Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

Good evening. going to call to order the regular planning commission meeting of September 18th. Um, I will ask for roll call, please. Commissioner Barnett, when did I get to be first? Because your alphabetical order here. Commissioner Limer here. Commissioner Nent here. Commissioner Agorman Jenkins here. Commissioner O'Neal here. Commissioner Willers here. Vice Chair Hyrick here. Youth member Patterson here. Thank you. I would like to point out that Chair Dumbok is absent from this evening's meeting.

We're heavily weighted towards the lower end of the alphabet. Come on. There's two of us. Proudly so. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So moved. Second. Second. I'll second. So I heard uh Commissioner Nent make the motion and Commissioner Latimer second the motion. Uh can we get a roll call for that please? Yes. Commissioner Barnett. I. Commissioner Ladder. Yes. Commissioner Nent. I. Commissioner Gorman Jenkins. Hi.

Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Commissioner Willers, yes. Chair Hyrick, hi. Vice Chair Wyrick, sorry. And youth member Patterson? I. The motion passes unanimously. Okay, time for the pledge of allegiance. Miss Cornwall, can you please lead us in the pledge? To the flag of the United States of America to the stands for all.

Okay. At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on tonight's agenda. It's recommended that members of the public keep their comments to three minutes or less. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for commission consideration. Upon being acknowledged by the chair, please step up to the podium, speak into the microphone, and begin by stating and spelling your name. Are there any members of the public? Yeah. Step forward. Thank you. Is this fine? Yes. Okay. Good evening. My name is Janet Bole and I'm a resident of Sonoma. I speak tonight on behalf of more than 825 petition signers. To put that into perspective, the last city council members who were who were who were up for election received less than 4,100 votes each. That was last December. That means that the 825 petition signers, if they vote, would be 20% of the vote count. The petitioners are your constituents and they are deeply concerned. Our central question remains unanswered for 23130 days. Actually 230 was yesterday. 231. Why is the city proposing to change the land use designation for all 22 acres of the Sebastian property? Equally troubling, this issue, um, which is a 20 to 30-year decision, the general plan, has never been on the agenda for the planning commission or the city council since January. It is September. It's never on the on the on the agenda. So, forever for over nine months, residents have had no formal opportunity for a dialogue with this body or the city council. Without it on the agenda, a council members and this body could not respond and the community is left, me, I'm at the podium every month is left on a left in a one-sided monologue. On September 15th, boy, I got to really work on this. On September 15th, Escates, thank you, Jennifer, confirmed that the 2023 housing element already meets Sonoma's statemandated housing

needs through 2031. In other in other words, the Sebastiani property is not required to meet our housing needs. Even the owner, Foley Family Wines, has not requested this change. And that was confirmed by the developer, JJ, and we met with him as recently as August 24th of this year. Yet, the city is advancing a sweeping land use shift that could add more than 500 housing units, bringing traffic and infrastructure strain with no mandate to do so. For perspective, Sonoma has fewer than 6,000 housing units. So adding a 500 more would be a 9% increase. That's a dramatic change for a town of our size. This risk does not stop here. Under California law SB71, once the land use is designated for dense housing, a developer could invoke a transitoriented development project rules that exceed even the city's stated maximum. And especially I just recently found out there's a railroad easement very near that property. So it could be deemed a transit oriented development and it would be out of your hands. The state of California could approve it and say you could put a hundred houses per acre there. Um this site could qualify leaving the the council powerless to stop even a larger project. Meanwhile, statewide data shows no justification for rushing. The governor's 2025 to 2026 budget summary, which is online, reports three straight years of population decline in California with growth slowing for more than a decade. So why speculate on housing demand that may never come? So again, I asked the same question raised 231 days ago at the vintage house. Who is asking for this change? It is not the residents, it is not the voters, and it's not the property owner. Miss Gates also reminded us that the city council, potentially guided by you, the planning commission, has the authority to to adjust land use definitions before adoption. On behalf of hundreds of engaged residents, I urge you do not change the land use for all

22 acres. Preserve the two agricultural parcels and if necess if if any change is necessary, limit it to low density residential which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. Please stand with your community and your constituents. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to address the commission tonight on items not listed on tonight's agenda? No. Okay. Seeing none, we will move on to the public hearing component of tonight's agenda. And uh we will start with item 4.1, which is consideration, discussion, and possible action to uh adopt a two prong some two-prong entitlements. The first prong being a resolution certifying the final EIR adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and making the required findings uh with a statement of overriding considerations. The second prong being a resolution approving design review density bonus demolition permit and parcel merger. Staff report please.

Thank you vice chair and commissioners. Good evening. So, the project before you tonight is the Montalo Apartments project. Before getting into the project details, I'd like to provide a clear overview of the entitlements and approvals that the planning commission is being asked to consider this evening. Uh the triggers for these approvals and entitlements will become clear as we move through the presentation and I'll also be able to clarify any questions that you may have. So the first portion as um chair Hyrick vice chair Hyrick res uh re referred to as the two-prong would be the certification of the the final EIR adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and the findings including a statement of overriding considerations. The entitlements for design review would be design review density bonus with the concessions and waiverss requested, a demolition permit, and a parcel merger. Additionally, I want to provide you with a synopsis of the project timeline and how we've gotten the project before you this evening. It's been going on for a few years now. So, in July 2021, the city received an SB330 preliminary application for a housing development and that's in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. In September of 2021, a study session was held in which the planning commission provided feedback and subsequently in June 2022, the applicant submitted a revised application. Additionally, in July of 2022, a pre the prelim application for the housing development, the SB330 application, um was locked in uh because I'm sorry, let me revise that. So, um once the SB330

application was deemed complete, the the fees um development fees um were vested essentially in the code at that time. So you may have noticed when you were going through the staff report that some of the development code standards didn't match what's currently in the code. In August of 2022, design review application was also deemed complete and the SQA SQA process was determined to be necessary. So that subsequently triggered the May 2023 consultant contract for uh SQA purposes which was approved and ratified in July 2024. A notice of preparation for the draft EIR was prepared in May 2025. The notice of availability became uh sent out for the availability of the draft EIR init and initial study and in August of 2025 the final ER was published. So, the Montelo Apartments project site is located on the east side of Highway 12 in the northwest area of Soma at 1 19320 Soma Highway. South and east of the project site are multifamily residential and single family residential homes. And to the north and west are commercial developments, including the Old Bowl Center and Spark Cannabis Dispensary. And the two the two parcels together combined would be about 2.15 acres. It's got a general plan designation of housing opportunity. It is within the west Napa Sonoma corridor planning area and is zone residential housing opportunity. As I mentioned the site consists of two parcels which would be merged after uh planning commission approval to provide a total site area of 2.15 acres. The front parcel contains an existing home

that was determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. Discussed heavily throughout the staff report, the historical resource evaluation and subsequent EIR. A large Valley oak sits just near the site's southwest corner and the rear parcel is undeveloped. The condition of the home is in a state of disrepair. pre pre-demolition and structural assessments uh reported lead and asbestous in the home and the structural assessment had a number of issues that created the concern for risk to life and safety due to a number of issues um significant structural concerns rot and decay foundation failure that had occurred in a previous seismic event which is pictured down there on the bottom right. So the project proposes to develop 50 residential units which would be rentals achieved by the construction of seven buildings on approximately 2.15 acres. 25% of the units would be affordable and that would be eight lowincome, three very lowincome and two extremely lowincome units. They would also provide uh I believe it's it's a total of 89 parking spaces primarily uh provided through 48 parking garages, a mix of single and double uh garage stalls. Approximately 2400 square ft of open space would be provided for the residents in addition to private space that's provided through small patios or balconies. So here we've got the number of buildings. building one which is the front there. So on the left um parallel or adjacent to that would be um Sonoma Highway and that would be a fiveplex. So that's one of the twostory buildings. So two twotory buildings and five three-story buildings. The two-story buildings again are in B1 which is what

you would see along the frontage from the public uh right of way and B7 which is the rear um the rear building which abuts the single family uh lower density uh zoning and the interior buildings are the three-story 8plex buildings. So, here is a front elevation of one of a fiveplex. Um, there are four plan types that are provided and they range from 977 square ft to just over,300 square f feet. All of them are either two-bedroom and two bath or two-bedroom and 2 and a half bath and all the garages in the fiveplexes are 283 square foot garages are are provided. Um, additionally, it ranges from 118 to 230 square ft. uh porch or patios that are provided in addition to their common space. And here's just some additional elevations. So the left elevation, let's see, that would be facing north. And here is the elevation for the eightplex. These are the three-story units. They're at 36 ft. And there are four different plan sets within the eightplexes. They're all two-bedroom, two bath, and they range from 750 square feet to around 920 square feet. And the r the range of square footage for the garages are um they're actually either 262 ft or 467 ft depending on whether they're a single car or double car. And they have 46 square foot porches um plus the common space that's provided. So, just a quick U materials and colors board. It would be in a modern Spanish style architecture reminiscent of the

existing um structure that's on the front parcel. composite shingle roofing, stucco siding, front door doors in an accent of sage green, brass finishing uh with the garages and utility fixtures, bronze finish lighting fixtures at unit entrances, and the same building materials would be used throughout all of the buildings. As previously mentioned, there's approximately 24,000 square feet of common open space areas throughout the project site. And this includes a multi-purpose turf area, which is the large circular green area you see towards the bottom. It includes two gathering areas with seating, one specifically for a children's play zone. Um it includes uh childcaled seating and a chalk area, shade trees, and there's also an additional shade tree with a seating wall um closer to the front of the project site. These are some of the proposed plant types. Um the final landscape plan will require a tree replacement plan with it that will have to meet the requirements that are outlined in um the municipal code chapter 12.08. So that will be submitted at building at the time of building and that will it it's compliant with wheelow now but there typically are changes that occur and it of course will be uh required to be compliant with wheelow at that time as well. So moving on to the consistency with the general plan and and general development code consistency. So listed here about a quarter of the general plan policies that the project would support um of which were listed in the staff report. These include encouraging a diversity of

um of residential type, density, size, and affordability. um providing incentives and concessions to offset costs of affordable housing development. Coordinating development on small contiguous lots uh to the extent possible. Requiring pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities in all development. Promoting higher density. Incorporating bicycle facilities. Requiring new development to provide adequate private and where appropriate public open space. As detailed in the standards compliance table that was in the staff report, uh most of most all of the development standards were met aside from where one concession and one waiver were requested. The waiver was for a 2 and 1/2t reduction for the from 5T to 2 and 1/2 ft for the trash enclosure along the northerly uh property line. and that abutts to a commercial property and it's just a small portion of the um the enclosure. So again, that's not that's not even the the trash itself. It's just the enclosure for the bins. And the concession would just be a uh 01 deviation from the floor area ratio uh of.70. So that standard they're asking to go from 0 to 71. Okay. So the development and the related amenities would require the demolition of the existing home and as I mentioned it was determined eligible as uh for listing on the uh CRR and the proposed de demolition of the eligible resource triggered the need for an initial study pursuant to SQUA which determined its demolition would result in a significant impact and therefore

the ER was required to and that would analyze a full range of potential impacts to identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. So all resources categories that were evaluated in the EIR were either um less than significant impacts or less than significant u with mitigation measures incorporated uh aside from impacts on historical resources due to the demolition. Oops. So it's worth mentioning that the EIR requires a reason reasonable range of alternatives to be um provided including a no project alternative and that really um aims to provide the project alternatives that would accomplish the same goals while reducing the level of significance of the impacts that are incurred by the project. And for this EIR, the environmentally superior alternative aside from the no project alternative was determined to be the on-site relocation alternative. However, as supported by the final EIR, the structural assessment and the lend asbestous report and the letter provided by Denova explaining the estimated cost for relocation and rehabilitation. the on-site relocation alternative would result in not meeting all the objective uh project objectives and would be financially infeasible. So there up on the board I sort of just did a little mapping of how we're getting to the statement of overwriting considerations. And also um you'll see that I have the MMRP listed under the EIR and that's just letting you know that um although a statement of overwriting considerations would be required to be adopted um that the MMRP the mitigation plan would still be implemented to its full capacity.

