Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

I am uh convening and calling to order the April 17th planning commission meeting. Uh Natalie, may I have a roll call. Commissioner Nent here. Commissioner Willers here. Commissioner Barnett here. Vice Chair Hyrick here. Chair Donuk here. Thank you. I would like to point out that Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins and Commissioner O'Neal are absent from this evening's meeting as well as youth member Patterson. Thank you. Um, now next will be approval of the agenda. Does anyone have any uh motions to change the agenda tonight? If not, may I hear a motion to approve? Move to approve. Second. All right. Roll call, please. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner Barnett, yes. Vice Chair Hyrick, yes. Chair Donbach, yes. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. Now, we'll move on to the pledge of allegiance. Miss Kerry, would you like to give the pledge of allegiance? Would you like to lead us? Yeah. Thank you for an excellent leading. And now I will open it up from for comments from the public. Again, these are comments with regard to items that are not on the agenda tonight. Do we have any comments uh from the audience? Come on up. And please state your name for the record. Yes. Hi folks. Thank you. Thanks for letting us comment

tonight. My name is Becky Sager and I live on Wilking Way um next to the Sebastian Winery and my comments tonight um concern the uh proposed land use changes for the Sebastian Wery property. You've heard many of us um talk about this over the last few months and make some points that I'm going not going to go into detail on again tonight because we we've we've done that. I think you know what we what we um you know our point of view. But what I want to focus on tonight and reinforce is that those of us who are concerned about the broadbased reclassification of land use for that entire property to Sonoma mixed use are increasingly concerned and very frustrated that we've had no seemingly no response to our our suggestions, our questions, our comments, our concerns about the proposal. And from what we can see um and from what we understand in the current draft of the general plan um nothing has really changed except that um the housing definition is now high density which initially it wasn't defined as that or it wasn't defined as far as I recall and um the language around the commercial use is if anything broader uh than than what was in it before which seemed to specify travelbased visitor-based use and now it's fairly broad as Sonoma mixed use. So, we're concerned. Um, as you know, we many of us are not against developing this property. We see its value. We see that it's lying for the most part, but to make all of it one broad blank check, right? as it's defined now from our perspective, not as professional planners, it's basically saying, "Hey developers, whatever you want to propose here, even highdensity housing all over the whole thing, go for it. This

contradicts what we know about fire risk. It contradicts what we know about congestion. It contradicts what we know about the city's stated commitment to greenways and to public spaces. And all we're all I'm asking I can't speak for all my neighbors but I think many of us is that you reconsider the blanket reclassification of this land that you keep the agriculture and the park space that already exists and that you reconsider the density of the housing. That's all we're asking. If you look at the the Soma area fire evacuation study, which we've all seen, if anybody needed proof that our infrastructure doesn't support evacuation, that's it, right? It doesn't. you put, you know, a hundred or 200 or 300 housing units in there, the it's, you know, we, those of us who were here in 2017 know what what it was like, right? And then we just saw CalFire's new reclassification of the winery property and all of our houses around it as very high risk hazards hazard zones, right? And the city council's about to approve that on on Monday night from what I saw on the agenda. So, we're concerned and we really need your attention. And we really need somebody to say, "Hey, we're hearing you and this is what we think. We need to know how we can find out, you know, what's going on, if there's any chance to to reconsider any of this." And if you're listening to those of us that really care a lot about what's going on there. So, that's that's what I have to say tonight. I know I sound a little more heated than in the past and a little less objective, but that's kind of how we're feeling right now. Like we're kind of shouting into the wind a bit. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in the audience that want would like to comment on something that's not on the agenda

tonight? Seeing no one, um we'll move on to the consent calendar. And the item on the consent calendar tonight is are the planning commission meeting minutes from the March meeting. Um so I would ask if there are any changes or edits to those minutes from any of the commissioners. Okay. Seeing none, then I ask for a motion to um approve the consent calendar. Move to approve. Second. Okay. May I have a roll call, please? Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Barnett, hi. Commissioner Willers, yes. Vice Chair Hyrick, yes. Chair Don, yes. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And now we'll move on to the public hearing portion uh of the meeting this evening. The first item is item 4.1 which is a discussion consideration and possible action to approve an exemption request for an addition of an existing single family residence located at 370 Brockman Lane. So at this time um I would ask if the staff would like to give an update. Just give us one second to fix the technology.

Sorry about that. Well, good evening. My name is Jacob Dunn, associate planner. This item is for an exception request at 370 Brockman Lane that was continued from the hearing on March 27th. So, this project is located in a residential Sonoma zone in the southeast planning area on a 8,540 foot lot. A few questions were raised by the commission at the previous hearing regarding the project timeline and approvals in the surrounding area. staff uh has received a project timeline from the applicant which indicates that construction will begin May 4th and exterior construction or exterior work will be completed around June 15th with the expectation that interior work will be completed around July 27th. This is the image of the site plan which shows the proposed addition and its distance from the property lines uh and existing accessory structures. After review of projects in the surrounding area, there was no immediate neighboring properties with similar variances or exceptions and in accordance with the findings for exceptions. The adjustment is consistent with the intent of the general plan and doesn't change the use of the property or impact any specific plans. The proposed addition won't impede any natural features or negatively affect site conditions as proposed. And the addition is proposed in space that will not impact neighboring properties or result in negative impact on public health, safety, or welfare. Staffer recommends approving the exception request at 370 Brockman Lane for the addition to an existing residence, including action to approve the categorical exemption pursuant to section 15301 of the state SQL guidelines and staff's available for any questions and the applicant is here as well uh to present or to answer any questions of yours as well. Thank you. Thank you. Um before we go on, are there any exparte uh conversations that the commissioners need to disclose? Okay. And the applicant, if you are in

the audience and you'd like to come up for, please come up to the uh podium. Is there anything you would like to say to the commission before we ask questions? Um, yeah. I just wanted to My name is Francine. I'm the homeowner. Um, and I wanted to address um my neighbors concerns. I did uh watch and see the uh transcript from the last meeting in March. So, I just wanted to address those concerns. Some of the concerns were the timeline and I believe that um John the contractor did address that. Um and then some of the other concerns were um cars and parking. Um I know that uh in the past there has been lots of cars that were parked around my home. A lot of that was because um my I have I had a special needs son um and he required a specific uh vehicle just for his needs. Excuse me. Um he passed in September. And um he also had 24-hour care nurses that had to come and care for him. So we had lots of cars that were going in and out. Uh they did three hour three eight hour shifts a day. So there was lots of activity. But um um we don't have that anymore since he passed. Um and uh we're in the process of selling his the car that he had and so but we did move it off of the um lane. So um I just wanted to um address those concerns. Thank you. And um I'm sorry for your loss and I appreciate that you responded to our request for the timeline um very much. Would the commissioners have any questions for staff or for the applicant?

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um now I'll open up um for public comment on this item. Are there any comments from the public? Please come on up and state your name. I'm Jim Gade and I live at 384 Brockman. And my question was, I think I really wasn't clear on what was the restriction that needs the variance. Is it the amount of property that's covered um or what is it? Would staff like to answer that question? Yeah, it was in uh due to site coverage I believe is the uh the reason and this is still this is taking into account that there has already been there's a big pool structure that seems like it may have also gotten a variance from the rear setback. Um but there's a pool and a pool house. So there's a lot of additional coverage from when the house was originally done. So this is taking that into account. Yes, it includes that pool house as well. Okay. So did that require a variance the same variance? I it would I don't know if it was for the same purpose but this was for site coverage particular. So this went over the site coverage on this uh addition. So but this is from what was originally there. Correct. the the variance or the restriction of how much coverage there was was from when the development was made and the house itself was there. So site coverage includes the driveway, all paved areas and um the house and any structures are involved in the site coverage. And so when somebody comes in to request an addition, we look at all of that all improvements that are on the

site as the base and and it's going to be an excess of what that currently is. Most of this development was done under a planned unit development which did not um isn't necessarily consistent with what the code is today. So there's a good chance actually all of you are non-compliant non-conforming structures is what we call that. And so whenever you ask for a change to what you want to do on your site, in some cases like this, an exception is an allowance of an an additional 30% of what the zoning says. So not what you were developed under, but rather what your your zoning says. Okay? So in this case, it does include the house, the garage, all the driveway improvements and the pool. The pools don't pools don't count, but the pool the pool structure does. And that was calibrated in. Yes, of course. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That was it. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you for your interest. Anyone else from the audience? Any other comments in this topic? Okay. Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and I'll move on to any commissioner comments. Commissioner Wyrick. Sure. Thank you. I um distinctly remember having discussed this at the partner meeting and in reviewing the merits of it. Uh I I can make the findings to approve the exception and um appreciate the applicants uh show of good faith and attending the meeting and providing the information we ask for. And with that said, I personally support it. Anyone else? Okay. Then I'll ask for a motion uh on this agenda item. I'll make a motion. I will make a motion. I recommend uh approving the exception request at 370

