Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

The regular meeting of the Soma Planning Commission, February 19th, it is 6 pm. If I could get a roll call, please. Commissioner Willers here. Commissioner Barnett here. Commissioner Jenkins here. Commissioner Donach here. Commissioner O'Neal here. Vice Chair Nent here. Chair Chair Hyrick here. Thank you very much. Do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Motion to approve.

Well, I would like to uh make a suggestion as to the rearrangement of the agenda. Council or Commissioner Barnett,

ex Councilman. Um uh given a quick review of the audience here um I suspect that a significant number of people are here to discuss the land use element specifically as it pertains to u the Sebastiani parcels. So um I would like to suggest that we move that discussion up to the top of the list under 5.2 two and um uh as well if the if the commission agrees to actually move 5.2 above 5.1 so that it's the first item under our items for discussion.

Okay. So is that a motion? If it needs to be a motion I can say yeah that's a motion. If it doesn't have to be, then I then it isn't a motion. How's that for How's that for? I'll second the almost motion. Okay. Can I get a roll call? Yes. Commissioner Willers? Yes. Commissioner Barnett. I. Commissioner Gorman Jenkins. I. Commissioner Donbach. I. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Vice Chair Net. I. Chair Hyrick. I.

The motion passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Is there do we need another motion to approve the remainder of the agenda? Okay. Okay. At this time, we will recite the pledge of allegiance. Uh, Vice Chair Nent, if you could lead us in the pledge, please.

To the flag of the United States of America to the Republic. Okay, thank you very much. At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda tonight. It's recommended that members of the public keep their comments to three minutes or less. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for commission consideration. Upon being acknowledged by the chair, please step to the podium, speak into the microphone, and begin by stating and spelling your name. At this point, we will move on to the consent calendar of tonight's agenda.

Oh, I'm sorry. Please come forward and state your name. Thank you. And thank you for the adjustment of the agenda. I get to eat dinner tonight. Uh, good evening. My name is Janet Bole. B is in boy, O Y L E. I am here to provide comment on the proposed land use change for the Spastian parcels after attending the January I'm sorry to interrupt you but that item is agendaized for tonight under item 5. Wait till 5.1 exactly. So at at this time members of the public can come forward and and address the commission on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda. Sorry. Thank you for the clarification. I messed up. You messed up. We all messed up. I got a little practice. Hi

Mr. Abdily. JJ Abdil. What's your name? JJ Abideli. AB as in boy O D E L Y. Um, so my comments really about the process and that that you know we're here as I understand it to talk about land use and really to create a definition of what land use means for various zoning and so so but this is this is this is general because I think what's I would like to say is that the lack of details that are discussed at this point in the process is creating a lot of anxiety because everyone wants details. I think we will address matters related to the process. Okay. In item 5.2 tonight. Fair enough. So,

so for items completely separate, I'm sorry to interrupt and break your train of thought, but no worries. We will we will hear at this point items that are completely separate from any any agenda item that that appears on on tonight's agenda. So, thank you.

So, are there any additional members of the public? I'll try not to yell at you or interrupt you. If you have comments tonight or wish to address the commission on anything relating to matters not appearing on tonight's agenda. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. At this point, we will move on to the consent calendar. Are there any changes or edits to be made to the minutes in item 3.1, in item 3.2, or in item 3.3 that any commissioner wishes to raise?

I'll just note that I wasn't present at the 3.3, so I'll abstain from that vote. Noted. Okay. Is there a motion to approve tonight's consent calendar? Move to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner Barnett. Hi. Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins. Hi. Commissioner Donbach. Yes. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Vice Chair Nent. I. Chair Hyrick. I. The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. Moving right along to tonight's public hearing. The first item is item 4.1. discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a use permit and design review for the permanent placement of an MRI trailer at 347 Andrew Street. Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself from this item since close proximity to my residence.