So given the possibility that the planning commission may not be too familiar with the statement of overwriting considerations, I just wanted to give a brief explanation um which of course is detailed uh with supporting information in the staff report and EIR. If a public agency approves a project that will result in a significant environmental effect that cannot be avoided or substantially reduced, it has to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. As summarized in the staff report and detailed within exhibit A of resolution one, the planning commission by way of adopting the statement of overriding consideration concludes that the city's judgment uh that benefits in the city's judgment that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effect that would be caused by the project. So staff is recommending adopting both resolutions which would certify the EIR adopt the MMRP and approve the findings of facts in the statement of overwriting considerations as well as approve all these design review and um entitlements as the density bonus demolition and the parcel merger. Um this would also yeah the density bonus would include the concession and waiver adoption. Sorry that was a lot to digest. So I'm here for questions or clarification. And we also have uh Remma here with Certo. That was the consulting firm that was selected to conduct the EIR. And we also have Carrie Watt and Dana Sububto um with Denova the applicant.

Great. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward and offer any comments you may have? Yeah, we actually have a uh I Carrie prepared a presentation, so I'll pull that up for her now. Wonderful. Thank you, Vice Chair Hyrick. Yes. Can we please do exparte?

We certainly can. At this time I would like to uh request of the commission if anyone has had any exparte communication with the applicant to uh state it on the record please on the details surrounding. Seeing none we can proceed with uh the applicant's presentation. Thank you.

No worries. There we go. Great. Thank you. Uh, good evening, Vice Chair Hyrick and commissioners. Um, youth commissioner. Great. Uh, my name is Carrie Watt. I'm the director of entitlements for Denova Homes. Thanks very much to both Jennifer and Diane for all of their efforts over the past years shephering this project through. Uh it's been quite the process. Diane did a great job of providing a a history. Um and just to I'll briefly go through just a few of the changes that we made. In September of 2021, four years ago, uh we came before the planning commission in a work session which was open to the public and we came with a a proposal for 55 units. And what the commission suggested then is that we um have two two-story buildings, one facing Sonoma Highway, uh one towards the eastern end of the property adjacent to the single family residential. So we incorporated that into the project. Um and also we the uh commission recommended then when u given the opportunity that they would really prefer to have the oak tree uh out front uh preserved um in favor of uh retaining the old house and they gave us support for a Spanish style design which we've incorporated into our community. Um we submitted our full application in June. We were deemed to complete in um August

of 2022. And then after several staff reviews, staff determined that the property um actually was designated as a housing opportunity site and that the house might be historic. And therefore, we went through the EIR process. Um in February of 2024, staff asked us to do a revised plan which would preserve the house on its own 10,000 foot parcel. Um and one of those um that alternative that became one of the EIR alternatives. But at the time we took a look at that. We realized that doing that resulted in absolutely no common open space which we felt would not really serve the new residents. And so we reverted back to the original plan. In August 2024, the city held a an EI scoping session was also open to the public. We did a final update to the plans in January and then in May um the city released the draft EIR for public review. Real quickly, but Diane did a great job of indicating this. This is an SB330 application. So, it's a prelim what's called a preliminary housing application. It is a state law to encourage housing development and that cities really cannot deny one of these new home developments as long as it meets all of the city's objective standards. And in August of last year, the city determined that we met the objective standards. We are requesting a density bonus because we are providing uh 13 um affordable homes, below market rate homes at the extremely low, very low, and low income range. And state law allows us to go ahead and request concessions and waiverss for that. There we go. Great. So again, we have extremely low um two units, very low three units, and low income eight units. It's really about 26% of the total um 55. This gives us a density bonus of 32 and a.5% which we do not need to use because of the zoning, but it does also by state law give us two concessions and unlimited waiverss from the city's municipal codes. We're actually asking only for the one concession on F and the

one waiver on the trash enclosure. Otherwise, all other development standards are met. Wow. There we go. Uh development plan. I like to color mine because I'm color oriented. Um, so the two buildings in purple are the two two-story buildings. As you can see, those are five plexes. The blue buildings are the three-story buildings. Those are eight plexes. Um, you can see the tree out front that's being preserved. And also, we're preserving trees along the boundary between buildings one and four. The large green area is in fact that central common area. We have a couple focal point areas as well. the two trash enclosures um one which needs the waiver towards the northern property line, another trash enclosure towards the rear. Access is from the northern side and that's what requires removal of the home in order to preserve the tree. The access does meet all fire department requirements and the fire trucks can come in there, do a a hammerhead turn at the end and then exit. Fire department has reviewed everything here. Um I do want to kind of point out um quickly about the parking. We actually have 68 garage parking spaces, not 48. Uh so we do meet uh code there. The um fiveplex buildings have four garages each and the eightlex buildings have 12 garages each, some one car and some two car. Wake up. There we go. Just to let you know, the affordable um homes are dispersed throughout the entire community. So there are um affordable units in every building. Oops. As far as utilities, this was a little bit of a challenging site. Um, essentially the the site tends to slope more towards the east. So, we do have to elevate the site. And so, we have some retaining walls um around the northern, eastern, and southern property line in order to uh tilt the slight up site up a little so we can get gravity flow for the sewer um into the sewer in Snowoma Highway.

storm drain actually goes to the northeast corner and it connects to an existing public storm drain um on the adjacent property. We have an easement for that water of course connects um to water in Sonoma Highway. Uh in the landscape plan again we have that central common area we have some focal points. Um we have seat walls around trees. The mailboxes are located at that focal point um between buildings one and four and there are walkways throughout the entire community. So as uh folks come in off the sidewalk on Sonoma, we are putting a sidewalk in Sonoma. Um you have a public act or sidewalk access to every single front door and every single building to all and to all the common areas that is a requirement um of the code. Um Diane mentioned that it there is significant tree removal which we acknowledge although we are preserving some trees on site and I do want to point out that the trees that we are preserving on site the big oak at the front and then those trees near building four they're actually located offsite but the canopies uh hang over sidewalks in those areas are going to be permeable. So it's not a full concrete it's a permeable pa and there's only going to be bark mulch under those trees. In addition, the trees by building four we we are building a little uh four foot wire mesh fence around them to make sure that folks don't have access and do things that they probably should not.

Can I ask you what that little area in I guess what is the northeast corner of the property? It's in a lighter shade of green bio retention and that's a bio retention area.

Correct. So we're doing the storm drain towards that corner. That's where the bio retention is and then the storm drain goes off site from there. Good question. Um we are removing quite a few trees but we all also have quite a few trees that we are planting. So 102 trees 90 of those are 24 inch blocks. There you go. And again just emphasizing that within that oak drip line mulch no irrigation permeable pavers um in those two areas. The aplex a three-story building up to 36 um feet in height. Uh these are buildings 2, three, four, and six. 40 units total. You can see the little diagram at the bottom where those three uh three-story buildings are located. So on the ground level, um we have one and two-car garages. Uh every unit has a bicycle parking space in the garage, which is kind of nice. Um the blue areas show where there are shared entries and stairways up to the second and third levels. On the second level, it's all plan one. on the third level. It's all plan two. The light green areas show you where the private patios are or private decks are for each one of those units. So, every unit does have a private uh balcony. The twotory buildings up to 30 ft um height total. This is building one facing Sonoma, building seven to the uh far east. There we go. On the first level, it's um we have four individual garages. the plan four and then the lower levels of the plan five. The plan five is more like a town home style, so it has a a first level and then stairs uh up to the second level. On the second level, we have the two plan 3es. Uh they share a stairway and um front porches. And then we have the second level of the plan 5. Again, all of these have um bicycle parking spaces in garages. The thing that makes this a little bit different

from the aplex buildings, um, only one plan five has direct access to its onecar garage and the plan 4 has um, direct access from its garage. The other folks have, uh, the carports to use and also surface parking. So, just in summary, um, per staff's analysis, uh, this new community is consistent with all the city's general plan policies and meets the city's applicable standards. We are providing 13 below market rate apartments in the extremely low, very low and low income ranges, which is a much needed range in the housing market, any housing market in any city. It requires only one concession and one waiver um at as a density bonus providing all of us affordable housing. And we believe it provides rightsiz housing for smaller families with a child-friendly common area. and we concur with all the findings of the final ER, the statement of the overriding considerations and MMRP and the conditions of approval. So, thank you very much.

Thank you. I appreciate your presentation. Vice Chair, if I may just make two points of clarification just to not create any confusion. Um I I think Carrie was referring to the previous plan which had 55 units, but it is actually 50 units. And then the the 46 garage stalls maintain the 68 garage parking spaces. Yeah. Okay. I just didn't want anyone to get confused.

Understood. Thanks for that clarification. So at this point, I would open it up to questions of city staff or of the applicant for from the commission. Any questions of staff or the developer? Okay, I have a couple. Can you just give a really brief overview of SP330 and how it relates to this project and um maybe add into that the waiver and concession aspect of it and how that impacts the uh commission's jurisdiction or authority in this Sure, I'll try my best. And we also have David Rutderman here, city attorney. Um, so the SB330 application, it's essentially if you are meeting the inclusionary housing requirement, you qualify for the density bonus. With the density bonus, you are entitled to unlimited waiverss and then a number of concessions based on how many affordable housing units and what type you provide. um you don't you don't have to use your density bonus in the application in order to um be able to use your waiverss and concessions. So for instance with this project they did maximize the zoning the allowable zoning but there as was on included in car's presentation they were um they could have done a a 30 they had a 32% density bonus on top of uh what the zoning um allows. So with the concessions and waivers again waivers are unlimited and those tend to be um they're more physical preclusions. So it's um it's reducing or um go it's

basically reducing development standards if there's a if it's creating a physical preclusion of them being able to build out to the density and provide um the other development standards that are required and then the concessions tend to be more uh related to feasible uh economic feasibility. How did I do?

Pretty good. Um, so two different things going on. So density bonus, great job. So density bonus is a separate law than SB330. SB330 with the housing crisis act of 2018 basically allowed for um developers to submit what's called a pre-development application. And the state said if they submit these specific things that we um basically will set a date by which it will hold all the development standards as well as um the fees. And so with that we would send when somebody submits an SB330 we determine whether that is complete or have those documents been submitted. Doesn't matter if they're correct or anything. did they submit what is required? Um, and so that is what we call a pre-application submittal. Um, and whether or not that's complete. And so that's what locks that in. Um, their application has to basically match that and it can only change up to 20% of the density since then. But when they initially submitted came to you and then submitted their SB330, they were already at they submitted under the 50 unit one. And so they haven't changed um so they met all the requirements to maintain um their SB330 application. So that's what that is. So that's separate from density bonus.