Brockman Lane for the addition to an existing residence um including action to approve the categorical exemption. Second. We have a roll call. Commissioner Nent. I. Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner Barnett. Hi. Vice Chair Hyrick. Yes. Chair Donbach. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. All right. We'll move on to item 4.2. This is a discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve the use permit to modify uh the existing use permit to add an additional commercial use to the property uh for a food truck at 455 West Napa Street. So, may I have a the staff presentation? Yes. So, this next item is for a use permit to approve a new commercial use at 455 West Napa Street. The proposed use is located on a 8 840 foot commercial lot within the West Napa Sonoma Corridor planning area. The parcel shares a driveway and access to the neighboring lot where Safeway is located. To provide some context for the site, a retail scooter company originally called Sarrento Imports and later renamed Windo Motorcycles was approved in 2011. The mobile scooter was approved for Gelato in 2009 and was modified to an espresso cart named Cafe Scooteria in 2010. A drive-thru was approved for Cafe Scooteria in 2011 and a use permit to make it a permanent establishment was approved in 2012. Later in 2018, a modification was approved to increase the size of the cafe scooter. So, this project proposes adding a new commercial use for a food truck named El Coyote. Situating ballards uh to block the boat traffic through the eastern driveway, creating a protected area for customers to order. Modifying the drive-through access to 6:00 a.m. to 12

p.m. and only serving walk up customers after 12 p.m. Locating two standing tables in the protected area for standing guests. Uh the use of 148x30 portable sign, providing trash and recycling bins for customer use. and updating the operating hours for all of the uses on the site, which will be 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for Windo Motorcycles and Cafe Scooteria and 12:00 p.m. to 10 or sorry, 10 p.m. for LK Coyote. So, this site plan shows all three uses on the site. The primary retail building for Wingo Motorcycles is located in the southeast of the property with seating for Cafe Scooteria continuing to be located at the south uh just south of the mobile scooter. The mobile scooter will stay in the same location as well in the northeast of the lot. And when Cafe Scooter closes at 12 p.m., the food truck for El Coyote will be parked in the center of the drive-thru. Parking will be retained at the west side of the primary retail building for all uh for all the businesses. So, in accordance with the use permit findings, the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the general plan and commercial uses by encouraging smallcale local serving commercial uses and providing incentives for business improvement. The use is consistent with the commercial zone and could be considered a restaurant. And the use is also consistent with the current uses on the site and will not add any permanent structures or require any modifications to the existing structures. Staff is recommending approval of the use permit application for a food truck at 455 West Napa Street, including the action to approve the categorical exemption pursuant to 15301 of the state sequel guidelines. Staff's available for questions and the applicants are also present and available for any questions as well. Thank you. Um again, any exparte conversations of the any commissioners with regard to this topic? Okay, hearing none. Um if the applicant would like to step up to the uh podium and now I'll open it for commissioners to answer any questions.

Would you like to say anything about um the project? Yes. Um, my name is Nick Grim. Um, owner of Cafe Scooteria and trying to get Jose on board here with Hill Coyote. I'm sure you guys all know well. Um, he's got a looks like we have a good fit. We did this in 2017. We built a food truck and o and went through city council and got it approved for temporary use in that same layout that we're proposing. Um, his truck is even a better fit really sizewise. It's it's he has a good walkway around on at least on the back side on the building side which is already painted walkways in place from the previous business that's there. So with a few mobile we're looking at like maybe those galvanized troughs that we could put on wheels and make planters to use as ballards. We we have those in the in the pictures above. Um, with that, we would hope that we could maybe even keep those out front where we used to display motorcycles that can be part of Cafe Scooteria's operation and then spread them out for when El Coyote shows up and block off any potential traffic from coming in. But electrical and he's we already have electrical in place for him to hook up and looks like a pretty straightforward operation. You have any questions? Yeah, thank you. The commissioners have any questions for staff or the applicant? Uh, Commissioner um Barnett. Yeah, just curious um uh is this parcel separate a separate parcel from the Safeway parcel? Yes. Commissioner Wyrick. Hey, Nick. So, the uh the concept is that the Scooteria closes, right? Correct. And then uh you don't anticipate any traffic well scooter once

it closes and then the the use for El Coyote begins when that closes and it's just occupies the same parking and everything else. Yes, correct. I mean the you know as we close down currently that's a another exit out of Safeway and it's used in both directions. So the big concern is, you know, how do you completely block off traffic and make it not even an attempt that they'll make, which people will they'll take it onto the sidewalk if need be to save a a you know, save a second here. So with these planners, we're hoping to really just shut down the entire facade of between driveways, including the the uh eastern most driveway. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Nan. Um, full disclosure, I am a uh frequent flyer daily to the Yes. So, um, uh, and your staff is fabulous. Thank you. Just I love um all the the young kids and everyone that's working there. They're really great. They make it a lot of fun. So, um, is the truck is it is it moving every day or is it is it So, it will be coming and going. Where is it when it's not uh Cafe Scooteria. Will you join me for some questions? Good evening. Yeah, the when I'm not there, I park uh I have a commissary place on uh on um Siestaway. Yeah. Where I park my truck or also uh 10 Broadway. I have a place where I park my trucks there and uh when I close the gates and that's where I store everything. Okay. Okay. This is a second By the way, that was my next question. Is is the one in front of the skate shop going anywhere? I'm still there. Yeah, that one. I hope I hope that this one out there's nothing. The other one.

Thank you. That that answers my question. No, no further questions from any other questions. Commissioner uh Commissioner Barnett, are you related to Terry Grim? My father. I see. Am I in trouble now? No, no, no. I see him. I see him in you. How is he? Very good. Tell them Larry Bardette says hello. I'll pass it on. I will just make a uh Well, before I do that, um thank you. Um and now we'll open up to comments from the public. Thank you very much. Are there any uh comments from the public for this agenda item? Okay, seeing none, I'll close it to the public. Uh, and now open it up for comments from commissioners. Any comments? Commissioner Wyrick, I think the plan that's before us is uh is workable and I have no problem approving it. Um, I think it's represents the marriage of a few great businesses and uh look forward to your success. Any other commissioners? I'll also make a comment that I think is a great use and collaboration and congratulations for having a second truck and expanding your business. So, um, may I have a motion to, um, regarding this agenda item? I will make a motion to recommend the approval of the use permit application for a food truck at 455 West Napa Street. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Nent. I, Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner Barnett. I, Vice Chair Hyrick. Yes. Chair Donbach. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Congratulations. Thank you. Byebye. So, you're doing a record. You're doing all the first. We'll see what we got

this. All right. Moving right along to item 4.3. This is a discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve the design review application for modifications to a previously approved design review and variance for a remodel of an existing single family residence, including a new roof, front entrance, and kitchen extension located at 429 Brazil Street. Move over to staff. Good evening. Chair Donbach and commissioners. Uh first I want to point out I just noticed a small error uh in the environmental review check boxes. Although the uh SQA categorical exemption called out in the agenda title is correct. I just I marked exempt and and action requested. It's not exempt. So I'm sorry. I mean, it's it's a categorical exemption, but it's not exempt from you making the motion. Okay. So, as you said, this is for a modification to a previously approved uh project that was approved in August of 2024 located at 429 Brazil Street. This is located in the rural residential zoning and has a planning area uh of the northeast planning area and it is within the historic overlay. And this is just a image of the existing home. It does have an an existing non-conforming front setback. Uh but the proposed changes as noted in the staff report do not further expand any of the nonconformities. That's for the front uh non-conforming setback as well as the uh the non-conforming side set back. But I did just want to point out um in preparation of looking at the site plan um noticing that that projection of the house um that'll kind

of give you your bearings when you look at the roof plan and the site plan. Um and that's the portion of the roof and that gable there that's going to stay. So here we have the site plan and now you can see that projection on the left uh hand left side of the screen and that's the area that's going to stay. The rest of the roof is going to change. Um and that's a change from the previously approved project. And then you'll also notice that small highlighted strip uh near the top of the house. That's really the only um substantive change outside of the change to the roof and and the increase in the height. It's like a 40 square foot uh bumpout to accommodate interior changes to the kitchen. Oh, and you can also see the reduced setback um there at the bottom. That's the one that's that required the variance. I think it's about two two feet five inches. And then it and then it um a few feet later I think it's 8 8t 3 in or similar and then that extends out about I think 14 ft and so where it says existing wall in that yeah I'm sorry this site plan has like three or four different layers on it. Um so we're there's a lot going on. So I'm sorry what was your question? Well, I was saying that it says existing wall uh in that portion of the what looks like the sideyard that has two foot setback. So that's the existing structure, existing wall and then is the proposed roof then extending beyond the current dimensions of the existing wall? No, it's primarily the same. It changes just in a couple of sections that you'll see on the roof plan because of a shed roof

style and then it will project out a little bit further over that that um additional strip there that's highlighted. Okay. So, that part will be expanded upon the previously approved footprint. But all the new that was approved through the project approved in August of last year is uh the hatching that you see uh the rough hatching near the rear and then at the front porch. So here's the existing roof plan and you can kind of see the the simplicity of it and this was pretty much maintained in the previously approved project. And then here is the proposed roof plan. So they're changing um you can see the new the new truss runs in the opposite direction. So here you see it running north to south right in the center and then you can see it running the other direction. Oh, and you can also see the the shed roofs called out on here. So, I I don't have existing previously approved and proposed elevations for every single side. I kind of had to work with what was provided in the in the previous staff report. Uh so you might notice some inconsistencies when when I'm providing all of the details to you, but um the original approval include included a new 42 square foot uh entry porch and step and had a roof pitch of 412 and that was to um ma match the existing ridge peak and ridge height. uh and it maintained the overall height that the existing home currently has which was 13 feet 6 in. The proposed design changes involve the new roof on most of the home. Um the existing front gable would remain so you