Thank you, Commissioner Oakman. Are there any commissioners that need to report any exparte communication with the applicants in this case? Okay. Thank you. And if I could have a staff report, please. Of course. Good evening, commissioners. I am Jake Dunn, associate planner, and I'll be discussing the use permit and design review for the permanent MRI trailer at 347 Andrew Street. So, this item was previously reviewed um in October of 2025 where some revisions and studies were suggested and then we'll go over some of those changes that were made for uh this project as a whole. So, the trailer is located on Andrew Street on the north side of the hospital. The general plan and land use are dedicated as public and the property is not within any overlays. The hospital is located in the central west planning area and setits on three and a half acres of land. And the project is proposing dedicating the MRI trailer as a permanent structure which was previously approved as temporary. And the applicant intends to modify the trailer to match the color of the hospital with the recommendations that were made at the previous hearing and add sound dampening devices to the existing fence that you can see in that image there which should reduce the noise level impacts on the neighboring residences. Uh they'll also be permanently closing the parking lot at this time uh since we determined that the additional parking was not necessary and they will be adding new movable landscaping to uh help with some visual buffering and some aesthetic uh improvements to that parking lot. And then they will still use the parking lot but only for emergencies and maintenance on the MRO trailer. So this site plan shows the northern lot with the uh trailer dimensions in related to in relation to the parking spaces that are currently there. And then this is the modified site plan after the discussion at the last hearing

with the landscaping features um in that parking area. And then there's also the location of the sound dampening device on that fence line. And then here's some examples of the landscaping that will be used for that visual buffer. just kind of give an idea of um how they'll kind of hide the trailer and a noise assessment was also conducted as requested and the assessment found that the noise levels produced by the MRI trailer along with the it was a chiller and some climate units that uh the noise levels from both of those ended up exceeding um by about four dB and um affected two of the residences. And then it found that with the recommended noise curtain that it would reduce the levels to below 50 dB, which would be about 47 for I think both of the residences. And so in accordance with the use permit findings, we found that the uh use is consistent with the general plan and uh supports the Sonoma Valley Hospital to respond to community needs. It also found that the MRI trailer is allowed on public properties and complies with the standards uh without needing any variances or exceptions. And then uh we found that the um the MRI trailer would be would further support their operations without negatively impacting those surrounding land uses by increasing the aesthetic value of the property by improving that lot. And as part of the design review, um further findings found that with the improvements to that parking lot, it's now a little bit more compatible with the residences surrounding it. Um it kind of cleans up that that has been unused and the pro uh the proposal won't negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare now that we know sound dampening devices have been added to reduce the sound impact to those residences. And so staff is recommending approval of the use permit and design review for the permanent placement of the MRI trailer

and alterations to the parking in accordance with the SQL section 15303. Oh, sorry, that's yeah, 15303 and 15311. So staff's available for any questions and the applicant is also available to ask uh to answer any questions as well. Great. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from Commissioner Barnett? Question.

Um I understand that the no noise abatement uh efforts that have been made have brought it down to a threshold that's acceptable. Um my question is is the operation of this and the noise attenuation something that's only going to be um present during portions of the day or is this a 24-hour noise producer? I believe the applicant uh would be prepared to speak on that.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh my name is Brian B R Yan. Uh and this is Ryan Es with me. R Y Y an um so to answer your question, the noise abatement is a permanent exterior grade blanket which be installed on the fence and would be there for the rest of time. That's not my question. My question is um is is the unit that's producing the noise the MRI trailer and the equipment inside is that only producing the noise when it's in operation or is there a period of the day where it is not in operation and therefore producing no noise?

Yes, that's correct. Um so the two units provide cooling for the actual MRI equipment. Yes. And there's a BART unit on the wall which provides um air conditioning for the occupants within the trailer. Yes. But that trailer is only in operation during regular day hours. So after hours it doesn't operate. Neither the chillers or the air conditioner. Correct. Thank you. Do any other members of the commission have questions for the applicant now that they are at the podium or for staff? I have a quick question. How long has that trailer been in operation there with the HVAC equipment that it currently has? Uh, approximately two years.