Great. Thank you. So fair to say that the approval of a the waiverss and concessions that are requested are are not before that's not before the commission tonight. It's you're still approving according to the code. You're still making findings of accepting the density bonus and um so that is in your findings section and approving that it the requests are meeting the standards. So that's what is in your findings under resolution today.

And my understanding is the waiverss are not, but the concessions technically can be, but it's it's difficult to meet um the requirements. The city it would be would be hardressed to meet the requirements. Yeah. To reject it. It would be like a a public safety correct standard or something. That's exactly it. Yes.

Okay. Um another question um related to the traffic study is any traffic mitigation any traffic uh um implements or any any change in uh highway 12 uh traffic signals or anything has to occur in order for this to happen or recommended. So, CALR would actually they would control the requirements if there would needed to be, you know, an additional turn lane or or other physical changes um to the the main road. Um there wouldn't be a need for a an additional traffic light. Um they do meet uh the they don't exceed the thresholds uh for that was conducted for the traffic study. I actually wrote down um so with the cha the traffic generation that would be produced by as a result of this project were was around 350 um additional trips per day and it was about 20 of those during the peak morning hour and that accounts for in and out. So that accounts for people turning into the development and going out during that AM peak hour. And the same um is for the PM. It was 28 trips uh extra trips during the PM um peak hour.

Great. Thank you. Um another question. It's my understanding that there are mitigation measures in place that are built in as conditions of approval for noise and air quality and such during construction. Can you just briefly speak to that and what the what is uh required of the devel developer during the construction process?

Sure. So, uh generally as with most uh larger developments um a traffic control plan is put into place and that's um also reviewed by the public works department. um there they'll need to meet Calrans uh requirements as well. And for dust there's a a watering schedule. So water is used um at certain times ba essentially actually when any dust arises. Um, and I think we may have changed the language to be more broad because we want to be cognizant of um, the water conservation efforts that the state is trying to continue to utilize. Um, so we didn't want to force the applicant during the rainy season to have to water in order to stay um, in compliance with with their construction uh, B BMPPS, the best management practices. Um, so those are a couple examples. Also, uh, you can't have any, um, this is just off the top of my head, so I did print out the mitigation plan. I can look at if you'd like more detail, but, um, having, uh, um, construction like operations. They have to make make sure that the vehicles are working before bringing them to the site. Um, and then of course they would have to abide by the uh, construction hours as well. Great. Thanks. Um, in that same vein, there's it's my understanding that there's an ongoing um, maintenance obligation to as far as all the buyer retention stuff um, to to to make sure that that is exists in perpetuity. Correct.

Yes, that's absolutely accurate.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Barett. Um, you may not be able to answer this question. Um from time to time we have had applications come before this commission which we have approved. We actually rarely disapprove anything here. Um but they don't get built and um do we have any indication from this developer as to both having gained their entitlements through this process. Do they intend to actually build the project? And if so, do we know when it will be started and when it's estimated for completion?

Yeah. So, I'll provide the answers that I can and Jennifer might have more to add. Um, so as far as the schedule, I'd have to actually refer back to um the mitigation plan. There's a few things that come into play. they have to be cognizant of um or not just cognizant but abide by the biological uh mitigation. So that can um be challenging you know during certain certain nesting seasons and such. Um as far as entitlements and using those entitlements um I'll refer to Jennifer. I think she may have had conversations about that. Um maybe I'm wrong. So obviously the developers here and they can respond to that question. So we'll let them do that part. But as with all development projects they have two years um in which to exercise the entitlements and or um the option is always there to sell the entitlements. Any future development is tied to this project as approved including the conditions of approval. So any modifications, let's say if it was sold, any modifications to that would come back to you all for your approval as well.

Okay. And I believe we've had one or two successful uh projects that have come to fruition through DNOVA. Three. Yes, I understand they actually have built, but they've gotten approved. Maybe we can get the applicant's representative to give us whatever information she has.

Thank you. It's a very good question. it it is our intention to go ahead and build this um new community market conditions uh allowing us to go ahead do so. As far as the schedule um as I think what Diane was alluding to is the nesting bird season between February 1st and August 31st. So essentially we would have to go and do all of our bird nesting bird um surveys before then. And then of course we would be taking all of our improvement plans and our construction drawings through the city as well. So, as soon as we um receive this approval, we can start moving forward with the city on the rest of it. You know, our intention would really be to break ground next year and start construction next year. And how long do you anticipate the construction of the project will take?

Generally, in a project of this size and scale, uh it'll probably take us a good six months to do land development. Uh and then we would start um construction on the on the buildings. a three-story structure with this number of units, we're probably looking at about 7 to eight months of uh actual construction for each building and then we would kind of build it in in phases. Does that help? Well, so from the point in which you initiate the work, we're talking two years to completion possibly. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Miss, before you sit down, I just want to make sure there are no more questions for the developers representative while she's standing there.

Commissioner Nija,

um, two questions. One of which Commissioner Barnett uh, posed and um, answered for me. I was concerned about the timeline. Second question is what is if you can just and maybe it's more for staff when you come to marketing the um the product the lowincome products are they given um what's the timeline for that? Are they given like a you know a a preliminary opportunity to purchase? Um what do they have to go through? What is that process? or is it just you're you're putting it out there to the market and whomever?

Um, so this is a rental product, so it's not a for sale product. Got it. So the when um Miss Watt was talking about the phasing of and building phasing, the because of the the situation of the lot being just one access point and things like that, I'm pretty sure that by phasing, we're just talking about construction, not actually releasing to lease. And so um just because of the constraints and so all of them would be available at the same time um I'm assuming they'll still use their nonprofit uh arm to do maybe. Okay. So they may do the lottery. So do people people apply?

So they have for those 13 available units. So yeah, we have typically it's made available and the city will advertise it through our means and they'll list it through theirs as well. And then we work with whoever maintains or the management side of um the property. We maintain um con uh access to their rent roles and we make sure that the rents are being um accurate and that the individuals that move into those spaces um are also meeting the requirements of those different levels. So it's is it a first come first serve if you do indeed meet the requ qualify? Typically it is. Thank you.

Any other questions for the developers representative? Okay, I have one more. Okay, you mind if I cut while she's standing here? It's good to standing up and down is good for me. Can you just briefly speak to what if any neighborhood outreach has been done by Denova um in the surrounding neighborhoods? Sure. um aside from the initial study session I if there's been any and uh maybe include u how um adjacent properties uh might um bring up concerns during construction or afterward I'd appreciate

so the city doesn't actually have a specific process for um holding neighborhood meetings within the SB 330 time frame under SB 330 um We're only really allowed to have five public hearings. In this case, the public has been able to uh attend and be informed through our initial um 2021 uh planning commission work session. In addition, we've had other public forms such as um the scoping session for the EIR and the site has been posted actually for development for over a year and everyone within a certain radius has been notified. Um and that is essentially the the outreach that's um been undertaken. So we are within we are aligning ourselves with the city's process at this point.

Great. Thank you for that. Any other questions for you have a staff question. Thank you very much. Commissioner O'Neal. Um yeah, two questions. First, remind me on the affordable units. What is the time on that? Are they is it 50 years? I can't remember what it is. These are in perpetuity. In perpetuity. Oh, that's fabulous. Okay. Second question. Um, do we have anything in our city's guidelines that would prevent the owner of a rental unit of securing all the low affordable units for their own personal contacts?

Yes. How do we do that? I'll answer that one. um it's in our affordable housing agreement that will be signed um with the owners and then that runs with the land. So, and it applies to everybody moving forward. Thank you.

Does any other member of the commission have any questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Um, at this time I would open the meeting up to public comment that is specific to this agenda item. Please come forward, state your name. Good sorry good evening uh, commissioners and staff. My name is Omar Lopez. I'm the policy coordinator at Generation Housing and here to support the voice support for the Montalo Apartments project. Uh, the project represents the kind of thoughtful housing Sonoma needs. It will deliver 13 affordable units at the extremely low, very low, and low income levels in perpetuity. This is a lasting commitment that will serve generations for residents. In total, it adds 50 new apartments at the allowed density, directly contributing to meeting the city's housing goals, which are very important. Equally important, the design focuses on livability with usable open space and five distinct fort plants. The project provides real options for households of different sizes and needs. And despite a long and costly entitlement process, the project team has remained committed to keeping this project moving forward and that reserves some recognition. For all these reasons, we urge the commission to certify the EIR as presented and approve the project so that these muchneeded homes can move forward. Thank you for your time and for your service.

Thank you so much for your comments. Any other members of the public? Caitlyn.

Good evening. Caitlyn Cornwall, Cinema Valley Collaborative. Um the collaborative also wants to support this project. It's the kind of infill higher density more affordable project that um really all members of your constituencies are really needing to see more of in Sonoma Valley. So uh it seems like a great project all around. Um and thank you for everyone involved for sticking with it. Um, one thing that, um, the collaborative is really interested in watching and, um, tracking more and working with the city and the county on is the degree to which these dedicated uh, lowerc cost units that are inclusionary really are going to people that they're designed for over time. It's a hard thing to track. Um and uh so that's just something that we're looking at, but obviously there's nothing to um there's nothing to even enforce uh if they don't get built in the first place. So this is a great little project. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to address the commission on this agenda item? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment and we'll bring it back to the commission for commissioner comments sake. discussion. Who would like to go? Miss Sonil.

Um, I'd like to thank Carrie and Denova for going through this process. I remember the first study session. I remember the subsequent meetings on this and I think it's been a long process, but I appreciate you guys working through this with us. And I think that the the project here is a lot better now. and um I am going to be in favor of it and I really hope that we get more kids in Soma. So um I'm hoping that this project will be part of that process of helping us make it affordable for people with children to live here.

Great. Thank you. Any other commissioners have comments? Commissioner Bernett? Well, I'm I'm I I think the uh issue of whether I support or don't support this project is mood. 330 has taken that discretion away from me. Um and I've said many times past meetings what I think of the impact of the state laws and the removal of the local uh authority and discretionary projects. So, I'm not going to repeat myself. um this is something we we don't have any choice but to approve and um so it will be approved and I will vote to approve it because it's pointless to at this point for me to to not I am disappointed that um there's not more variety in in uh sizes and we as we all know you know a a studio is going to rent for less than a two-bedroom and by making this all two bedrooms. Um, uh, it it may prove better for larger families or couples, but it's also not going to be particularly affordable other than the ones that are mandated affordable because, if I understand it, the two-bedroom apartments in Soma are generally at market rates pricey and are hard to fill. So, um I'm sorry to see that there's not some studios and onebedrooms and smaller things for, you know, single working professionals who may want to live and work in Sonoma. But, um it this project is what it is. It's gone through many

um iterations and um undoubtedly will contribute a positive way to the housing stock and um so I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Willis.