you retain a lot of the feel of the the existing home. Um, but the additional the proposed additional gable and roofing would result in an increase in the overall height to 15 at the front elevation. This is on a slope as you probably saw. So, um, there's just varying heights on each elevation or at least from the side elevations rather. Um, from the front elevation, you can also see if you're looking at either of the top images and comparing it to the proposed image at the bottom, you can see that little bump out. It's about two feet of a projection off of the wall for that um interior kitchen bumpout, but the the peak conforms to the max height of 30 feet pursuant to development standards. So again, because the home is on a down slope, the overall structure heights vary. The existing height of the east elevation at the front of the home is uh approximately 11 feet 7 in. It's about 15 feet near the center line and about 12 feet at the rear. The previously approved project retained the center uh the front and center line um and the rear of the home increased from uh approximately 11t 8 in to 16 in uh 16' 4 in. And then here's just another view down at the proposed uh elevation that shows that shed roof style. So the previously approved project required a variance for the expansion of the non-conforming setback on the west elevation to accommodate the extension of the home towards the rear of the lot. Uh the proposed modifications would not result in a further reduction in those setbacks, but as also mentioned um in the report. The

redesigning of the roof is just something to take into consideration. Um, from the highest the highest uh or the lowest grade to the to the peak is about 18 18 feet 6 in. So, a couple inches or a couple feet taller than the previously approved project. And we did provide design review findings as well as uh the historic overlay findings um in a brief summary. Essentially, it doesn't really ex it doesn't ask for anything beyond what was previously uh granted um especially not in in the realm of uh variances. Um, but you may want to consider um the height and staff is recommending that the planning commission uh approves the project if it feels that the findings are met and um makes an action to approve it as categorically exempt existing facilities. Thank you. Um any expparte conversations with the applicant by commission? Okay, then I'll open it up for uh any public comment on this project. Oh yeah, I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you. We also have uh Lou Vieira with Verify Homes here if you'd like to ask any questions. Thank you. If you would kind of kindly step up um if there's anything you I'm I apologize uh if there's anything you'd like to say. No, thanks for having us. I think um you know the one thing I wanted to explain is the reason for uh the roof change in the first place is it's a really old house. It was built in I think 1946. It was remodeled once I think in 1985. Um but the center section of the house we started digging around in there and looking at how is this new addition going to attach and we found that um

that center whole center section of the house had sank. So it needed to be removed. So, at the point that it was going to be removed, you know, like, hey, this roof has to come off. Um, you know, they were like, well, if it if it has to come off, how's the easiest way to construct it? So, that's why we ended up just taking that gable straight through, which is really just an expansion of what it was before. It had a little gable in the front before. It's a little bit wider now, but it's really in good keeping with the style of Soma. So, I just want to say that. Thank you. Any questions for the applicants representative or staff? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for having us. And again, um I didn't sense anyone shifting from their chairs. So I'm sensing there's no public comment. Um so with that, I'll ask if there are any comments from uh commissioners on this project. I don't think any of the changes are significant from what we previous previously approved. Thank you. I mean, I would agree. It seems to be in keeping with um the original plan with minor changes and even the height seem is within our um code. So, with that, I'll ask um if there's a motion regarding this agenda item. I'll make a motion. Uh, I would make a motion to recommend the approval of the design review permit at 429 Brazil Street, including action to approve the categorical exemption existing facilities. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Willard, yes. Commissioner Barnett, I. Vice Chair Wyrick, yes. Chair Donach, yes. The motion passes unanimously. Okay. Congratulations. Thank you.

All right, rolling rolling right along. Um, item 4.4. This is a discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a use permit uh application for outdoor seating and reduction of available parking in the rear of the property, which is located at 31 East Napa Street. So, I will hand it over to staff. Thank you very much, Sher Donuk, and commissioners. Jennifer Gates, community development director. So before you tonight is the use permit um for outdoor seating for Mosaic, previously known as Sausage Emporium. So this again is located at 31 East Napa Street which is in our plaza um overlay as well as um our National Historic Landmark District and our historic overlay. Um it's about an 18 foot frontage along East Napa and it is um built around 1903 but it is not a historic structure. So again um this is an older picture um with the original sign for Sausage Emporium. Um this is a subdivided space. So the whole building is one um and it was subdivided into two spaces and is shared with um pang gloss sellers. So the applicant has submitted an application for outdoor dining in conjunction with their existing restaurant Mosaic again formerly Sausage Emporium. So in July of 2019, planning commission had approved a restaurant use with maximum of 20 seats, wine and beer service only and business hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week. Um before you is the outdoor dining application which includes 18 additional seats as you see here in the plan. accessible ramp, stairs, and fencing. The hours are proposed to remain the same, no amplified sound, and then the

lighting would be required to comply with our city's outdoor lighting regulations. So, during COVID, an outdoor dining space was in this um area um under the Alfresco program, which is why the fence um that you see if you're in that back area is up and was utilized for that space um to become permanent um access. it needed an accessible ramp and um and then also permission to remain outside that alfresco program. So um around this it is an old parking lot and loading zone for that building. So the applicant is proposing to use the existing parking that's in the rear of the property. The code does state that while existing parking shall remain, it also states that it shall not be reduced below is what is required by the chapter. So based on the code only Four grandfathered spaces are required for the existing restaurant use and no additional spaces are required for an outdoor seating area. For planning commission could allow for the use of that parking area for outdoor dining. Um and um the with the conditions of approval um provided by staff if they uh staff feels that this project would meet the use permit findings um as it meets um all of these. So we did receive letters of support for the project. they were uploaded and then one had been um submitted to me personally previously before um this agenda packet was released as well as um two letters of concern and those letters of concern was from the neighboring property um regarding noise and lighting and time of activities. Planning commission does have the discretion to modify the scope of the proposed use through the conditions of approval as it deems appropriate. staff has included the

standard conditions requiring our regarding our city's lighting and noise regulations. So, if planning commission determines that findings can be met as provided um and with the use permit to allow for that outdoor dining in the existing parking area in the rear, then staff does recommend approval of the use permit including the action to approve the categorical exemption subject to the findings and conditions as provided. or if the planning commission determines that they want to verify the compatibility of the proposed conditional use, planning commission can direct staff to return to the next planning commission with a resolution to approve a temporary use permit for up to one year. Um, and my understanding historically this has been done um consistently with some different restaurant uses or different uses in the past. Um so that is an option to you all and that concludes staff's presentation and the applicant is um here as well. All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come up come on up and would you like to uh make any comments to the Yes. Thank you. Well, firstly, thank you for having me. Um I am hoping to um get through tonight. I'm pretty nervous, but uh we've had 26 letters of support in our direction, and I wanted to thank all of those people who took the time. Um, one issue I did want to speak on was the letter that you spoke of now by Miss Redmond, and I was hoping that I could read my rebuttal to you because for some reason it did not make it into public comments. I think you guys have been struggling with it the last half an hour. I've had a lot of people bounce to me and saying that there's an issue. Anyways, I'd like to read my rebuttal to the Melissa Redmond submission. I write this letter in response to the Sonoma resident property developer, non-Soma resident property

developer Melissa Redmond's public comment regarding not bringing this application to her first. We use the proper channels via the city to alert neighbors of our application, a service we pay for on our application fee of $2,500. In 10 years doing business in Sonoma, never has anyone come to us with discussions prior, especially for such a small issue. Miss Redmond describes it as a significant project, an inflated comment designed to mislead. When we first applied for the parklet in 2001 after paying rent for 26 months, unable to operate, desperate for a parklet, she was the first to object. When asked politely three to four times to move her planter that is in front of our business, infringing on needed inches towards our permitted sidewalk seating, having only been granted 20 seats inside, desperate to utilize that permit, met with silence. This week, and only this week, has that pot been positioned appropriately in conjunction with her submission. I've submitted photos online as well. You can't see those of where it was and where it is now. And that took three years to get some kind of compliance. When proposing Miss Redmond's courts discontinue putting full garbage cans purposely next to my diners, eating outside, an obvious health code concern, we were met with aggression, belittled and verbally assaulted in front of my own customers on the street by the Chico's general manager. An incident in which I followed with an apology and offered a bottle of champagne. I was met with more hostility and later forced to lodge an HR complaint with Chico's corporate. All of which Miss Redmond is aware of. Miss Redmond takes issue with my putting patio seating in the rear of our building to finally open at all in COVID and approved by my landlord and

permitted in this city via the Alfresco dining. The allowance and uses was 18 seats, the same as I request tonight. As a former breakfast and lunch concept, while we have and have had permission to be open at night, we were not open at night with that concept. Stating music, lights, and loud music for up to 40 people, keeping her tenants up at night for a year in COVID is a myth truth designed to mislead you. We were a breakfast, lunch, restaurant. Miss Redmond also implies, I have a habit of taking advantage of permission. And while I certainly don't appreciate the attempt on my character and remain unsure what she means, I've only ever used permissions granted by this city. In fact, our only official complaint ever originated from Miss Redmond herself. The actual Oh, pardon me. This is a big one. We are concerned about her comments regarding garbage. She states there are 17 cans of garbage used by us and left on the street, creating a problem for her tenants is a gross exaggeration. The actual number of garbage cans put out by us on the street is four. I also include pictures that I'll somehow get to. We do not decide where it's collected or on what days. Nobody does. Collections spanning sometimes over two days. Our immediate neighbors have 11 cans and they are positioned in a similar way. Again, dictated by Soma Garbage. Below is the weekly setup. There's a picture that includes a neat, tidy row of my four and our neighbors. Regarding business activity, we will only be respectful and considerate. I understand noise, smells, lights are a concern to residents who choose to live in our business district. However, one must accept the historic plaza has been the hub of this town since 1823. Any urban activity increases in that activity should be expected by the city and both by landlords and residents. No property developer like Miss Redmond develops residential spaces