Okay. Yeah, thank you. That's my only question. Any other questions of the applicant while they stand there? Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any members of the public that wish to comment on this agenda item? Okay. bring it back to the commission for discussion. It sure if you'd like to come up to the podium and uh address make got to address the commission but um happy to hear what you have to say.

Hi, my name is Kim Belch. Um I'm just wondering how many MRIs approximately a day. So how long would the sound be stopping starting stopping starting throughout the hours that it would be working? Okay, thank you. Thank you for the question. Uh if the applicant is willing, they they're welcome to come forward and um address that question if you did you hear the question? Okay. I heard the question is how many MRIs per day? It's 10 to 11. Okay, great. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other members of the public wishing to comment on this agenda item? Great. I'll close public comment and bring it back to the commission for commission comments and analysis. Yes, Commissioner Dbach. Um I just uh want to comment that I appreciate uh the applicant working with the staff um with regard to the improvements that we requested. Um and based on what has been uh achieved, I'm I'm comfortable proving this.

Great. Any other commissioner comments? Commissioner Bernett? Well, perhaps it's a function of getting older, but I'm sorry to see our world becoming so noisy. And um uh I hope that at some point in the future um in some future generations expansion of this hospital uh if it continues to succeed which I sincerely hope it does that uh functions like this are entirely enclosed within the building and the need for noise attenuation and or the other things necessary to to prevent the I'll use the word degradation of ordinary everyday life because of the increase in sound um ambient sound mechanical ambient sound um uh can be uh ameliorated and changed in the future. I just uh uh I'm finding the world to be an increasingly noisy place and I don't find it pleasant. But that said, I appreciate the efforts that's being made on this and I certainly will approve the application.

Thank you. Any other commission comments? I'd like to make a motion to approve. Second. All right. Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Dbach, yes. Commissioner O'Neal, yes. Vice Chair Nent, I. Chair Hyrick, I. The motion passes 6001.

Excellent. Moving on to item 4.2. I'll give Commissioner Aorman just a second to walk back here. All right, we'll continue now with item 4.2 of tonight's public hearing discussion, consideration and possible action to approve a signed permit for two uh new illuminated signs on a residential property at 383 First Street West. Is there a staff report?

Absolutely. So, this is for a sign permit for two new eliminated wall signs um for a uh non-conforming wine tasting facility that has been grandfathered and improved with the zoning clearance. Uh the property is located in the downtown district and is zone medium red residential medium density. The use of the site um was determined as grandfathered and was approved for the zoning clearance back in a April of 2025. The property is 5,473 square feet and surrounded by commercial and residentially zoned properties. The project proposes one illuminated wall sign to advertise the business name which includes a halo lit backing above that front window. And it also proposes one externally illuminated logo sign next to the front entryway. The flat vineyard sign will be a total of 6.25 square ft and the logo sign will be four square feet. The business name and logo are proposed in satin black with the aluminum faces colored perfect khaki and slumber uh slumber sloth to match the color of the current structure. And then this gives you an idea of the um street view looking down the um down this roadway. So there was a comment from the public uh in concern to um how the entry to this street looks in regard to the residences and um the use of these residential sites as commercial businesses. Um so I put this site photo here to show uh there's three wineries here. One is the Hawk Winery on the left that you see was the previous winery wine tasting facility which is now going to be um Plat Vineyard. And then there's Walts on the right and there's I believe it's atrium on the left. You can't really see the signage there, but this is to kind of give you an idea of that. So, the property has f uh 53.25 ft of

frontage on First Street West. So, an aggregate of 27.3 square feet is allowed um for signage. An additional 13 square feet is allowed due to the distance between the center of the road line and the front of the u the building. The total area of the proposed signage is 10.25 25 ft and the proposed eliminated wall sign is not going to exceed the 27 ft maximum. So in accordance with the sign permit findings, we found that the proposed use is consistent with the general plan by providing uh ground flooror retail use on a small lot without imposing stylistic restrictions. uh the proposed signage is consistent with the intent of the code and it doesn't negatively impact the surrounding character and matches the look of the current structure without causing a max like a large visual impairment. Um the signage is consistent with the signage in surrounding area. Uh it has small lettering and uh colors that are also matching the structure as it is. And the signage is limited to a small portion of the structure and isn't um isn't going to impact for character and it intends to preserve the quality of the property as a whole. So staff recommends planning commission approval of the sign permit to install the two new wall signs um and sorry two new illuminated wall signs at 383 First Street West and um staff is available for any questions. I I'm not sure if the applicant is here. So if they are they may you may ask them as well.