I'll I'll um reiterate what um Commissioner Barnett said. I unfortunately, you know, the commission's discretion has been taken away from it by the state. Um the and and there are many things about this project that I don't like. I don't like the way that it utilizes the site. I don't like the way that all circulation is relative to a driveway um surrounded by garage doors and you access your front door via some either through the garage or via some um sidewalk that you know is adjacent to in this case in in the northern northern building the the wall of the adjacent parking lot. Um and um it's unfortunate that this is what the state basically is requiring small communities to accept. It's the part of development throughout California. This three stories stacked over a garage with no no um creativity in terms of um site use or community development. um it's just simply stacking them up, putting them side by side, and um making it easy for a developer to get approval um without the discretion of the state. I'm glad that we're getting um 13 affordable units. I also wish that we had some way of requiring more variety in terms of numbers of bedrooms in a project. I do think that there's a lack of small rental units in this community. Um, and you exclude um a large majority of rental um of of rent renters by having a $3,000 two-bedroom entry point. Um that's what their project on um West Bane is currently renting for for their

two-bedroom apartments. And I don't think that we need a lot more of that here. I think what we really need is things that are affordable with a capital A and affordable with a small A by their size. Um so I'm, you know, um I don't hold it against the developer that the state's allowing them to do these things and that we've had our discretion taken away from us, but at the same time, I'm not encouraged by this project. Um, I think the only benefit of it is that it's basically back off the highway and we won't have to look at it.

Thank you. Any other commissioner comments?

Okay. Um, I will wrap it up by saying that um, you know, in in the world of planning, we look at things through the lens of the highest and best use of land. And it's my opinion that this is the highest and best use of of that land. Um it aligns with our general plan, our housing element priorities. Um and I think it represents the kind of uh careful and um uh well thoughtout infill that our community really should be embracing uh in order to meet our housing obligations. Um and for those reasons, I will be supporting it. Um seeing no other comments, would anybody like to venture a motion? And I will say that for anybody who attempts to do that, um there there's it would be either a two-part motion. Um but we need to in uh we we need to address the environmental component first in order to make that a

Yeah, you can make it a single motion or you can make it a two-part. If you make it a two-part, environmental needs to go first. Understood. Would anybody like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. So, I'll move to I'll do I'll do it in one. Um, so I'll move to adopt a resolution certifying the final EIR adopting the mitigation monitoring reporting program and making the required findings including a statement of overriding considerations. And two, a resolution approving a design review density bonus demolition permit and parcel merger for the demolition of an existing single family home for the construction of a 50-unit multi- rental residential development. Very well done. Do I hear a second? Second. Second.

I think that was Mr. Latimer. Beat you by a half second. Wonderful. Roll call, please. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Latimer, I. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner O' Gorman Jenkins. I. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Commissioner Willers, yes. Vice Chair Hyrick, I. Youth member Patterson? I. The motion passes unanimously. Great. Congratulations. Thank you very much for being in attendance. I appreciate it.

Okay. With the conclusion of 4.1, we will move on to item 4.2 two of the public hearing which is a discussion consideration and possible act or possible adoption of a resolution recommending to adopt an ordinance uh amending the ordinance that deals with um projections into the right of way by accessory structures right or awnings.

All right. Um so the next item as stated by vice chair Hayrick is a discussion and consideration in the possible adoption of the resolution for u modifications to design review um ordinance section uh 1940 1110D. Um so and 1954080D. Um so both of these are being modified. We discussed this at the last um planning commission meeting. So, if you weren't there, hopefully you had a chance to watch it. Um, the this was brought up because I had um uh questions around how to treat awnings and the mares and other types of treatments like that that extend into the public rideway that um are on the face of a lot of commercial buildings and we hadn't specifically identified them in the design review process at what we wanted to exempt in that. And so I wanted to make sure that we incorporated that um with all of our other lovely updates that we've done before we start promoting and everything um of all of the exemptions and what the triggers would be for an exemption. So with that in your packets um before and then I edited for the packet today um based on the comments that we had received about trying to um try not to be so subjective. So I did remove um a term um out of there um that was pretty subjective and I agreed with you. Um

we would like to thank and excuse the city attorney.

Um and then also the request to um provide the examples of awnings. And so um with that um I just want to clarify that we did um the change that I went ahead and made was to remove that one subjective concern. I can put it up. Um, give me the HDMI. There you go. Can you see it now? All right. Um, so awnings, mares, canopies compatible with the overall design of the main structure and do not obscure the architectural features. There was another clause in there that now I can't even remember. It was so subjective. Um, that was brought up and so I removed it. Um and what my intent is is with our examples that we have is to show what we mean with um the compatibility. Um and then also to not obscure architectural features. Um and then I referenced the new section uh or not it's not a new section but the amended section um in the projections into the public right of way also um kept the section we discussed before about this that structures that are listed or determined eligible for listing um shouldn't exceed the width of the storefront opening or associated commercial window opening. And I'll bring up the examples to kind of show what that means. Here's that section that we also talked about

that I was just referenced um above in the design review exemption section. And this is where we are talking about that the hor the the more of the clarifying details about where these should be placed on a building and how high and that their projection um to a curb. And then also the height um how high does the actual um awning go, etc. Um and the reason why I put that in there, which we can take out, it's totally fine. I'm going to show you some examples in which awnings um are exceeding, let's say, a height of 16 feet. Um they're going way above a window sill, things like that. So, I'm going to show you those different types of examples right here. All right, here's my first one. Um, so these are right next to each other. Um, one is on the left hand side. It's kind of filling void. Um, it is way over the window. Um, the whole structure is over the window. Um, I'm assuming it still works as an awning and and providing shade. Um, and then the other example is Basque whose awning goes all the way almost to the very top of the building. So, those are two examples um of not what we would move forward with. So, if BAS came in under the new ordinance and said, "I'm going to put up a new awning." Um we would say, "Okay, your new awning needs to fit within these um height measurements and not extend all the way to the top of your building." And taking the case of the one on the right, um, unless I'm mistaken, that awning also projects further out over the sidewalk, which probably explains the height because, you know, to sustain

the same angle of the awning and have it projecting as far out over the sidewalk as it is would by necessity require it to be higher up on the building. So, have you incorporated any language into this as to how far over the sidewalk and awning may project? And does this exceed your current language of that? No. So, what um so what it does is the it'll say you can only be you cannot be taller. So, when you're projection, we don't want anybody to hit their head. So, we have um a height that it has to be set at at the base. Yes. And then it can go taller, right?

Um, and then you can have the valance section be to seven

and then you can project all the way out to we're saying three feet from the curb. So you can go all the way to extend almost to the curb. You have to be three feet from it. So like marquees are good example of this. I have a picture of that, but army keys are a good example where they extend pretty much all the way across our sidewalks, which is fine. We're just saying let's leave three feet. And the three feet are typically our utility poles, um, street signs, things like that that usually are within that 3T public right ofway space. Um, the it's more for these instances of the placement of the awning. Is it serving as an awning or is it an architectural feature? So, I'm saying if it's an awning, let's treat it like an awning for its purposes. If it's an architectural feature, that's a that's a different conversation. And do you believe that this using this picture on the right again, do you believe that the missing panel on the upper section in the photograph is simply there because the panel got removed for some reason?

Um, it's flapping. You can see it's I see. So there actually was fabric there, but yeah, it's right here. Yeah. It fell. Yep. So if he if they came in and they said, "I wanted to replace the fabric and not the structure," we would let them do that. If they wanted to replace the whole thing in the new structure, if if this code was adopted, we would say, "Please replace it to meet these standards in order to be exempt. If they didn't want to do that, then they're coming to you for approval." Does that make sense? Okay. Do we ever require them to repair

um this it appears that it's needs some do we have anything where we say hey you got to clean that up. Um we could there's there's a few awnings in town that need some love. Jennifer before you go past that one. Were you saying that the one on the left is also outside the guidelines? Can you explain that to me? It's not within the window. So it So what? So typically I'm trying to see. I got to go back up to the I put in here. Let's see. In other words, it's too high. Is what you're saying? Too she's saying

too high off in height. Um it can be high. I'm not It can't be low. Um let's see. No portion of any awning shall be higher than the windowill level of the lowest story exclusive of the ground story in mezzanine or extend above the bottom of a projecting upper story window bay which this is not the case. Um and in no case shall the awning exceed a height of 16 ft from the ground level of the roof line. So this is just the the things that we would check to make sure. Um but I like that awning and what I don't see what's wrong with it. So, so I also have a question related to the language here and that is

um don't you mean window head? Do you sill is the bottom of the window? I do mean window. Where did I go? No portion higher than the wind the head of the window. The top of the lowest story. Yes, I did. Okay. Do Do you want to finish your presentation before we open up to questions or do you care? Okay, we're working. We're working through it. We're all friends.

But I but I agree with you that the somehow in the language that the awnings should be secondary to the architecture of the building. Somehow the And you're trying to do that with words. I get it. Um because I do think that the awning on the right, the awning essentially covers the entire building and it really does, in my opinion, disrupt the street front. um architecturally and just becomes one giant sign really.

Um and so here are this is a historic building. So this is kind of the example where awnings are traditionally placed within the window opening. Um and then you can also see a little marquee um canopy actually in this case over um the entrance. So those are just two other examples. We historically have a lot. When I was walking around, I was like, "Wait, Marquee, marquee, marquee." Just going around. So, I'm glad I added those words. And this is the way they were tra traditionally used rather than as signs. Yeah. And I think it actually is the traditional awning that actually will retract will retract to get light in the winter, right?

Um so then here's um Sebastiani. Um so again, we have a big theater marquee. Um and then we have um awnings. So also in traditional commercial architecture you have um awnings placed in this location and what the windows that are above are called transom windows. And you typically would not put an awning up there. You put it over your storefront. Um and so when we say storefront, storefront is a basically the bay. It's the window and the door openings. That's that's a storefront. And so onyx are traditionally placed in that way. And so that's the goal with the historic resources is let's keep it traditional. Um some cases our transoms are um which I think is the case in this real estate office. Um I don't know not town square but um they're blackened from the inside because we've done drop ceilings and so they don't serve the same purpose that they used to serve which is to let light in. Um, in some cases, um, we have another building in town that I did not take a picture of. Um, it's a a special glass, um, if you've seen the squares, um, on our stone building that the brain is not working on the plaza. The courtyard one.

Carnegie. The one where the um the fellow's hall. The stone the stone building. Steiners. No, the stone building on the on first street. The one over by Sweet Scoops. Yes. Yeah.

So that building, if you look at the transoms, they have the traditional um square glass um in there. And so one of the goals with that building also is to preserve those square glass pieces and have them visible. It helps diffuse the light. Um here's another example of a traditional storefront where you see the awning treatment. Um again whether it's retractable or a fixed um it's over the entire storefront. Um and and then the transom is left exposed. And this again allows light into the structure. Um, and then this is another example where the awning is more like an architectural feature than an awning. Um, and uh wraps the entire building. Um, I I understand it. You know, sometimes when we have a lot of void space on, you know, structures, we fill it with things. And in this case, um, it was an awning.

This is this is not unattractive.