on top of retail units on a main plaza and promises a noise-free environment. Ironically, Miss Redmond's current advertisement below, which I have included, uses shops and the theater as selling points to her customers. Miss Redmond mentions both Koshan and Darling Tasting Rooms, both businesses we count as friends. They are also our customers and lovely people and both have lovely outdoor seating of their own. Miss Redmond states, "Nobody is happy at the ideas of having the same exact thing." Why? As of today, neither have submitted any issues for public comment. It would seem Miss Redmond's request to limit our patio's functions in particular would be an undue hardship to us. We have been through enough. 26 months of rent and COVID paid unempting, signage, lighting, and outdoor cooking is interesting as this happens regularly with our shared neighbor without objection by us or her. setting a precedence for allowance and acceptance. Additionally, I include a photo of Miss Redmond's property from our property in which we are clearly able to see her property signage and lighting. We would like to go on record that we have zero plausible objection to any of that. We are reasonable people. I also believe that the entire property of courts keeps their lights on all hours of the night, likely disturbing their residents far more than I ever could. I include pictures of what we see from our property day and night. And I'm almost done and I apologize. Thank you for listening. Miss Redmond on many

occasions has had construction noise with saws and drills, leaf blowers, and early morning maintenance working without notice to neighbors. Miss Redmond also actively allows workers to get on her roof via our rear access without permission or advanced notice, creating a liability for us. While it is a concern to have an unhappy neighbor, the amount of exaggerating in an attempt to mislead this council gives me great pause and does little towards goodwill as a neighbor. It is my request you consider the dozens of letters of support. I know not everybody is always happy with growth, but we really do need this. And I think we did a beautiful job previously based on your allowance. We think that those letters better outline our genuine struggles, sacrifices, honesty, and positive contribution to this plaza. I please ask that you approve my request. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Before you sit down, um um first of all, I forgot to ask if there was exparte conversations with the applicant and any commissioner. No. So then before you sit down, do did do the commissioners have any questions for staff or the applicant? My only question has anybody ever complained to you directly about noise? Your neighbors noise? Noise? No. Uh once complained about the smell of for a restaurant and that happens. Okay, that's my only question. Yeah, thank you. Anyone else? No. Okay, with that, I'd like to Thank you. Yeah, of course. Thank you. Um, I'd like to open it up for any public comment. Would anyone like to step forward regarding this item? Please state your name. Thank you. My name is Robert Brown. I'm a 20 year resident of Soma. Um, I've had the pleasure of knowing knowing the applicants for a long time. In fact,

during COVID, we sort of co-quarantine and I got to hear all the, you know, sort of the playbyplay they went through trying to get this open and continue to pay rent and be good citizens of the community. Also, I am a founding partner and of a Soma based real estate firm, which has the dubious distinction of being above Steiners, which is always fun. Um and and part of our real estate holdings are numerous restaurants where we're both the landlord and the uh we're also invested as um in the operations. And one thing I can say is that it's tough out there for these guys between u just cost of goods, insurance, just everything, utilities, everything makes it very very tough. And one thing I hear across the board is they need more tables. They need more they need to be able to to bring people in and and as you know, Sonoma doesn't have multiple seings. When people show up, you need to have a place for them to sit. So, it's important that they have that. Um, so I think that what these guys have proposed is a, you know, a sound, reasonable proposal. I think that the plaza needs, you know, diversity. We need restaurants. We need, you know, a mix of tasting rooms. It needs to be well balanced. So, I think that that's important. Um, also, coincidentally, when I moved here 20 years ago, um, I couldn't find a place to live. So, actually rented an apartment across the street from LA, um, knowing that I was going to be in a vibrant downtown walkable, you know, space to the plaza. So, I think that, you know, when you do that, you know what you're getting into. And it's, you know, it's a pro and a con. And I think that this is a a valid proposal that allows them to survive. So, I encourage you guys to

approve this. Thank you. Thank you. Any comments from commissioners? Commissioner. Well, having lived on the plaza for 20 years, for the first 10 years here, actually, um you live there, you accept what the plaza is honestly. And if once we couldn't accept that, we moved and we found a different place to live because it didn't suit our lifestyle. Um, you know, and we also as a commission um made the decision that outdoor seating would no longer have a parking load to encourage it. And so um that's one of the reasons why uh this project can actually even be applied for um is because that additional seating doesn't have any additional parking requirement. And we saw it as a positive when we approved it. And I think this is proof that it is. It allows a business to um have a little bit of additional opportunity. It also gives people the opportunity to sit outside in our um you know in our environment and in so and enjoy it. So I I don't see any issue with this project at all. Thank you, Commissioner Barnett. Well, in my youth, I lived in uh Manhattan and New York where you customarily have uh buildings with residences on the second, third, fourth floor and restaurants and retail and commercial uses on the ground floor. It's uh part of the fabric of uh uh an urban setting as Sonoma I think had more of that in the past than it does now. Um and yet and while there are some people

whose opinion is I wouldn't want to live downtown. It's too noisy. It's too crowded. So on and so forth, there are people who love that environment. They like the action. They like to be able to pop out of the door of their place and uh walk a couple of doors down the street and get a bite to eat and listen to some music and go back home and uh uh uh I I'm reminded of the Leonard Con song of the famous blue raincoat in which he talks about his music on Clinton Street all through the evening. I mean, this is just part of the fabric of an urban landscape. And uh so um like uh Commissioner Willers, I had a business a half a block from the plaza for 13 years, a bed and breakfast in and I got used to the the pace and the lifestyle of being by the plaza. Um, when the restaurant Pott was down there, it became this is actually my second kitchen. And I'd head down there and buy uh stuff for dinner or a loaf of garlic bread with and uh, you know, it was great. I I I loved being in a an active area in the part of town. And when we decided to uh get a quieter lifestyle, that's we did. So, um I don't see any difficulties with this project and uh when it comes up, if a motion is made, I will support it. Thank you. Any other comments? Uh Commissioner Nent, I'm trying to get the visual in my head. So, you have I know where Mosaic is and I actually had an office East Napa. Who's on who's on the If you're

facing your door, who is on the right hand side? Is that Oso? Okay. Okay. So, they are the Yeah. So, Are you is is are you the same building as Okay, I got it. So, I see 25. Um well, I um my my sentiment is echoes what my fellow commissioners have said and I have no um I do not have an issue with this project. All right. Thank you. Um Commissioner Hyrick. Yeah. So, in the in the world of planning, we talk about the highest and best use of land and spaces. And um if this very small strip here was at one point a parking space, but instead it could provide 18 tables that support seats that support your business, a business that um we would want to encourage uh to to thrive here in our community. And um would you know, the community at large as an employer, a place to eat, a place to frequent, a place to sit. Um, on balance, to me, that is the highest and best use for that piece of land. And, um, if you, you know, move to or or choose to stay in an area, residential um, unit that is adjacent to the the hub of our of our city's commerce, then you take with it the the sights, the sounds, and the smells. um that they go along. So, I have no

problem at all approving this. Thank you. And I'll just comment that, you know, I appreciate that the applicant will comply with all of our lighting and noise um code. Um and that, you know, this is slow. I mean, it's not like it's New York City. So, um the the decibb of potential sound um what we would hope with and um exactly. So, um so I'm I'm also supportive. Um so with that um and if there are no more comments, I will ask for a motion on this item. I will move for I didn't realize I was in competition. Well, you you were going for the triac. We were going for the trifecta. Yeah. Hate hate to deny it to you. Yeah. Um I will make a motion to uh approve use permit application for outdoor seating and reduction of available parking at the property located at 31 East Napa Street, including action to approve a categoral exemption. Second. Ah, roll call, please. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner Barnett, I. Vice Chair Hyrick, yes. Chair Donbach, yes. The motion passes unanimously. All right. So, so far so good. So, we'll move on to item 5.1, which is a discussion and consideration of draft changes to the design review process. And with that, I will open it up to

staff. All right. Um, good evening again. Um, so before you tonight is a study session. This isn't a public hearing for the themselves. So, tonight's more about just talking through the proposed changes to the design review. So, this is based on the ad hoc committee presentation in December. And then we had a second um meeting with the ad hoc and commissioner Willers at the um gosh few weeks ago um and went over the proposed u changes that are before you today and um I am here to share with the rest of you and so if there's any questions that we have throughout I'm open to that discussion seems to be that we have emptied the room So we will keep the study session a little bit more informal. Um so again major design review really wanted to focus on what we wanted to bring to planning commission. Um so that's the major change um that you'll see throughout the document that we provided is no longer um going to design review um historic preservation commission for design review. um projects. We're seeing a lot more combination um projects that are you or projects that are requiring exemptions or variances or things. Um and so um there really aren't that many just design review that would be triggered under this new um way of looking at it. So that's why we're going to be making a recommendation that it just goes to planning commission. The other part of it is major design review based on our discussion is it's going to be very specific in regards to the commercial

