Anybody have any
[3:59:02] comments? Because this one's the
[3:59:04] easiest. I did present it to the
[3:59:06] Historic Preservation Commission last
[3:59:08] Friday. They do have Obviously, there a
[3:59:11] number of edits, so I will be
[3:59:13] incorporating those in the edits that
[3:59:15] will um go into that final version, and
[3:59:18] it's more for clarification purposes and
[3:59:20] and some key terms um around like
[3:59:23] cultural landscapes and uh intangible
[3:59:25] resources and and different things that
[3:59:28] um aren't quite in here.
[3:59:31] >> I just have one one comment. Sure. And
[3:59:34] » I just have one one comment. Sure. And
[3:59:34] and and it just um it was just a flag as
[3:59:37] I was reviewing it and I don't have any
[3:59:40] There was a reference in on page 138.
[3:59:44] >> Can you give me the the
[3:59:46] » Can you give me the the
[3:59:46] >> Oh, sorry. Um, it's the actions in
[3:59:49] » Oh, sorry. Um, it's the actions in
[3:59:49] support of goal essay-2
[3:59:54] item C.
[3:59:57] Oh, back down.
[3:59:59] >> I swear this is quick. It's just the way
[4:00:01] » I swear this is quick. It's just the way
[4:00:01] my brain is.
[4:00:02] >> Wait, you're talking about safety or
[4:00:03] » Wait, you're talking about safety or
[4:00:03] housing?
[4:00:03] >> No, I'm talking about I thought this was
[4:00:05] » No, I'm talking about I thought this was
[4:00:05] cultural. I thought this was historic.
[4:00:08] >> Yeah. HC HC.
[4:00:10] » Yeah. HC HC.
[4:00:10] >> Yeah. Two. Okay. Yeah. HC to
[4:00:14] » Yeah. Two. Okay. Yeah. HC to
[4:00:14] go down to goals.
[4:00:18] It's just a point of clarification. Keep
[4:00:20] going.
[4:00:23] Yep. Next page.
[4:00:27] See,
[4:00:28] >> you have reference to Senate Bill 18.
[4:00:31] » you have reference to Senate Bill 18.
[4:00:31] There's no reference to Senate Bill 18
[4:00:33] anywhere else in that section.
[4:00:36] >> So, I just don't know what it is. I
[4:00:38] » So, I just don't know what it is. I
[4:00:38] thought maybe we wanted to explain it at
[4:00:40] some point.
[4:00:41] >> Okay.
[4:00:41] » Okay.
[4:00:41] >> So, I'm just making note that that's my
[4:00:43] » So, I'm just making note that that's my
[4:00:43] only comment.
[4:00:44] >> All right.
[4:00:45] » All right.
[4:00:45] >> It's again, bills always kind of stand
[4:00:47] » It's again, bills always kind of stand
[4:00:47] out to me. So, but I couldn't find it
[4:00:49] anywhere else in the in the draft. So, I
[4:00:53] thought we might want to reference what
[4:00:54] it is.
[4:00:55] >> Okay, that's all.
[4:00:58] » Okay, that's all.
[4:00:58] >> Thank you.
[4:00:59] » Thank you.
[4:00:59] >> Sorry everybody.
[4:01:05] » Any other questions?
[4:01:07] related to this.
[4:01:12] You want to do the other one,
[4:01:25] » safety element. Um there were a few
[4:01:29] edits comments. Um I will be adding more
[4:01:32] around climate adaptation um based on
[4:01:35] what we've done in our hazard ation
[4:01:37] plan. I'm working with Sarah Tracy on
[4:01:38] that right now. Um and then also after
[4:01:41] the review of the hazard mitigation plan
[4:01:43] plan by um Department of Emergency
[4:01:46] Management and others, if we do have
[4:01:48] another opportunity to modify that,
[4:01:51] we're going to reverse also and and
[4:01:54] incorporate some of the things that came
[4:01:56] out of um the recent um evacuation
[4:01:59] traffic study. some of those details
[4:02:01] that are in there that don't belong in
[4:02:02] the general plan but really go into that
[4:02:04] hazard mitigation plan itself. So just
[4:02:07] FYI on that. Um so
[4:02:11] um just general if you anybody had any
[4:02:14] specific questions or comments on the
[4:02:16] safety element itself. Um there were a
[4:02:20] few um comments um in this element. Um
[4:02:25] just for also consistency sake with our
[4:02:28] other element, we'll be reformatting
[4:02:30] everything and and making sure that
[4:02:32] there's consistency.
[4:02:36] Um,
[4:02:41] and so there's just been just small
[4:02:43] little edits inside.
[4:02:46] Anybody have any
[4:02:49] questions?
[4:02:51] >> Any questions?
[4:02:54] » Any questions?
[4:02:54] All right,
[4:02:56] I think I have to reopen public comment
[4:02:58] for anyone interested in commenting.
[4:03:01] Okay, close public comment. Commission
[4:03:04] comments.
[4:03:08] hearing. Seeing none,
[4:03:12] Director Gates, are you satisfied with
[4:03:13] your feedback for those two elements?
[4:03:15] >> I just want to note that it took two
[4:03:16] » I just want to note that it took two
[4:03:16] minutes.
[4:03:19] >> I want to say the ad hoc rocks.
[4:03:21] » I want to say the ad hoc rocks.
[4:03:21] >> Yes.
[4:03:23] » Yes.
[4:03:23] >> Go ad hoc.
[4:03:26] » Go ad hoc.
[4:03:26] >> All right.
[4:03:29] » All right.
[4:03:29] >> Um,
[4:03:31] » Um,
[4:03:31] we have a 5.3.
[4:03:33] No,
[4:03:33] >> we do, but I can continue that one that
[4:03:35] » we do, but I can continue that one that
[4:03:35] really going to be that's really
[4:03:38] connected to the land use element.
[4:03:39] >> Okay. So,
[4:03:40] » Okay. So,
[4:03:40] >> so 5.3 is to be continued
[4:03:42] » so 5.3 is to be continued
[4:03:42] >> with the land use element.
[4:03:43] » with the land use element.
[4:03:43] >> With the land use element. No
[4:03:45] » With the land use element. No
[4:03:46] objections.
[4:03:48] All right. Director comments and
[4:03:50] announcements.
[4:03:54] » I I can't think right now.
[4:03:57] >> Commissioner reports and comments.
[4:04:01] I will just quickly say that I think
[4:04:03] Jennifer is doing an excellent job
[4:04:05] marshalling this general plan process
[4:04:06] through and it takes some serious
[4:04:09] patience to deal with
[4:04:11] planning commissions and all the various
[4:04:14] other commissions under your purview and
[4:04:16] um interface with the with a um to our
[4:04:22] consultant and be an intermediary
[4:04:24] between the city
[4:04:27] the various powers to be to include the
[4:04:28] city council on all your commissions.
[4:04:30] So, we think you're doing a great job. I
[4:04:32] think you're doing a great job.
[4:04:33] >> I second that.
[4:04:34] » I second that.
[4:04:34] >> Um, thank you for your tireless efforts
[4:04:37] » Um, thank you for your tireless efforts
[4:04:37] and um, keep up the good work. Hannah,
[4:04:40] you too, I guess.
[4:04:44] » Um, and on that note,
[4:04:46] >> motion to motion to adjurnn. All right.
[4:04:48] » motion to motion to adjurnn. All right.
[4:04:48] So, move