It's not unattractive. The question is, does this get exempted? Is this something staff approves or is this something planning commission needs to approve on a case-byase basis? And and that's where I was going with the with the um approach is when we treat awnings more as an architectural feature to the structure versus an awning as a traditional awning use as a shade structure. Um because when we do have signs to if it when we change the sign ordinance, which I know um you guys are working on right now, um some aspects of that sign if it meets the code will be exempt potentially and not come before you for approval unless it again exceeds um that size. So um this is why I wanted to show you these pictures. So, thank you, Commissioner O'Neal.

Thank you. These pictures help a lot. Um, but I have one question. Are we having problems with awnings in Cinema that we needed to

address this? I mean, I haven't heard um other than during COVID when Cafe Laay did put up theirs, but that had the post that went out into the sidewalk. So, we don't allow that at all. And so that's clarified in here is that we're not going to allow that um for canopy structures. The aspect of this is that we didn't say anything. We were silent in the design review. And it's um I would rather be clear so that when something comes forward, staff's able to say this does not this this can be exempted or this needs to go to planning commission. Um it came up because somebody asked for a second story uh awning. um recently. Um and so on the plaza and I was like, "Huh, I didn't have that in the code. I didn't talk about it." Um and so that's the part of the impetus for actually bringing this back was I wanted some clarity around that and and especially as some of these may change over time, um that I wanted clarity. we require any awnings with signs to come and get an approval. So, in my mind, um if you don't have a sign on it, shouldn't you be treated in a similar fashion?

And and is a sign defined as a name of a business or just a descriptive term or lettering of any kind? It would be anything associated with uh that business. So uh an awning that says real estate but doesn't say the name of the company would be deemed a sign. Yes.

I have a question. Um the beginning part of your um ordinance or or statement said um that you get approval for this if it does not obscure the architectural features of the building. Isn't by definition an awning obscuring the architectural features of the building? Are you trying to make the objective standards if it they meet the objective standards then by definition it's met the subjective standards of not obscuring the architectural features of the building. I'm just worried that that you could drive a truck through that that comment and and require more approval here than at the staff level for having that in there. So, my intent with the all the things that we're exempting is to provide examples of what to do um or the drawings that show how to do it. And so, this like the one that I just put up when we talk about architectural features and let's say the see the awning right now is in the window, the one that's before you on the screen. An architectural feature is that design element that you see that wrap around. And let's say they put Basque awning on this building. So that's where I'm going with covering architectural features.

Maybe it didn't. My question was only the subjective standard that you had at the beginning about the awning is approved if it doesn't obscure the architectural features. They don't they obscure depending upon where you're standing. They're obscuring the architectural features of the building. Right. So architectural features is a defined term when it comes to if you're underneath the awning is it is it obscuring the architectural features of the building?

So no I so it's within the so we're covering the window. So when I'm saying architectural features of the building like the picture that you see here, you're seeing design features like and that's where the some more of that detail was in like the pieers which is the col the flat columns that you see on the building and things like that. Sorry, you can use that as a description of um what the intent is. Like I can see this building being improved from an awning standpoint if the awnings were over if there was a major awning maybe over the entrance and the two side windows and an awning over the secondary doors and windows separately. So that the corner of the building reads and the rhythm of the pileasters of that facade also read as a building rather than as an awning as a porch. Um, and so that's, you know, that's where the that's where the design, the subjectivity comes. And I think the way that you're trying to define the awning and its placement and its impact on the building in a in a kind of tight box to allow an exemption to move forward without design review is a great um move forward. And then these kinds of features that if someone wants to come forward with this, it should go through the design review process because it's a big feature and a big impact.

Is do you have more of your report or do you want to take questions? Um, no. I'm okay. Questions? Any other questions from the commission for the director?

No more questions. I like to add a comment to Mr. Willers, which is I I think this this building that's pictured right now, the Century 21 uh canopy, um provides a pretty good indication of when something needs to be reviewed um from a design standpoint because um this isn't a canopy that's associated with a single business because it wraps around the building. It also ends up being a canopy for all the other businesses in the building that face on the parking lot. And so I think that um I think what we see here is um a major um design feature of the building as a whole as opposed to an associated canopy with an individual business. And in cases like that where you're where you're essentially having an impact on the entire look of the entire building, I think those those demand a more scrutiny.

Any other questions for the director? Just a a comment in in uh seeing these photographs. Um what's highlighted for me is that uh there's a lack of maintenance and uh cleanliness etc. I don't know. It's just it's interesting to see them that um is there anything in place to say hey you know you you've got a a broken awning when do we say you got to replace it? I'll look into that or clean it. take a hose to it and try to clean it. It's gonna fall apart.

I have a question. Would you clearly you've done some reconnaissance um would you care to venture a rough estimate as to how many existing awnings, canopies, marquees would not comply with the ordinance that we're contemplating? Most?

No, not very many. Honestly, I think I took the pictures of the ones that I felt didn't meet what we would put in the standard. Um, again, doesn't make people change them. They're they would be grandfathered in. It's the structure itself gets modified that we would then ask for compliance. So, if they just wanted to put new fabric on, that's not going to trigger that. Understood. Any other questions? Okay. Yes, Miss Commission. So, um, going back to the one next to the Bass Bakery, um, that one looks new.

What process did they go through to have that one? Um, I don't I don't know because it's not a sign. Um, I I don't know if it was part of the design like when it came forward for design review at that time. Maybe already had awnings and maybe it changed but they were original to the building. Yeah. So it might be a bright kind of teal color.

Um so when the fab again fabric change, we're not going to get into the the color game, but um the design review um process if you know maybe the other the the So maybe this building when it went through design review um process it either maybe it was part of the building or it was a sign permit and they and that was when they did it. I'm I'm not sure. Um so again the goal is to create avenues for exemptions um paths of least resistance and then if they want to do something else there is an avenue for that as well. So it's not saying you can't do this again. We're just saying please go through a design review process for it.

Thank you and thank you for the photographs. I never noticed that bear above the entry to the attorney's office. Never noticed it. It's a great walked past. Did you notice there's a chimney? It is. Look at all those chimneys. Yeah. Yeah. No doubt. There are no more questions. I will open this item to public comment. There's anybody in the gallery who would be interested in opining, please step forward and state your name.

Hi, Tom Graves. I live here in Sonoma. Um, I'm delighted you're paying so much attention to this. Um it it's clearly very hard to define you know as much as you try what's proper and that can change with each building. Um I would make uh two suggestions. one is and I and no one has suggested this but from my point of view I would hate to see the plaza and the other businesses and the town homogenized with one awning one anything frankly yet you have no one has suggested that that's just my word of warning but um the commissioner has done such a great job trying to define the standards but I think many of us agree uh the the standards are what we see with our eyes and what we find tasteful and appropriate or not tasteful and appropriate. So if there is such a um opportunity for things to be defined but the city staff has the ability to say we don't find that appropriate and if the building owner or store person disagrees um there's uh they can come to you and make their case. And seems to me that kind of covers the basis. So, thank you. Thank you for your attention to this. Appreciate your comments. Any other members of the public wishing to comment on this agenda item. All right. Seeing none, I will close public comment

and bring it back to the commission if there are any final comments or if we have a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the modifications as discussed. With the one modification of the window sill being with the modifications as discussed. Yes. One though, right? Okay. Just checking. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Barnett. I. Commissioner Ladder. Hi. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Commissioner Willers. Yes.

Vice Chair Hyrick. Hi. And youth member Patterson. I. The motion passes unanimously. Right. Moving right along. Um, that would conclude the public hearing portion of tonight's agenda. We'll move on to items for discussion. Item number 5.1 is a discussion of the general plan ad hoc committee comments on uh the available draft general plan elements. Staff report please.

So um no staff report. We just dive right into the documents. And so I'm going to do that here in just a second. Okay. So the first one that we are going to start with is the conservation and open space and in your packet which I'm bringing is um the here we go um yep are going to be the comments um that are provided by the general plan ad hoc um which um at that time was Commissioner Willers and Donach and has since been adding um we've added Commissioner O'Neal. Um but these are just the um Donbach and Willer's comments and hopefully you had a chance to review everything and so similar to what we did last time. I am going to just ask um in general um page by page I can reduce this a little bit or I could keep it at this same scale that we're at right now. um what uh if there's any comments um suggestions, thoughts, feelings um around the introduction. And if Commissioner Willer since he's here and uh Chair Donach's not, if Commissioner Willers wants to say anything before we get started, he's more than welcome to or we can just dive right in. Nope. Okay, diving in. Um so we have two elements to go through tonight. So the first one is this one and then the second one will be the circulation. So my goal is to finish these two and we'll have finished four and then those four I'm combining with the comments that I received from the public as well as the other commissions I've presented to and the general plan task force. Um all comments for these

four I have requested that it ends uh tomorrow at the end of the day so that way I have time to put them all together and get them to our consultant. We have um four more to go. We will already utilities is out and available. So we'll be bringing that shortly. Um and then we will have um land use, cultural resources and last will be safety element. We're still um completing uh the evacuation study. So those will be the last four that we'll be doing. Um, as of right now, I don't think we need to have a special meeting as long as we get through these two today. Um, we should be fine uh to get through them. Um, probably at our November meeting. Um, probably touch on a couple in October, but otherwise November. All right. Introduction on the conservation open space element. Are there any comments, thoughts, suggestions, questions? Sure. would uh matters of funding for example for the acquisition and preservation of open space and normally be found in an element like this. In other words, it's in in some portion there's going to have to be a uh

implementation measure which I assume would include recommendations about how to accomplish the goals and objectives. One of which would be for the city, for example, to create a uh open space preservation fund or something. We'll get down into that little general vicinity um and then we can look at that specific language in there. But we do talk about um park and luffy if it's if it's available to us. We also talk about the Quimby um fees and then as always we go after um grants and then partnership opportunity. So like the Montini preserve was a partnership opportunity um to get that open space. So that is in here. um in a little bit. Um and again, comments are on the side. Um and then um there will be some edits within depending on the format of the document. Um and even though you see my name, so just a refresher. Um so you'll see um comments from Willers and Donach. And then you'll see my name and this is we um meet together and then I'll add maybe some additional clarifying questions or thoughts um and things. So like in this case you'll see at the bottom I say make actions for the shuttle. Um and so it's a reminder to myself to do something um in that case. Um, so here in this section is just again the contents are the summaries of each goal and I'll update the summaries as the goal if the goals themselves um are being modified and changed.

Can I ask a question? Sure. Um, we talked about financial resources. Um, I'm wondering about human resources. When we put this many goals down, who is responsible for achieving the goals? Everybody. So, everybody meaning a staff of five or what?

I have two staff. Um, so no, it's it's um all departments. So, this isn't just for planning. This is for the entire city. So, we have we now have a parks department. So, we have um a parks director. We have a public works director. And so these different sections, so when we talk about this section, um I'm working closely with um both public works and parks to make sure that these are feasible. We also partner with a lot of organizations to help maintain what we have as well and they provide a lot of community resources. Um so it's again it's everybody in that sense. We also utilize general plan policies when we implement um development projects. So we have to see are they consistent with this. So developers as they develop also implement our general plan policies. Um that's why I I said everybody because I really do mean everybody has a role um in this. We you'll see in certain sections where we actually specifically reference organizations as examples of who we would partner with to do something.

Yeah. So that that was kind of like is does somebody take responsibility for actually achieving the goal? Yes. For each particular goal, a different person may have the responsibility or a different group may have the responsibility for doing that.