and public buildings and then residential buildings that are located in within our historic overlay or have been listed or determined eligible for listing in our local register. So no longer reviewing projects outside of the overlay that aren't historic. Make sense? Okay. So before you on the screen, it's talking specifically about the commercial and public buildings that would go to major design review being any new structures, any additions greater than 25% or 800. Before we had talked about just having the 800 staff's making the recommendation to have a percentage and that was discussed um with the ad hoc committee. Um and then also any exterior modifications that are visible from the public right of way. the other staff um recommended change that was discussed with the ad hoc was or areas accessible to the public. Um we have a lot of spaces that are in the commercial like downtown area that even the the rear of the structure I think is just as important because they are access points for us but in some other zones the rear is not uh visible. Residential buildings located in historic overlay list are determined eligible for listing in the local register. Again, any new structures and then the addition greater than 25% or 500 square f feet of the existing gross floor area, whichever is less additions that create a new upper story or exceed a height of 15 ft above the adjacent finished grade elevation. And we um per our discussion added the code section that talks about height and then any again exterior modifications that are visible from the public right of way. Any questions about the ones on the screen right now? Yes. Okay. Um, pertaining to residential. Um, so

we're essentially incorporating a special regulation within our codes for residential buildings in the historic overlay in that usually second stories are allowed by right on residential buildings. Um this this would then if I understand it correctly create a regulation for residential buildings in the historic zone. Um actually currently design review is triggered just by a roof modification a major design review. So any change to the roof that's currently existing requires design review in the historic overlay or buildings older than 45 years. Okay. Um, so this is no change basically. No change. It's just clarifying specifically that the only basic roof modifications that it would actually trigger a major design review are those that are going to create that new upper story. Okay. Thank you. Uhu. Also looking at um major design review triggers um specifically new residential development consisting of five or more units um including the single family development and then new multif family residential buildings that do not comply with the applicable design standards. And so this would be taking into consideration that um chapter 19.43 exists. Um currently it's applied to um multifamily projects that are going through a ministerial process in accordance with state law. And so this would expand that we could apply those objective design standards to all multifamily projects. And it's specifically written right now that the ministerial application um if they use objective design standards they can continue through the ministerial process. If they didn't it

would trigger design review. So, it is consistent. Um, new or improvements to existing parking facilities with 10 or more parking spaces. That's consistent with currently what we have. And then modifications of previously approved design review plans except as otherwise provided in subsection D and D. This is a section that um I'll come back to, but something to to think about. It's what we talked about a little bit in our ad hoc that we wanted to have more discussion around is um what today you approved you know a modification to a previously approved design review plan. The reason why we brought it back to you was because those modifications actually triggered design review. And so there's you can treat it like that if the actual modification would trigger design review or if what you approved and they want to modify anything that you've already approved that's not within substantial conformant that's under that I can do um would go to you all automatically that makes sense and then C and D um is going to be the minor review and then D being the ex uh exemptions. So, um, going back, I actually have a question on number three, just for clarification. So, when you talk about single family development, do you mean a single family zone? So, a like a subdivision, let's say somebody wanted to split up their lot. Okay. And when we talking, and we can get more into specifics, like making sure our definitions are a little bit clearer. When we're talking about multif family residential buildings, we're talking about multiple units within structures versus when we do five or more units, thinking more of um where we're creating either a subdivision or or other types um within that space. Um if that makes

sense. Yeah, I think it does because we I think the maximum that we approved would be just a quad flex. Correct. Yeah. All right. So minor design review. So the difference between major and minor, we're bringing back the minor design review as administrative process. I'll have another slide here in a minute that actually talks about that process, but it would be a process in which staff is doing the approval, but we're still going to have um a noticing period, but I'll get into that in a little bit. So what would trigger a minor design review um is the commercial and the public buildings. again um basically less than 25% of the 800 square f feet and then exterior modifications that are not visible from the public right of way um or accessible to the public. The other would be residential buildings again located in historic overlay or determined to be um eligible listed or eligible on the local register. So, new accessory structures that are consistent with all of our development criteria. So, that's what the code allows. Um, additions less than 25% or 500 ft of existing gross floor area. Additions that do not create a new upper story and do not exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation and any exterior modifications that are not visible from the public right of way or areas accessible um to the public. This is allowing still a public process um around our historic area or historic overlay area and then um actual properties that are listed or eligible for historic resources again. So, it's still allowing that public process and that review um but it is not

um what we're doing is removing the review process for a building just because it's 45 years old. Yes. a lot of your work. Anything else? Um so, um then we're minor design review will be the two to four units that we talked about. Um so, and then improvements to existing parking facilities that are the less than 10 parking spaces, previously approved plans again that we talked about in the major design review. Um unless it's exempt, which is what section D is. Um, any new construction not in compliance with the development standards is another point of discussion. Um, so if it doesn't, let's say that an application is um being requested, but it doesn't comply with our development standards um that are in our code um that will have potential to pose an impact to a neighboring property. The question is, do we want a design review process around that? Um and then if a project normally exempt under D, but uh staff determines um that it is going to pose an potential impact to a neighboring property, then again, we would bring it forward. There's not a lot of examples I could think of. It's just kind of like a catchall at the end. Um because in most cases, um a potential impact to a neighboring property are those that are already going to come before you for a variance or an exception, um like a continuation of a non-conforming setback. And so the question is somebody comes forward to you and says I want to do you know an twotory you know five

foot setback edition does that need design review with that or is that just um the ask for an exception or a variance things to think about we can always come we're going to come back any questions about what you see before you on this slide though yeah I have a question about what you just said so um just could you give me example situation um where you a design review would be important in that circumstance. I mean that that isn't already at your discretion of complying or not. So when we talk about um the exception findings, right, let's just be specific on that one. you have specific findings that you're meeting and it's more about does that structure regardless of what it looks like can you make the findings for that and sometimes it's about how it's designed that may be more of what you think about um you know most cases it's going to be consistent with what the existing structure is um are there different ways we can treat a roof line so that we reduce, you know, overhangs or impacts. Um, you could treat it just as a structure and a a box is sometimes how I think of standards. They're they're the box that I build within and then what it looks like is the design side of it. Um, so that would be kind of that idea and that's why I'm leaving it on the table as far as if that's something of interest, not that it has to be or that we're gung-ho about it. It was just something I've seen in another ordinance. Yeah. I'm just wondering

under what circumstances that a design would be so egregious or different. Yeah. That we would Commissioner will Well, I think a good example is a project that we had tonight, the Brockman lane. You know, it doesn't it doesn't meet the standards because it exceeds them. it's hidden from view, but it because it doesn't meet the standards in my mind. Um the what the minor design review does is allows noticing of neighbors, allows them to make comment, allows staff to decide whether or not those comments need to come in front of us. But if they don't, then the project can move forward through the administration. It just it it provides one extra level of review. doesn't necessarily hold up the process, but it allows neighboring properties to make objection or to make comment about it. So, it's it it's a catchall, but it's also a protection of prop of neighbor property rights as well because, you know, we have a we have a in the development code, we have a requirement that, you know, from five, you know, five yards, five feet, when you get above a certain dimension, it's got to step back and you got to go up. that's a really expensive way to build. Um, so there might be that kind of thing. Sometimes that impacts neighboring properties. Most of the time it doesn't. And so, you know, that's another one of those things that would fit into this discussion. Commissioner Bernett, uh, you said that you were going to talk about noticing separately, but, uh, will you also covered the topic of appeals of minor reviews because I assume those

will be appealable and I'm not I'd like to hear what body hears the appeal and so on. I'll jump. Um, so I'll jump the exemptions and we'll come back to it. So in front of you now, I just move to the minor review process. And so what's going to happen is during the minor design review, the community development director will make the determination to approve proof of conditions or deny. And then it'll be noticed um that a decision is pending. And it'll be a specific um time period um in that notice. Um still working on what that 10 days or 15 days and then that a planning um and that that decision will be made by the community development director at that time. If I don't hear anything that's the decision. If we do hear something we'll bring it to planning commission for the actual public hearing when they request a hearing. So that is the idea. In general always anything that staff approves um is appealed to the planning commission. And so the noticing um that would be required is the posting and then the mailing. Any other questions? All right. Now go back to the exempts. All right. So exempt projects. Um so this is a longer list. Um so new residential structures not located in our historic overlay. Um modifications to existing residential structures again not listed or termin eligible. This is just getting being very clear basically. Um no questions around that.