Great. Thank you for your presentation, associate planner done. Are there any members of the commission that wish to ask staff questions of staff? I saw Commissioner Donbox. You know, I always have a question. Um uh my question pertains um to when the applicant plans to illuminate and or not illuminate. Um so I know that there's uh permitting allowing to 11 p.m. Most wine tasting rooms don't go that late. So, do we have any idea of whether the illuminated signs will be turned off in the evening versus left on?

That I don't know for sure. Um, but it is up to your discretion to set a standard for when the eliminated sign should be turned off or if it should be dimmed at any point um as part of the lighting standard in the ordinance um which is part of the conditions approval. We can also add additional conditions for a timing. Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask if anyone if the applicant's present tonight or an agent of the applicant is present? Would you like to come up and uh address the commission or you don't have to?

I can. Uh Chris Shriner with Plat Vineyards. Uh our signed vendor that put everything together was going to be here. They took care of more of this. Um, I I I can't really uh answer the question directly, but I can say uh we're willing to to follow whatever rules you deem appropriate for the neighborhood. Uh, our hours are till 6 PM presently. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Or are there any other questions from the commission of staff or of the applicant? Yes. Vice Chair,

Jacob, could you go back to the previous slide? It really flashed by me quickly. That next one, I mean, go forward. Forward one.

So, I'm um we talked about the size of the sign. Um I just have I just wanted to read this. Um so, the illumination is it's in compliance and we really need to determine. Um, what I'm hearing is that they're in business till 6 PM. Um, is there a reason why we would would it be necessary to extend it beyond um, business hours? And are there other illuminated signs uh, in and around this area for other retail businesses or wine tasting rooms? So, in regard to the wine tasting rooms that are directly surrounding it, they do not have illumination on those signs. Um, I believe I keep forgetting the name of it, but I believe it's atrium. The one next door, it has a up lighting on our tour.

Artur, that's what it's called. Um, there is an up there's an up light on a tree and that's what they have there. I don't know that they turned it on, but that's the only lighting I was able to see when I went by. Um, other than that, there has been approval of lighting uh sign lit lit signs in the plaza. So, that's the only other thing I'd have as a comparison. Thank you. Any other questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. At this time, I would ask commissioners to disclose any experte communications they've had with interested parties to this agenda item. I have spoken with one of the neighbors, Jim Bohar.

Okay. Thank you. I have spoken with a neighbor. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Um, Mr. Applicant, would you like to come up and address the commission further or are you satisfied? Okay. Thank you. Uh, at this time, I will open up this item for public comment. Please come forward. State your name. Mr.

Bohar. Jim, I hate to interrupt. Would you would you mind just speaking into the microphone? I'm sorry. That way it's spoken into the record.

I understand.

Thank you very much. Got it. Um, my understanding is the general plan and code discourages non-conforming uses and will not allow commercial uses within or abuing residential areas that changes the historic nature or character of the residential neighborhood context or other impacts of that nature. Um this is a not on a is not a sign on a residential property as it indicates in the first paragraph. It in fact is is on a structure which is a non-conforming use a wine tasting facility and the reason it's non legal non-conforming is that there are certain limitations on that use in terms of time and intensity. Um the description of it is overridden by the fact that um it has limitations on it. And the U applicant states that the reason for the illuminated signs is to increase foot traffic. Um this is the only wine tasting room that would have an illuminated sign as far as I can see. and having uh an encouragement of foot traffic sounds like an intensity of of use over what we have right now. the only um the the uh city discourages uh lit signs on the plaza and the only wine tasting facility that I understand is that uh something or other suppressor on the u on the east side and there's some question about whether that's going to remain there. Neither of the two tasting rooms have illumination that was uh talked about under the community development element. It says it's to coordinate development on small lots. There's no development