Yes. So, we'll have an administration section at the end where it's going to highlight basically who's who's the lead in in some of these. In a lot of cases, the general plan is planning's responsibility um to make sure that the other departments and and everybody's um working through them. Um planning commission is a big part of our general plan and our goal as um planners is also to make sure that city council has these. This is supposed to also help set our goals and our you funding goals and our our policy determinations as a city. So, this is uh you weren't here for my very beginning of this um process, but we talked about how a general plan is basically the top and then we have a lot of little plans that come out of it um and a lot of policy documents and and funding opportunities that feed from that. So,

yeah, I mean my comment that I made to you the other day was I'm just worried that this is overreaching, you know, impossible to actually achieve. And I suppose you can set levels that are but you know are we better off making lesser fewer goals that we can actually accomplish than a lot of goals that we're not able to accomplish. That was and Lord knows I have no idea whether that's the case or not. Yeah. I mean we always again we it's a 20 year mark

there. Um we try not to make them too aspirational. um we do want to have some realistic aspect to them. Um some cases, some of these will do very quickly after it's adopted. Um and then other cases, some of these are long going to be longer term. If opportunities arise, then we have a policy um or an action that we can utilize to take advantage of that opportunity. Um I I think I gave an example um I think to you um but I also gave it to um the pros commission is you'll see things in here about um open space that may not have to do with our within our city boundaries and because opportunities arise and and also in the circulation element. So opportunities come in where they request assistance on getting grants from the city. So, can we write a letter of support? And so, I wrote a letter of support to um this county when they applied for grant funding for the eight street bicycle to acquire um the ride of way. And part of that is because it's in the general plan in our active transportation plan to support them um and to support um our whole system. So, that's what that did. And then more recently, somebody reached out to help get a grant to acquire property on the ridge over here at Soma Mountain. Um the land trust, the Sonoma Land Trust. Um and again that there's something in here in our new one and I think in the old one as well about trying to preserve our ridge lines. We don't have but one little small section of our ridge line, but we can still um potentially affect change um outside of our city. Yep.

And you know, it's also that goals in some cases are programs are things that are objectives for the city to implement. Other goals are like in the majority of these are um guidelines for implementation. So to evaluate a project against um so if we want to conserve, protect and enhance Soma's biological resources when a project that in um that impacts those you reach back to these general statements to see whether or not you're meeting that goal and implementing that pro that project. Um and then aspir you know there are some goals that are purely aspirational which will need a funding a program but those implement those will fall through and have implementation measures of how to actually get that get to that point. So every one of these goals isn't something that necessarily has someone who's monitoring it and a deadline to meet it by it's it's always a functional element of the general plan. Any um comments, thoughts, feelings about the language in the content section. I'm satisfied with it.

Anyone else? They all seem like good goals to me.

Okay. All right. Let's get into the meat of the goals. Um so the first goal is around the biology and biological resources. Um so this is our plan um animal life, habitats, etc. Um, and a good example of that, Commissioner Willers, when we have new development, we want to look at that. So, we do like biology studies on vacant land to make sure there's no habitats. Um, the comment earlier on the prior project about bird nesting, this comes from this section, too. go too fast, just let me know. So again, comments, questions, thoughts around goal one policies and then here are the actions. So again, the actions are supposed to be tied to the policies to implement them. I have one question on that COS1G

about the nesting. Sure. Um, seeing the work they're doing up by Hughes Field right now on removing the eucalyptus trees and I think that kind of fell into that issue about bird nesting, right? Um, and they couldn't they couldn't complete it till after August 31st I think in that. So, we have there's there's certain things you either just don't do it during the nesting season, right? or you do the birds the Judith's nesting study see if there's anything going on any activity and then if there is then you have to

well and I noticed that that comment it starts with where feasible and I just found it really educate me I found it really disturbing that instead of taking the trees out earlier they just kept the kids off the field and they put yellow tape out on the field and the kids weren't allowed to use that field and I'm an environmentalist, but that just seemed I don't I don't know what the the delay reasons for that. I mean, it was a county project. Oh, it was county. That's county land. Okay. All right. We partnered with them and we're hoping

I don't know where we can put in there, but I think that where feasible is great and we have to have uh some way where we determine feasibility.

So, the this is where we go. If you the if feasible or if not feasible so you either avoid the season and then if that's not feasible because you want to start construction or take down the trees then they shall retain a qualified biologist to then figure out if there are nests in any of these trees before removal. That's the if feasible component of that. Okay. And I wanted to push a little further and say if there's birds on the trees, but there's kids underneath them. Um, so yeah, it's a reasonable there's there's got to be some Yeah, I don't I don't know where I'm going with that.

It's a It's a I think it's a federal law actually. I have a comment on this section, too. Not to jump ahead of you. Go ahead. I in going through this and I did read it in painstaking detail. This section in particular is so it's so wonky. I mean, it really like I'm just Is it appropriately placed? I understand it's an action item to support the goal, but it's so prescriptive. It's oddly specific.

It felt like it's misguided, like misplaced. Not not because I don't support the policy. It's just it just provides a level of detail I'm wondering should be somewhere else and that should this be condensed a little. it just seemed mismatched from some of the other action items in terms of its level of detail and maybe that's appropriate.

Yeah. So, couple of different things. One is it is a higher level of detail um and it you know we had this discussion in our ad hoc as well. In some cases there are very a higher level of detail on certain aspects. I will say that these are because they are our mitigation measures that we utilize um the in our projects. So when we say oh you're going to do this, this is what you have to do. So this is where it's written out of what you're going to have to do. So when you see the cultural and archaeology, which we have never had before, it's going to be a little bit more explicit in like the archaeology and when are you going to actually do this the survey. Um the other aspect of this um and our the way that this consultant does his or works on these general plans. And so this is up to us, but the way he does the general plans are self-migating general plans. And so a lot of the mitigation measures that we would adopt in for um the general plan find their way into the general plan. these actions as well um helps us so that we're not pulling out the EIR for the general plan and trying to find that to utilize on these projects.

I don't if I may commissioner

I I don't have difficulty with the level of specificity here. Um you know when we look at other portions of the general plan for example uh the connection between land uses and zoning districts and then the provisions that are associated with it. you you have this whole section and I'm assuming our new general plan will be structured somewhat the same is that you then have a development code which gets into all of these kinds of highly specific language about circumstances that come up and how you're supposed to deal with it. Now, when it comes to land use, um that's customarily been viewed in general plans as um the most legalistic element because you're dealing with private property and property rights and things like that. And and it has essentially the language forms a constitution of of land use law. We don't have a comparable development code for uh the environmental element for example. We don't have a separate document which you know embodies the procedures or the rules and the requirements. And so there's really not an alternative to this. This is really where that level of detail has to happen unless you created a secondary document which would also refer to it and read very much like this and you'd call it you know the environmental uh uh conditions document or something. So I you know it's just as

you as you go through these general plans they move from the aspirational goal portion settings to the actual implementation of how you do it. You got the policies in between which is what you want to encourage but ultimately the general plan has to include this level of detail or you don't have something to refer to when something comes before you and you don't want to have to basically figure out what to do about a situation on the spot. Now you that you can't always anticipate every possible variation of things that will come to you and there are times even with this level of detail where you go, huh, we haven't come up with this in come up with this situation before and so we've got to figure out what to do. This is helpful in terms of providing the framework for how you deal with situations that you encounter. I just don't think there's an alternative to it. And I agree. It's very wonky. But that's that's that's where we go. We go from the general to the wonky.

Well, and thank you. And Mr. Vice Chairman, may I Oh, please. I appreciate your explanation. I and I don't have any objection to to the specificity. I just didn't I appreciate what you're saying. I just wasn't sure if there was another place for this because it is so detailed, but I appreciate the explanation and um no further comments on that section. Thank you. Just to clarify, this 1G relates to all development within the city. Correct. Correct. Commercial, private, anything having to do with the tree. Okay. Yeah. I'm going to lodge an objection to it on the basis of policy altogether. It's law.

Which part? It's the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It's a federal law, right? But which aspect of that is federal law? Is that you can't remove a tree during uh the nesting season? That that's so we have a section that mirrors this in our existing general plan. It's in force now. It is a standard mitigation measure for all projects that we should be enforcing. It is. It Yeah, it's a law. It's law. It's law. So, why do we repeat it if it's already law?

So, we're giving the specificity of you either don't you can do it, but this is what you're going to do. You're going to do a nesting and then you're going to this is your buffer zones. This is what we're getting into. And so, we're saying here you go. This is what you need to do. Understood. And is it any specific aven or all? It's um as far as like a list of like protected

we have. So we have two different things. We've got just birds nesting period. Um and then we have down a little further if it's a habitat for a sensitive species. Very different things. When a bird nests and it's not a sensitive species, as soon as it's done nesting, you can tear down that tree. Understood. If you have a sensitive habitat for like the condors, you're not getting rid of that. So that that's an important distinction. Thank you. You're welcome. Appreciate that. And on that note, I'm going to call a fivem minute recess. Okay.

in the item for discussion po portion of tonight's agenda. All right, I guess it's back to me. Um, so, uh, here's another example of where we're listing a lot of things. Um, so Jennifer, how much detail do you want us to get into tonight versus do you want us to keep it higher level? Like what are your thoughts?

You can get into the weeds if you would like if there's specific language. Um so like on this one one H um uh Tom Bach made a comment that suggests a yearly review periodically is is not good specific. So those are the types of things if you have comments like that or questions. Um I think somewhere in here there's another one where we had a question of like does this group actually exist um anymore? Like where did this come from? Um, and so one of the things that I've noted to myself is they've noted in a separate document for me what is carryover from the last general plan and what's new. Um, so then my goal is to see what was in the one right before that as well to see if we've continued some of these things um, including commissions or committees that don't exist anymore. Any other comments, questions in the first goal, policies and actions? If not, moving on to the second in the interest of time because it's 8 o'clock. All right, this one's super short. Um but we um the comment on this one was around ensuring that uh soil quality specifically in this section like adding something around soil quality.

So I have a comment. Sure. Um well first off I just want it's probably just a typo but wouldn't this be 2 A and under actions. Yeah. Okay. I just question and then on um what would be what's now 1J which I think would be 2A. Um just a question around the requirement for an on-site soil survey. I'm assuming this is large scale constru construction. This isn't like a blanket requirement for all projects. Is there some specificity as it pertains to when this is triggered? Um it is in our um ordinance. I would have to look specifically. It's in our water efficiency. Okay,

that's okay. I just I'm just I was trying to approach this reading it as as an average citizen that doesn't necessarily understand. And so I just a comment would be maybe specifying when that is triggered and what it applies to.

So it's really yeah, it's really around the landscaping and doing water efficiency water efficient landscaping. So we need Commissioner Willers explains the soil here very well. Um but um are you know making sure that you're the the soil capacity to actually absorb water. That's what basically what that soil survey is doing is what kind of top soil are do you have and are we just going to create more runoff or are we actually absorbing and doing and so do you need different types of soil added to mix? That's the intent of that with our weo ordinance. We know weo um So that's what that's about.

And and how does the topic of minerals come in? I mean,

um it's a requirement from the state to talk about. So we don't have mineral issues like we don't produce different types of minerals. I think it's just a section. All right, rolling. Call three. Air quality and greenhouse gases. If you don't want to comment on this section, I've got a lot of comments, but you can.