New multif family residential structures that comply with the applicable design standards. Um, window replacement provided that the window design matches the predominant window material type and that there are no changes to the dimensions. Original windows and historic resources listed or determined eligible for listing in the local register must be replaced like for like and material size and style. Vinyl and vinyl clad windows are not permitted in the historic overlay or on historic resources. So this is part of discussion that was had with the ad hoc committee about how we really wanted to focus on windows. Um and it's not that people can't ask, right? Everybody can ask, but if people want to not go through a design review process, then this is their option. That makes sense. Oh, I have a question about windows. Um because I don't know who thought windows could be so controversial. Oh, I do. So my whole career. So just to I'm trying to to not make this complicated. So when we say um design matches the predominant window material type, like what happens if you're going from wood to um a new fiberglass window, um since the majority of the window is glass, does that fall into the minority? So that you know, you don't want people to if if they're going to upgrade to a a material that's more appropriate um or who knew you were sitting everywhere. Do you want to check all of the rows? [Laughter] Yeah, just curious about that so that people don't get stuck in that um with that uh statement. Um, so the so the idea is that let's say um you have all wood windows and you're just going to replace one of the windows in that front

facade and you're replacing it with something that looks completely different. That's when we're talking about that predominant window. If you're changing all the windows, then that's the predominant window style. It's more about changing styles within the same, you know, building, which we have a couple that have done that. Um, and um, it's very obvious. And so this is where design review comes into play. Um, so, so I think number four should be broken up into number four and five. Okay. Number four being replacement. windows outside of the category of historic resources. Number five would be original windows and historic resources. Um because they're two different animals essentially. Um and and somehow to clarify the that language, you know, the language is I get it, but only when you've explained it to me. So I'm thinking maybe not a four and five but maybe a 4 A and B. So right window replacement so that on the same level versus somebody going oh but I qualify for four then I have to argue five. Um the other aspect of this is just going back to what we talked about is what kind of projects are we actually doing design review on and that and so we we can provide further clarification but we're really talking about window replacement on our public commercial historic overlay and our um sorry historic overlay and then those that are listed again Um um so one I just one comment for

consideration is I don't know how much it'll clarify but maybe the statement could be match the existing predominant window material type that way if you change everything then I don't know if that helps because Jennifer's point was if you if you change all the windows, that's the predominant window. If you change your front window and all the rest of the windows remain the same and you choose to make a replacement window with fiberglass window, that is a replacement window. In other words, what happens is they take the old window out and now they try to now they put a new window in, but because they put a new window in, suddenly that window's this thick. Yeah. No, I understand. I was just trying to differentiate between that like when you replace one of five windows versus all windows because then the if if you're going to replace all five windows, then there is no existing type. That's what I was trying to differentiate. Well, maybe that's a and or. Yeah, it's like I said andor. Replacing them all. You have any problem, you know, right? Can you can you use the word cons consistent throughout or Yeah. I mean, and then also the um public so you remember so in our ad hoc I showed you guys that table that we laughed at, but it's real. Um but it kind of it highlight like well if it's not visible from the public you can have these material choices. I mean it was very specific. Um, so we were trying not to do that, but we're kind of getting closer to that. But, um, we could do it. Yeah. So, I'll I'll do the A and the B,

historic and then commercial and other. And then just because just for some more clarity, I think on the exempt just provide instead of just new, but just modifications to um residential structures, not historic overlay. So, um, just so that it's clear that when we're talking about the window replacement, we're really talking still focused. I'm I'm asking the question. Sorry, it's more of a question. When we're talking about window replacement and the re- roofing, we're really talking about the same section of buildings, the commercial, the public, and the ones that are in historic overlay. And um, and uh, the historic resources themselves. make that very clear. Yeah. So, we don't I mean, I'm kind of on the fence, but you know, like that's the question is do you want to make do oversight on the modifications outside of that those that section? Okay. All right. Repainting um repainting existing structures provided that the paint color was not required to specifically address a design related issues such as consistent with historic architectural style. In most cases um I have not it's required to be submitted the paint colors but paint changes and and those that that paint change itself has never was not a trigger for design review in the past. Um I was just putting this there is because we have approved paint colors in the um for different buildings along with materials changes. Um so that's why this was in here.

Yes. Well, I'm a little stuck on this phrase about required to specifically address a design related issue such as consistency with the historic architectural style. Um uh if a paint color was specifically required during a previous design review meeting, then that certainly should trigger um you know a discussion if they want to change that color because it was already specified. Um, I'm not sure what it means. I'm not sure what a design related issue with consist such as consistency with the historic architectural style even means. For example, the house on second street east near Napa Street. Um um I think it's next to the Cedar Mansion. It's the next one over. It used to be a dark brown shingle house. Now it is a white painted shingle house. Um I'd be hardressed to say that the original paint color was addressing an issue such as consistency with the historic architectural style. I'm not sure how you how you parse all that. So, I'm I'm just wondering whether or not there's a way of rephrasing this a little more

tightly because at this point it doesn't really tell me anything. Sure. Um so the to address a design um condition of approval, we can just leave it there. Well, and that would be clear. Um and yeah, yeah, I think that would be clear. Otherwise, we're into the world of subjectivity and uh I think that's problematic. Although I'll ask the question again. What would be an example of when that would happen? That was Did that come before us? It came before design. I see. Okay. Um it was it was a topic of discussion. All right. Thank you. So did they get approval to paint it white? Uhu. May I ask again what was but what was the context of the historical context? Historically, it had been a red building. I can't remember what color you said. It was brown. Brown. Yeah, it was it's Let's not use that example. Um so, a good example would be um let's just think of a Spanish colonial revival home, you know, a stucco. Um traditional Spanish colonial revival is a white, a taupe, you know, things like that. And so that would be more in keeping um with you know specific trim colors is traditional. Um so that's what historic usually historic architectural styles they have specific um you see brighter colors around Victorians and um there's more flexibility on certain styles. All right. Well, let me ask a follow-up question and I thank you for that. Does this this really would only apply again to something on the historical register

and the overlay? Correct. Correct. So, can we make sure we call that out? Yes. That's related to historic overlay or the registry. Well, in their commercial. Yeah. No, I know. But it said um not Yes. So, that's why Yeah, we're going to clarify a little bit more at the first two that none of design review in the applicability. We're going to be very clear that in the applicability section, I just need to update it that this only is going to apply to this, this, and this period. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, re-roofing buildings and structures with class A roofing that's consistent with the style and surrounding neighborhood. provider no changes to the dimension, square footage or roof pitch. Roof materials on historic resources listed or termin eligible would be replaced like for like a material size and style. Um most of our buildings have been re-roofed. There's only a couple of original roofs that I can think of. Um, and no matter what, it has to comply with the building code. And the only roofs that really would come into question are going to be our wood shakes. Um, so again, exempt versus just coming to a hearing, right? I mean, that's that's the difference is, you know, most cases we're already dealing with a shingle roof and most of people are going gray anyways. Everybody's gray. Um, so that's the idea is just you're doing a shingle, you can do a shingle,

but expect to get it. So there's new there's new types that are mimicking it, right? So that's where the design review process comes into play where I can just state that that's what you know we want to do. But I don't have design standards that set those into place. And so that's where you know that's where that design review process could come into play. And besides if it's a historic resource that does and it has its original roof that that is one of those character defining features that we need to discuss. um as a modification and and just um just as a comment the reason I'm getting confused about this is because it in some sections like this one it says roof materials on historic resources. So even though so we are actually talking about things that are in the historic overlay in some instances for the exemption. So in the exemptions yes we are talking about what's exempted. So only commercial buildings that are um commercial public buildings that are listed or in the historic overlay have design review process. Those design review process is either major, minor, or exempted. So I'm always going to look at those buildings and see if they fall within major, minor, or exempt. So that's what we were saying like the windows are always going to be historic, commercial, public, or in the overlay or All of the above. So, um, so yes, all of those would always apply. It's just we're calling out spec specificity. So, in the similar vein of what we did in the windows, we can do with the roofs for this is for regular and then these are for the historic. So, I have a question about five again

going back to paint color. Um, so I want to so a subdivision is approved with it paints approved. It's 20 years 15 years now down the road. Um and it has to be repainted and the HOA says we hate these colors. We want to repaint. Do they have to come back in front of design review? That's part of what my question is in regards to that major design review. My vote as a member of a board of an HOA is that they don't. There you go. Let the HOA decide what colors they want. HOA. You don't want that. Um that's where I'm going with like some of these other um things. When they come before you, you know, do you want to perpetually review their changes if they don't if that change does not actually trigger design review? So, so the the way to think about it and 20 years down the road, long time, right? What if it's one, you know, I'm they received entitlements, now they're in building permit process and then we're getting ready to final and they change the color, right? And so, you know, that's where Well, I think we can define that by the conditions of approval require that it be painted the approved colors as a condition of the final. Yeah, but conditions of approval also run with the project and run with the land. Yeah, but as a condition of the final on the per. Oh, okay. So, you complete the it's like landscape. Complete the landscape, you're done. You get your final permit, you get occupancy. That's what triggers that. And then 20 years down the road when everyone's tastes change. So, um, so one of the jurisdictions I worked, even the landscape, any modifications to that triggered design

review again. Um, it's always interesting. Um, That's why I just want to make sure that we're very clear about what's the actual things that are going to be uh perpetual down the line of what we're going to look for. Um if it's just the things that actually trigger design review or if it's the project itself because technically any modifications to conditions of approval, which is why you see like us bringing back use permits and things is they want to change it. They want more seats. They want to do these things. It's not in standard conformance. Um with the conditions of approval, I can't approve it. only you can modify your own conditions of approval um projects technically. So um we can just be more specific within our conditions of approval as well about maybe timelines and things like that. Um, next grouping, um, with the new fire map that goes before council on Monday, um, looking at, you know, wildfire resistant construction, you know, meeting 7A. Um, and then again, you know, the natural wood sighting and things um, fire resistant materials. Again, except for the buildings that are listed are determined eligible for listing on the local register because it is an impact to a historic resource and we need to talk about it. What is wrapping of decks? So, um could be the the actual deck material. I could just put decks. I don't need wrapping. So, party board versus just a wood deck. Everybody's having fun microphones tonight.