Yes, I have comments. You're fine. I'm sorry. Don't be sorry. This is why we're doing this is to get more comments. Well, and thank you. So, my comment pertains to uh 3.3. Okay. Um it it specifies AB32 and SB32 implementation and I'm just gonna nerd out from my current profession. I do believe there is a new standard

that has been adopted um in 2022 um AB1279 and that this does is it's a net zero GHG by 2045. So I just I guess my comment or question for the consultant would be just to make sure that we are applying the most up-to-date standards since the state um I think has updated that in new legislation.

Okay. What was it again? um AB 1279 and I believe it's a 2045 net zero GHG emission standard. So it's even more rigorous than 32 AB32 and SB32. So it just may be something to flag that and and there's a couple different sections throughout where AB32 and SB32 is referenced. Um, so we may want to also uh flag um some of the goal sections. Okay.

So 3C as well as 3G to update that standard. Assuming I'm accurate. It's fine. So I put look up and I already forgot the number. Thank you.

Others question as to 3.5 require new development to incorporate green building measures necessary to achieve Calgary in tier one. Um, your dad did that. Well, I'll know who to talk to. It's It's already live a small town, huh? It's already in the um building code. We adopted it already because it's state law. No, tier one is not. So, what it remind me. Oh, don't. Okay. Tier one obviously it's the highest. It is highest standard. Okay. I thought that that was a way that the state of the law was moving anyway. No,

it did not move that way uh this year. I um I can't remember what it's at now, but it's not tier one um with the new code, but this is anticipatory for well we already adopted the build when we adopted the building code um two years ago. Um that's when we added the tier one status. So at that time it's called reach. So we reached we added we can be more uh restrictive or rigorous or things on specific aspects um of our building code and the we did. Thank you.

You're welcome. others. Okay. Go in once, going twice. All right. Goal number four, climate change, adaptation, and resiliency. This is a required section um as well per state law. Um and um If you have questions about it, let me know.

I'm I'm not sure what 4.1 even means. Promote a well-prepared community that can effectively overcome natural disasters. Well, I mean, I hope that we're in some fashion able and somewhat prepared to overcome natural disasters, but I'm not sure what promoting it means. just don't demote it. Could you could you reframe it consistent with the the goal statement at the top instead of saying promote maintain? That suggests that we have a status quo.

Fair enough. Yes. But I don't like promote either. Ensure. Well, really what it really comes down to is is develop a plan is really what needs to happen. Um because that's what we don't have is we don't have a plan other than other than our emergency operations center plan. Miss Nent, I heard you say a word that I will sign on to support. So you're saying design this plan is designed that will support a wellprepared community. Yes.

How about if we say plan for a wellprepared community? Develop a plan. You get the idea.

I get the idea. I'm not sure if 4.3 is possible or realistic. I'm not really sure that PG&E or the cell uh phone cell providers are going to uh be interested in spending a lot of time working on with with us on anticipated climate change impacts. So while it while while it's an admirable it's an admirable idea it's completely impractical.

I think it's the word ensure. So we're collaborating to ensure but um this is one of those aspirational as opportunities aspirational policy aspire to collaborate. Well, there was someone from PG&E at the city council meeting last night that was talking about undergrounding and tree trimming and all of that. So that that is directly related to this. They Well, and you know it's in their goals as well. Well, yeah.

So, I think that the fact that we recognize it's going to be in utilities goals and we agree to collaborate with them is just stating that we fully intend to be good partners with the utility companies while we go forward on this. And we are a utility provider too. We have water Um and we are working with them on hardening too and things like that. So

on uh number 4.8 date.

Um, I'm I've I've many times made comments about the state legislature passing laws that indicate they don't know their ass from their elbow about what different committees are doing. So you've got at the same time that the state is pushing for tree covers to reduce heat islands and parking lots, they are about to impose potentially this year under the oposes of the fire marshall uh requirements for the removals of trees adjacent to buildings in in in a in a major way. Now we're talking about um standards of um which of course make no sense of 100 ft of defensible area around structures uh in high fire zones of which the city has a substantial amount of real estate and that in all cases the vegetation be removed that's as close as five feet to the structure to reduce leaf debris

that that's already state law. Yes, it is. It just hasn't been implemented yet. Well, and they're talking about the implementation of it.

It is implemented. And so there's nothing allowed within 5T that's combustible except for specific kinds of plant materials that are not considered combustible. Um, mulch isn't allowed within five feet of a building because it burns. Um, trees are not required to be cut down within 100 feet. They are required to be laded so that they are not combustible from the ground in high fire zones within 30 feet of the building. There are mitigation members measures that allow you to still landscape, allow you to still have trees, but they are mitigation measures and required by law to have a landscape that doesn't promote lading of fire to buildings. And so I have to every site plan that I do that's in a high fire zone, I have to show what those degrees of separation and preparedness are on that property. Um,

and you have to do it if you you're going to get homeowners insurance. It's state law. That's the bottom line. I understand. And so my point is that this item basically points out the contradiction between cool roofs, trade cover, reduced expanses of dark pavement and other cooling strategies. The fact is is that on the one hand trees which provide much of that are now being eliminated as a strategy.

At the same time they're being employed as a strategy for these things. Now if that isn't a case of the ass and the elbow not communicating I don't know what is. Well, it and it it comes down to the where the extreme fire hazard zones have been overlaying on top of urban development rather than rural development. Yeah. And that's where the rub's coming for us now. Well, and if you look at if you look at the map of the city of Sonoma, there's a substantial portion of the city of Soma. Yeah. new that's now being considered

not a not not a zerorisk area, right? No, I I get it. But um it is what

and interestingly enough, I I did make a comment in my notes about this section because it doesn't anywhere mention wildfire resiliency. And so as a general comment, I felt like there should be maybe an incorporation or reference under any sort of emergency preparedness that we specify in some way um you know wildfire preparedness and and resiliency in this section. And I even thought and again a little bit different obviously what than what Commissioner Barnett is talking about but interesting that he brought that piece up is maybe having some sort of um additional goal in this section um not a goal I'm sorry a policy um added or action about collaborating to strengthen wildfire preparedness and resiliency through things like vegetation management defensible base, things like that.

4A is kind of a catchall. Is that a catchall, you think? Well, I also wonder um I mean, is this going to introduce a period of um inspections on the of properties, not properties have put in applications for development, but every existing property that's happening? is the state insurance companies that's already happening by insurance companies. Well, the insurance companies are kind of inspecting.

No, the it's it's widespread in in not only in California, but that's widespread, but um so the insurance companies are way ahead of the legislation on that. Well, in the case of my personal experience, I got a home policy cancelled on the house my daughter and granddaughter live in in the springs because with the instruction that all the vegetation needed to be removed within 30 ft of the house. Well, that takes you 15 feet into the neighbor's yard. I mean there's there's not coordination between the institutions of government and the business community on on looking at the standards and the regulations that are in place and where and where it puts the the responsibility on a city. I'm not really sure. Is it the city's responsibility to inspect every property in the city, determine if it's in compliance with the state regulations on flammable m plant material near a house?

We we don't need to. I mean, the insurance are so far ahead of that. That's something that there's no resources for the city to do it. There's no reason for the city to do it when the insurance companies are already doing it. So I don't think that is one that we need to think about except you don't have to have insurance unless you have a mortgage. True. You can have a house and have no insurance. Absolutely. But for the for the number of people who are going to um not have insurance, have a house, not have a mortgage. It's this big. I think we should look at bigger issues.

I'm I'm just raising the issue of enforcement. city is not an effective enforcer in my opinion of almost anything. And now we've got a new layer of of regulation that seems to me to imply enforcement or are we just going to turn it over to private enterprise? I mean, I understand that private enterprise is doing it for their own reasons, but if this is going to be a rule that applies to a municipality, it's up to the municipality do or they're or they're going to be subject to liability if they haven't done their job. It's just another case of of something being thrown on a local jurisdiction with no funding, no nothing. anymore in goal four.

I I I was following up on Commissioner Gorman's um comments. I would like to see a little bit more clarity over what we consider to be the most likely natural disasters, wildfire, flooding, earthquakes. That'll be in our safety element. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Keep rolling. All right.

Actions. Uh goal number four. So this is where you're seeing more of the specifics on uh you'll see overlap between climate resilience, climate adaptation in this section. And then our safety element itself will be more specific to our different risks. Um, and we're also participating right now. So again, this is an example. We have general plan and then we're working with the county right now on our joint uh hazard mitigation plan. All right. Hydrarology and water quality. Um, one of the main things that's come up recently um, in this and was raised is around our groundwater and if there's ways to capture ground more groundwater and help our aquifers um, in our area. But any other um, one comment on 5.1? Sure.

Could we say require development to avoid impacts to local waterways instead of encourage development that avoids? Is it possible to say require development to avoid? I mean, I think we do that already with the setbacks and I don't think you can require development to avoid it because it's it's unfortunately unavoidable impact from development. What you can do is mitigate the impact and and standard be best practices of capturing water that is flowing off of a property off a roof and maintaining it on site. It's why we see ditches and and ponds on new development is that what it does is it slows down the impact on the local waterways and wetlands by discharging that water at a slower rate or settling it so that it can have opportunity to um percolate if the soil will accept it. And so I don't think you can require them to avoid impacts because you can't. It's a it's part of development. We we displace water and we have to deal with it. Um and it eventually ends up in the waterway or wetlands or natural drainage. So you can

could we say to minimize impacts? Yeah. Could we say uh require development to minimize impacts? Well, state law is already doing that. Yeah. Yeah. We can say it. I mean, this just sounds I mean, just to make it sound No, I understand where you're trying to Yeah, I understand where you're trying to go with it.

Um, on 5.7 has to do with plants and trees native to the region, climate resilient that are suitable for use in landscaping. Not really sure we're going to be allowed to have any landscaping anymore. But but ironically, the trees species that are drought tolerant are in trees like eucalyptus. How how fascinating is that? Oh, come on. Drought tolerant trees are also oak trees. So, you know that it's not just eucalyptus. I know. I know. I know. Oak trees are also fire resistant. So, you know, they're natively adapted and Yeah. and subject to sudden sudden oak death syndrome. I mean, you know,

you're not allowed to plant eucalyptus. You're not allowed to plant bamboo. I'm gonna restrict you. What do you mean about bamboo? Oh, bamboo is highly flammable and it is an invasive species. No bamboo. I know you like it probably. I've got a I've got a whole grove. I've got a whole grove of bamboo. You've got property lines. I've got property lines of bamboo, too. It is flammable, FYI.

Moving right along. People are flammable if you get hot enough. All right, now we're getting punchy. Let's get through this. Yeah, moving right along. All right, actions that support goal number five. Any comments? Hold on. That was groundwater. Yeah. Okay. What's water efficiency landscape ordinance?

Ah, now we're back to the landscape. Well, it is our water section and we do water our landscapes. Concrete everywhere. No more yards. Do you have a drip system? Buildings made out of metal. Do you have a drip system? Do I have a drip system? Yeah. Then you're then you call then you're good.

No, that's about fire. Take that bamboo out of my cold dead hand. Okay. Yeah. All right. Moving on. Join us up here now. I forgot you were back there.