Um, and then landscaping that's consistent with the water efficient landscaping or landscaping plans consistent with um new or modified defensible spaces shall be reviewed and approved by director. Um, so this was also a conversation that we had into ad hoc and whether or not we want landscaping involved in design review at all or if we just want landscaping to just be in the code because we have to put it in the code. Um, as just a requirement for compliance. Um, but uh, and then the code section we work on to be specific about, you know, percentage of native plants. Uh, we obviously triggered if it meets certain criteria. Modify the defensible space is now a criteria for the high fire zones or the very high fire zone. Um so just things like that. Yeah, I would opt for your suggestion that it just be in the code so that it doesn't have to come for review. Okay. And then the last one on the list is in regards to um a conforming structure that's been damaged by um a natural disaster or an um accident and they're just going to reconstruct using the same materials and design. So, I have a question about what if 100% of the building went away and they wanted to do that. That's what um it's up to you all. It can be a complete I'm just curious where the 50% versus that's just an example.

having been involved in many fire destructions um you know it's it is um psychological and physical destruction that happens and um I think if someone wants to build back their house after that which I I'll tell you from experience most people don't because it's too much of a memory um then we should allow them to do that um and the rest will sort itself out basically. If they don't want to do that then it has to comply basically. So I I think 100% if it map is the the tough part is knowing what was there originally because buildings modify themselves basically over time. It just says the gross floor area, right? So, um, you know, we it could just be the reconstruction. Um, and so we also wanted to put in here, um, when I talked to design review about this and before we were just talking about residential buildings when we had our ad hoc, they had recommended we just talk about structures in general. Um, because of the example of the Napa auto parts, right, of you know, we just want to put it back. Can we just put it back? Um, and in that case we had a lot of non-conformities and so it's is kind of more of a discussion of is it okay to just put it back? In this case we're talking about if it conforms to the code, can we just put it back even though it's in our historic overlay? It would be considered a new structure. That's basically what the question is to exempt. But it sounds like Yeah, absolutely. All right. And we talked about that and that is it um in the sense of the slides. The other aspect of the code, I

just didn't put it um specifically is that it would maintain the HRE process for now. So what it says is that and you have it um in your staff report is that the um we would still go through the HRE process to determine whether something is potentially eligible for as a historic resource. If it's not, we're done discussing it. It doesn't trigger design review in that case. And so it's just we're going to figure this out and then we're done. Um either design review or no design review. and then um for all residential structures in the city. And then I am um going to be requesting funds to do a city-wide survey uh historic resource survey and the historic contact statement for the city. Um had a little bit of sticker shock, not going to lie. Um but um crossing your fingers. Um so I just reached out to a firm that just and just ask like today like our size community like how much would that be and so you'll see my request for a couple hundred thousand. Where do the fees kick in for the applicant? So in HRE and then the actual design review where where are they cutting the check? So they'll um pay for the HRE and then they'll pay for the design review. Is it a flat fee? The HRE is cost. So whatever the consultant cost is. So you're paid. Okay. And so I'm uh we're working on we did an RFQ for historic resources and are looking to set a flat fee seeing which firms will stick to that fee. Um unless that project is multif family or commercial

or something it would be a little different and then the then if it triggers design review then they would submit for the design review itself. So we now have two separate processes in our system. Um what else was I oh design review. So talked to design review and historic preservation commission about this change and about going to planning commission. I also had a conversation with our certified local government um the supervisor um at the state for our certified local government program and discussed some of the changes um that we're looking to do. So the goal is to with the certified local government program is maintaining review of our historic resources and having opportunity for public comment around that and have a body that is um focused on historic resources doesn't say that I have to be the same. So um what I would be proposing is to keep the historic preservation commission, get rid of the design review part of it and their role would be um be focused on the actual survey, the listing recommendation for the listing um of resources to list to city council and then also focus on more on education and other um kind of outreach. to the community around historic preservation. So, it's kind of similar to how we do climate action commission. It's not a decision-making body. It's a recommending body and it has its own initiatives and um things they want to bring forward and uh you know assistance

to the community specifically around climate and sustainability. And so, kind of getting them in that same role. Um are already set up in our code to quarterly. It's just we can't meet quarterly to make decisions on you know private projects. So that is currently what I am proposing. So um that is I think everything unless you had specific questions but I do want to hear your feedback about that concept as well because uh when we come forward in May it's going to have all of the changes. So for the recommendation is to move forward and going to planning commission for design review. Then I need to make all the changes to the code throughout in regards to the role of design review historic preservation commission. um with this ordinance. Uh, Commissioner Brett, so are you going to reconstitute the Historic Preservation Commission, which is to say the people who are on it now, um, may have u some interest and u even experience on the design review side. Um but now their mission is completely changing and so is it going to be a new group of people? Is it going to be a new recruitment? Uh what what do you expect the treatment of the existing commission is going to be? So right now the existing commission um I did discuss this with them and that concept and just wanted their feedback before bringing it to you all as well. um they are um interested in it and

wanting to move forward with that idea. Right now I only have four I only have four commissioners. Um and so that's part of the conversation was okay so do we open it do we stick to do we do five do we open it keep it at seven and some modifications around that. Um, but they're aware that we would be taking away the design review component of it and just having them focus on historic preservation. Some of them may not want to sit for that because of their interest in design review. They can apply to the planning commission um as part of, you know, any kind of when there's openings and things. Um, so I did tell them that we're in the process right now if anybody wanted to kind of switch over and apply. their hat and you know in the ring for this. Um but I think overall I think one was going to be stepping down in October. So that would leave it with three. Um until I kind of refill it back up. Um and so that's kind of this is kind of that sweet spot of making this change too. Well, I mean I'm supportive of the way you've rescoped it based on the changes. Um, and if they're if current folks are supportive who have been sitting in that body under these circumstances, then it seems like a reasonable rescoping around historic preservation. Commission going to be doing sign review similar to design review. We will be minimizing the actual sign review. Good. So again, um setting standards around what we want to see and if they're not doing or they're asking for something

different, then that's when they would come. So we touched on it briefly, I think, at ad hoc before we disbanded. um you don't anticipate there being too much more added to the workload um in light of potentially adopting these changes u to the planning commission's workload um as far as the need for more more meetings or increase frequency or anything like that? No, as you saw tonight, I mean the the items that went before you, so one of those items u typically um if it hadn't already gone to you would have just gone to design review. Um that's most of what we see are modifications uh to homes and actually most of those homes are outside of the historic overlay and are not historic. Um so that's most of our projects these days. Um and then signs. And so again, going back to the sign ordinance, um Jacob and I are are working on that and hoping to have a study session in May around that sign ordinance change. Um and then convene the ad hoc based on the conversation um that we have. Um again, you know, the the one of the thoughts was to just get rid of design. view historic preservation altogether but they majority of them have a keen interest in historic preservation. Um some of them are design professionals um but or one of them is one um yeah and then um a realer interested and then a couple interested in history. Um and so when we discussed it we you know just having that set you know quarterly and having

specific topics and creating that work plan around what we can do around historic preservation. They um brought up memories of especially the Kellya. Um Rand brought up memories of what they used to do in conjunction with the historical societies and and uh educational events and things like that and just kind of wanting to reinvigorate the role the city plays in that is what it sounded like to me. So definitely opportunity for more um with them around the different topics that we had um but um not disbanding them all together. Makes sense to me. Any other comments, questions? Well, there's no public here for the record. So, uh, I guess do you have everything you need? Yeah, unless there's any last thoughts from you all. It's a lot of work. Thanks for doing it. Yeah, Jennifer, thank you. I think you really took what the ad hoc uh was intending to accomplish and just package it up very nicely and represents what we're trying to accomplish, I think. All right. Um, item six is director comments and announcements. So, back to you, Jennifer. Um, so on, um, Monday will be the city council meeting. The agenda is out. So, again, the fire maps uh, fire new fire map will be adopted um or introduced. The ordinance will be introduced and then adopted at the following meeting. and then will go into effect 30 days

after that. And then after it's adopted, we will send it to Calire for approval. Um the modification to the map is that we basically are snapping their funky line to parcels. Um and that's based on whatever that highest zone is that touches that parcel, that parcel now becomes that highest. and that's in discussion with uh CalFire on what they expected to see. Um and this will help us with uh open gov system and so that we can have a flag um built in so that everybody when they go into open gov they will know and staff will know what zone that that um falls into. Um and then the other is that the planning commission work plan um will be presented at that meeting if anybody wants to attend. Um so we will be I will be presenting it um at the regular. It's not on consent. So and you will be presenting what the planning commission work plan that we discussed at last meeting. Um and so you'll see it in there and I'll be presenting it to them for their blessing. And that's on Monday. that is on Monday. So, is part of that um presentation going to include getting noticing them and getting their okay for the affordable housing trust fund ad hoc? Yes. Okay. So, it um in the attachment I provided I for the work plan I highlighted specifically the ad hocs and the who was on each ad hoc for those different topics. So, I'll go over that with them. Is that everything for your comments? Okay. Now, moving on to commissioner reports and comments. Uh, Commissioner