Um, storm water standards treatment. Keep scrolling. Anything? Anything? Moving along.

No. Visual and scenic resources goal number six. Any comments? Just the wording in 6.1. I think we need to break into two independent clauses with a comma. Advocate for limited environmentally appropriate hillside development. I think it needs to say advocate for limited comma environmentally appropriate hillside development. Just the way I read that. To me that reads that you want to limit environmentally appropriate development.

So just make it limited um hillside development and just take out environmentally appropriate

um environmentally appropriate is um descriptor. The limited is a quantifier. So, right. So, I think if you broke it up with So, we want to limit hillside development. You want to limit hillside development, but you want it to be environmentally appropriate. So, you don't want to just allow any development to happen in the hillside. You want to make sure that you want environmentally appropriate. Oh, I see how with this. So, it's a Yeah, it's both. You want both? Am That's where That's where the comma came in. Commas or ands.

Yeah. Okay, that's good. I got you, I think. Hold on. Let's go. Where is this? I was talking to my PDF. Yep. And are you planning on incorporating some of these comments, for example, from Donna Don back into the language? Um, yes, unless you tell me not to as a commission. No. Okay. I mean, I thought the expansion of the PCAs in the city is a good idea. Okay.

What's a PCA? Priority. priority conservation area.

Okay, moving going. Whoa. Sorry. No net loss of native tree species. Net. It's a net. Gross. It's a net. Oh man. You just need to plant them outside of the zone. They human beings are looking for a risk-free world. It's not going to happen.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Tell me when. All right. Do we currently work with the county planning department to monitor and review development proposed for hillsides visible from the city? I do. We do. I do. Well, that's good. I receive um Congratulations. Thanks. I I receive notices. So if you mean work in that way that that happens. I receive notice of its potential development and I have an opportunity to comment. Oh well.

And then I have a a policy to fall back on that which tells me hey well that's the minimum. Utilize canopy studies to identify appropriate and underserved areas for increased canopy coverage. And as long as it's not adjacent to building structures, it's the appropriate tree species and it's not bamboo. Yeah.

Or eucalyptus. Um so that's actually underway. We'll kick off our inventory and canopy study. Um canopy study actually already just started. The inventory kicks off at the end of this month. Um and we'll both be done by the end of the year. So some of these things are actually underway already. I did listen to our joint commission meeting started acting. Okay.

All right. Agricultural resources goal number seven. Um, I don't know why we would include wine in there because I don't know that we need to be dependent on wine.

Talking about 7.1. Yeah. It currently is. It currently is. But is that something that it's kind of a market driven issue whether or not we promote I mean agriculture. Yeah. is a distinctive quality. It is. Got to remember to use our microphones. Okay.

Okay. Actions.

Looks good. Sorry. Uh the uh subject of the uh vineyards at the Spastiani parcel would seem to apply to COS-7A.

Yes. I like Donna Donbach's comment about a plan for conservation easements for public throwaways throughways to establish these green belt connections across the city. I like that. Okay, that's in regards to this goal right here. Okay.

So, goal eight is about protection of our open space. Good.

Okay. Here are the actions. I'm going to look more into how transfer development rights would actually work in a town like ours. Um, just kind of trying to look for examples. Jennifer, in the city of How much land do we have that's currently zoned agricultural

in this city? I think I think all there is is the the patch which is owned by Kagnaso family and those vineyards that are associated with Sebastiani and that's it. So there's a couple of different ways to answer that question. Oh, there might be some on the Jones property at the end of over by Sonoma Creek. Or what about the Levoni property? Is that in city? That's not in the city.

So, um, couple different things. So there's sites that we have that are specifically land use restricted to agriculture, but we actually allow agriculture uses in our um hillside, our rural residential agriculture and residential low. So they in those zones are allowed to have agricultural uses. So we can have I mean we brought forward that one the horiculture as an example in an RL zone. Um so that so that's why I said there's two answers to that question. So we have land currently being used for agricultural purposes and I don't have I I did the number recently I can't remember which is different than the actual area that's feasible or allowed but I can get that for you guys when especially when we bring back the conversation more around any conversion of agriculture. All right, moving on.

Yeah. All right, goal number nine, focusing on parks, recreation, and the the greenways. I have a general comment on this section. Um, I felt like I found it interesting that there was no reference to the plaza specifically under this section. I feel like that's kind of the jewel of the city and I feel like there needs to be

maybe and I happy to think through language but needs to be a specific goal about protecting the plaza park. I don't know what how we want to refer to it, but I just feel like that's a very important element that should be specified under not only policy, but maybe a goal as well about preserving, protecting, enhancing the park.

Was there at some time the city council was looking to create a master plan, use plan for the plaza? Where did that ever land? It's um right now it's not as a use plan. It's more as a a plaza maintenance type plan working on um uh the main focus right now is to get the irrigation um working. And then now that we have a parks and w director, there'll be more focus on that. But it is a goal for city council. And then um soon as I can get it out the door um I'm going to do a um RFP to do a cultural landscape survey u for the plaza because it's a national historic landmark. And so that'll help us identify what our contributing resources are of the plaza. So if there's special um fountain outside of our building. So, like the fountain, the rock is the only one specifically identified as a contributing resource. Um, but just making sure none of the plantings actually contribute to the history. Um, so that helps us kind of identify what we can potentially modify in the future, things that we need to protect.

I have a question on this. Can we get water fountains working now in our parks like work in the plaza. There's one in the plaza that works. I I talked to him about it. What was that? I talked to the new parks director about it and about our water when we're when we fix the irrigation and the water lines to make sure that we are working on that aspect. And then um we're also looking at to disconnect the fountains. I don't know if you know that our fountains are actually connected in the front and that's why you have fish in the front fountain is because the fish come from the other fountain through the pipe. Oh, I didn't know if you knew that. I want to drink the water.

No, I know you're talking about the water fountains that they're drinking. But all the water lines that support all of these facilities need work. So that's why we don't have a second fountain because we don't have a water line yet for a second fountain near the bathroom. Are you talking about drinking fountains? Drinking fountains? I'm talking about drinking. I'm talking about two different things. I'm talking about fountain. Fountains all over the place. They just don't work. But you're saying they're connected with the fountain. No, the fountain. The ponds. Let's go with ponds. Not drinking fish. Okay. No, I'm talking about drinking fountains.

I know you're talking about drinking fountains. When we deal with all of that, we're dealing with the water lines for the drinking fountains to service the plants, the irrigation to service our pond fountain. Okay. So, they shut them off during CO. The ones back on, the one by the playground is on. That's the only one. Deep depot doesn't have any and the rest of the plaza doesn't have any. But they just shut them down for CO and then they never restarted them in Depot. Uhhuh. I didn't think there was a fountain there at all. Yeah, right in front of the restroom. Oh, okay. Yeah, there's no fish in it.

There's no fish in that one. I was literally talking about the rock fountain and the pond literally like three days a week. I try and drink water out of it. Why do you keep trying? Well, I would like to drink water out of it. I do carry my I have to leave water bottles out there. Keep keep rolling there, Jennifer. Okay.

Oops. That good. By the way, there's a project like uh Montalo. Is that going to end up paying a quimby fee? Did because 50 units is a lot of unit. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Montalo. No, Humber did. Quimby is directly associated with subdivision projects. So, it has to have So, so they're not going to generate any fees towards parks or recreation. That is correct.

That seems to be a defect in our system because 50 units are a lot of units. If you put in a 50 unit housing development in the past in Soma, you had to you had to put in a bark up where you live. So they're they have their own community space. I understand that. But sorry, it's in the law that the definition of who has to pay the subdivision definition. Correct. It's in the subdivision map act. Yeah. Yes. So that's where it stems from is state law.

So that is associated with the subdivision. What you're talking about is sometime so when you did the neighborhoods in the past that's when all those little um neighborhood parks went in is because they were single family neighborhoods.

And so um apartment complexes are different. And then so that's where when we do our development code update, when we're talking about open space and how we want open space to be programmed or not, like what amenities and things, we can put more specificity into our development code because those can be actual objective standards that we install. As far as get for the public itself to use, that's a different thing. So if you saw before there was a goal of one um five acres per thousand people which we meet we actually so remember when we had that discussion before um we meet in and or exceed um for a city. Now, are there certain neighborhoods or areas of town that maybe not? Possibly. Um, but we'll have a whole lovely we won't as planning commission, but the city will be having a conversation around our fees and impact fees and things like that, what we can and cannot charge um later this year.

Come on. All right. Actions. I'll just maintain that that maybe under 9F we add a bullet specific to the plaza. Okay. I haven't really worked through language, but just something about, you know, developing and implementing a long-term um maybe roadmap to sustain and enhance the Sonoma Plaza.

Yeah, NE I support that. And nine speaks to the point I made about Montala, which you know, we we don't have a an impact fee that applies apparently to that kind of project.

Um, no, it's in my another I have lots of these documents um that I'll be merging in another document, the periodically review and update as necessary. Um uh we don't have one. So I'm not reviewing and updating as necessary. Um so this will be modified once I actually know more about the fees. Okay. In that regard, is the city planning to do a nexus study to develop the fees? That's what I'm doing right now.

Yeah. All right, that concludes conservation. I still have one more element. It is A47. Director Gates, I know you're losing it. It's not going to happen. My hunger is exceeding my focus. What would be the implications of not hearing that element at this evening's meeting and continuing that to a date certain? How is it as long as what we just How long endured circulation is 19? Is it it's important to say it's important.

It is a good size one. Okay. Um we don't need to continue to a date because this isn't a public hearing. Um so our next meeting is October 16th. Thank you. Um is October 16th. So I can bring it back then. I'll just be ready for your comments to be added to everybody else's. You don't want a special meeting? I honestly do not have time to have a special meeting between now and October 16th. I've got two conferences. Neither do I. Yeah, Natalie knows my calendar very well.

Okay. Big item on the October agenda. Yeah. No, no, there shouldn't be anything big. Um, maybe small. Um, we're probably going to have our first administrative design review within the month. So, that's cool. We'll practice that. You're welcome. You're welcome. Um, okay. So, I actually need to open public comment for that agenda item. And seeing no commentators, I will close public comment.

Yeah, they've been fairly quiet this whole hearing. Um, so with that, we will close items for discussion and we will open director comments and announcements. Um the ad hoc will continue working as the new elements um get um released, but in the meantime we are ad hoc is also for the code amendments. And so we'll be meeting um very soon to go over those um and to start thinking about it. And so if October is a light meeting, it may be a joint thing where we're going to bring you utilities, circulation, and some of the um questions that we have for you around the code before taking any big steps forward. And the 22nd, um so next Monday, um I canled the general plan task force meeting until we have more elements to review. And I'm trying to think if anything. Last night at city council, they decided not to move forward with a second cannabis um or any more cannabis businesses at this time. And it'll be revisited at um every goal cycle. And so if the the city council then sets a goal for that, then we would readress it at that time. And in October, you will receive um a number of housing ordinances that I need to get done. So, um that is really all I've got on the docket coming up and I think that's it that I have.

Thank you. Any reports or comments from the commission? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Thank you. May I ask a question off the record? Yeah, let's go off the record. Off the record. Close the meeting.