Barnett, I was curious um, as everyone's aware uh, five members of the planning commission or appointed directly by five each of the five council members. When we switch to the districtbased elector system, are each of those five now districtbased and originally it's only going to be two, I guess, or three, whatever it is. Um, are is it going to be incumbent upon them to select representatives from within their district or are they going to still be able to choose whoever they would like to be on the planning commission? Unless it's specifically written in the code to be districtbased commission representation, it would be at large like anybody with are typical five within the city and then two within the dis within our valley. Um and that's what's typically done in other jurisdictions that I have worked that were all district based. Um they were still the pool of applicants that were brought in um for the two um and then those were determined by the group. Okay. So you expect that'll be the approach that's used here? Unless there's something else being proposed. I am not aware of a change yet to the actual ordinance in regards to how commissions are selected or the policy and present. Are there other applications besides Commissioner Nent for the atlarge seat on the commission? I've heard that there's been a couple applications, but they were waiting for

a larger pool before they would look at them is what I was told. But as far as that, I don't think that there's been any additional. Okay. Thank you. I was told that the decision would be made on Monday. So, I also haven't talked to Rebecca since like a while back. She's out at a training. Do do we know when this district voting is going to be in effect? Like Yeah. Yeah. They from what I understand um there are two council members who were recently reelected. And so the transition will be that at the next regularly scheduled council election date, three seats will become districtbased and two seats will remain at lo at at large until the next council election. So, you're still going to have a a uh staggered sequence of elections and and there are council members that are there's a couple sitting council members that are in the same district. Correct. Yep. Yes. And they will they will be on the council from the same district until until they're up for the district elections. And then if they seek re-election, they there's a possibility that they run against each other. Well, they wouldn't run against each other if they sought re-election. Um I have a

Jennifer, we recommend that you talk to Rebecca in regards to um anything regarding the commissions. I would I would talk to Rebecca the cert clerk about that. Um it's not in the agenda item for Monday. Um I have a comment. Um and the comment pertains to all the feedback we have gotten from the Sebastiani parcel and the reasonzoning. Um what can you articulate kind of what are the steps moving forward? Um, is there an opportunity for revisement of the language around the zoning that's proposed? Is there opportunity for input um either through um a study session or through you know bringing the code to the public? Can you just articulate for the record kind of your thoughts on how you will incorporate all this feedback? So all the feedback that's being provided um Natalie uploads to the general plan. So at any point any decision makers can review any of the topics and we'll um they'll be brought up you know throughout the year plus that we still have to go I know I said year of January but um in regards to um next steps what's going on right now is that we're working on the elements and we're working on Can I stop you? Can we talk about the specific the Sebastiani specifically? Yeah, you're not allowed to talk about No, I'm asking No, I'm asking you as a comment if we need to maybe agendaize maybe what's the next step so people get feedback. That's what I'm asking. So that's what I'm telling you. So when I can't specifically talk to Sebastian, I'm talking about the general plan as a process. So the general plan

process includes any ifications to the general plan. So regardless of the where or the what, it's all up for consideration and discussion. So as part of this process, we gather all the comments and all those comments are available to the public and to everybody throughout this process. What staff does is that we do we look at them. It's why I recommended in the planning commission work plan that we start talking about the code changes, right? And so that we can continue to have conversations around any modifications and improvements um that if this journal plan is adopted that we're ready to move forward with a code that then implements it. Um so that goes for Sebastiani the new mixeduse designation. It goes for how we're going to do forplexes in single family zones. Um so all those changes right now what's happening is that we're looking at the actual maximum in our environmental process right and so when we get those studies back you're going to have more information to help you make decisions right so we came forward and we said here's the potential do we want to move forward with studies around this answer was yes that was what was presented on January 30th now we're taking that information doing our studies doing our environmental creating the draft elements of the document that then will be available. Everything would be available to the public for additional public comments and public input around all those different aspects. What everybody is saying is taken in consideration as we're drafting these elements, right? And then some of those things aren't applicable into a general plan, which is why we're going to be working on the code as well. Um, and then that's what's going to be brought forward for discussion. The way that the city council had set up as well is that we have a general plan task force. Those are more informal meetings. Still Brown Act, but it's a little bit more

informal. It allows for conversations to happen at the reason why I set up ad hocs for each commission that I manage is to help have conversations in ad hocs and identify kind of what we want to bring forward to planning commission or to my climate action commission for further discussion. um because it's a lot of documents, right? It's a lot of information and there's some things that really you may not want to get into the nitty-gritty of and it may be higher level and that's where ad hocs can help um with getting into the details and that's where that uh task force is going to help us too. Um, so I'm hoping starting next month to start rolling out elements, um, to have review, public comment, do my task force meetings, do some ad hoc meetings, um, and then keep going. Um, when that um, environmental review is done and ready for public uh, comment um, is going to be further down the road. We haven't done the notice appropriation yet, right? So, that's the first step in an environmental. Right? Now, we're just getting the the traffic study and some of those other studies based on um the map because the map said, "Oh, we're changing densities." And so, what does how does that change everything? Um so, the other big change that's happened since is the fire map. So, that has effects on our safety element and so there's additional requirements now. So, we're actually going to be doing our own fire evacuation study. So, um I am going to be taking an item in May for additional funding so that we can do complete that study um as part of our safety element. Thank you, Jennifer, for articulating that.

I if if I may, I think the concern that chair is focused on is that um it appears from at least a comment we heard tonight that the neighbors um don't feel that or at least don't understand where their commentary and concerns um are have fallen and and and to what extent they constitute a part of the consideration of the issue. So the question is do we or is it incumbent upon us or is it just simply wise to uh perhaps for you Jennifer to reach out to for example that woman who was here tonight or someone else and say basically this is where we are in the process and and this is where all your comments and things are sitting and there's no action or consideration that has come before for example the planning commission at this time which would even allow it to make a comment about this yet because because it hasn't been it hasn't been codified enough to actually be something to talk about officially. I mean, it sounds to me like we have a little a little uh community repair work to do. I have met with them um individually at meetings um three of the five that were here today. Um and I have

offered to come speak at a neighborhood meeting. today. Um I I'm trying I'm trying. Um I you know one of the things I'm going to do I just need a few minutes is get that FAQ you know out from our side. I do explain that planning commission and city council cannot respond to public comment, nor they can they provide opinions on anything in this phase or not in a public hearing type setting. Um, and in general, right, when we have any kind of public comment, everybody always gets frustrated because they're like, why aren't why aren't you answering me? Right? Um, it's a it's a norm when you're not used to a public process. And I get that and I try to explain that you can't like when they're sending emails and like why aren't you responding? I actually emailed somebody when they did send you guys why aren't you responding to my email? I responded back they can't they can't respond to your email. Um, this is the response to your questions. And so that's what I try to do is I try to step in and say here's here's the response and here's the process. And um you know the some of the questions are very detail specific to the a proposed development which is so far down the line that um I'm like well right now is the time to participate in the big picture and then when you've got public comment opportunities during the general plan process during the code amendment process during the environmental process during the development itself which will come before planning commission. Um you'll have opportunity to comment there. If there is its own environmental document, you'll have another opportunity at that

point as well. And so I'm trying to make sure that they see that there's lots of opportunities for public comment and public input in the process and that this is one of those times where it's it's kind of it feels like it's and that's how it was expressed that um chair Domockach and I talked about is they feel like it's a black hole right now and it's partially just because I don't have a draft document that they can that and that's what I keep reminding them. I'm going to get a draft document and then you can look at it and if you don't like it then you can specifically say something right there about that text and provide comment about that text that will then go to you all for consideration. That makes sense. It it sounds like though some of the comments that we've heard is that people have already made the assumptions that this is the changes are I mean the comments we heard tonight were made that these things had already taken place and how do you you know yeah I don't count I don't know how where they get the misinformation but nothing's changed since the January 30 meeting. I I think it's distilling down to a lack of understanding around a very complicated, very multi-layered, very lengthy public process that many people are probably unfamiliar. It's unfamiliar space to be operating within. And I think it's just probably just a matter of uh you know answering their little questions whenever they reach out. But I'm sure I know that you've been doing will answer those that she can and then I answer those that she needs assistance with and I I have a calendarly everybody has access to it. They set up their own meetings with me like and the information is out there. Yeah. I met with a gentleman today talking about you know greenways and his property that he

owns and you know everybody has access to me. I'm not hiding and I'm not hiding their comments either. I'm just uh I'm trying I'm trying really hard. Um and um I understand their frustration. Um I don't I don't want to see this process either. You know, Santa Rosa's been working on theirs for five years. I don't want to be that I want to I do want this process to be as transparent as possible. I just don't have that physical part yet. I think you're doing a great job. Thank you. Yeah, I would agree. I know that people are coming and talking to you all the time repeatedly. So, but again, I just want to thank you for articulating that once again for everyone. So, it's on the record. Any other comments? I I do have a clarification. And so, I by the way, I I don't I don't take it personally. When I don't get a call back from you in a timely manner, I know that you are swamped. So, um So, did you say did I just say that it is not agendaized the planning commission um or all the commissions um for Monday night. So there's something on there but it's not it doesn't look like it's to appoint somebody. I'm not exactly sure what it is. What it says is um it looks like you're listed on there. It has like I'm not sure what exactly that list is. We can we can talk about that offline. Yeah, it just it says reappoint the at large and alternate members for a term of two years to January 31, 2022. And then the recommendation is to do so. I mean, it it sounds like it's on the agenda. We can talk offline about what it says specifically. All right. Well, item number eight,

adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn, please? Move to adjourn. Do I have a second? Oh, there's a No. I had a a mind melt. Thank you everyone.