here to coordinate. It's finished. It's been done years ago. Preserving the heritage of the community. It violates the heritage of the community as far as the neighbors are concerned. Um accessory structures allows on premisage. This is not an accessory structure. It is the main structure on the site, the subject of the site. Our position is and the neighbor's position is that it violates the uh general plan and code in the sense that having commercial uses abudding uh residential is is not allowed and also one that affects the historic value or the uh uh continuity of it is is May I have about 20 seconds left?

Yes, another 20 seconds. I respectfully request that the commission reject this application, direct the applicant to return the front yard to residential garden, install no signs on the actual building, except modest in ground signs and no elimination. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jim. Are there any other members of the public who wish to address the commission on this agenda item? Okay, we'll close public comment. I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Any commissioners wish to opine on this agenda item? Uh, Commissioner O'Neal,

I have a question. I'm not sure if it's for staff for the applicant, but Jacob, I'll start with you. Um, so currently or previously, Hawk had that monument sign out front and what is the plan for that monument sign going forward? That sign's no longer there. So, there's nothing in replacement and the monument sign has gone away. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner,

thank you. Um, I will direct this to staff. Um, hopefully you can answer. So, in terms of of I think the question was already asked about the the lighting in terms of the plaza itself, do we have any code or any ordinance pertaining to the lighting of buildings on the plaza? Even even the the lights in the park, what what time do those go off? I wouldn't be able to speak on the lighting in the park, but in terms of the plaza, I'm not aware of any specific regulations for that. We've talked about that as a potential new regulation with the upcoming sign ordinance.

Um, so that's something to consider in how we address uh new lighting that's around the plaza. Anyone else have questions for staff? I have a question. Have we, to your knowledge, have we placed any um restrictions on any other lit signage around the plaza? Okay. Yes. On Bank of America, it's the most recent one. I remember I recall that one. Is there any other I mean, is it

Yes. Um we've done another um wine tasting room that um I'm trying to remember. It's on this side of the plaza as well where we limited the lighting um for their sign to just be within the business hours and so after business hours it was to be turned off. I see. So fair to say that limiting the period of elimination for this lit sign to business hours would be in keeping with precedent. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Any other questions? uh comments.

Um let's see. I'm gonna address the illumination of the sign. First of all, the I was the advocate for the reduction of the illumination of the Bank of America sign, but that sign is an internally there was one not internally illuminated. There were others that were internally illuminated and they had come to us wanting to keep that those signs illuminated 24 hours um a day. Um my feeling about this sign and its illumination is one it's not truly an internally illuminated sign. It's a sign that's lit from the back so that it um is accented off the wall. And and I also feel like the sign itself is a um is less of an imposition in the residential neighborhood than the monument signs of the wineries that are across the street from. It's not a big placard that's facing you as you're driving down the street. It's a relatively modest more than just a little more than a third of the allowed area or a little less than a third of the allowed area. Um and um I don't really find it objectionable in terms of the encroachment of the commercial district into that residential neighborhood. I know for the 35 years that I've lived here, that's those buildings have been occupied by businesses forever. One of one of them used to be um the adjacent Greyhound bus station. Um, so, you know, I I don't have any problem um making a motion to approve this. I I think it's a really modest improvement on the property. I think that the hours of illumination should be restricted to the hours of business. Um, so that when they're gone, the neighborhood doesn't have to deal

with the illumination. Thank you. Any other comments, Commissioner Da?

Thank you. First, I I appreciate the comments from the public and their concerns. Um so um with regard to the um the businesses, my understanding is that that business not only has been there that uh business establishments have not only been there for a while, but it's actually in the retail overlay, I believe. And so technically, it is kind of in the business area. Um but secondly, with regard to the illumination, you know, that was my concern. And I went back and looked at our existing ordinance. Um, and basically it it does say that, you know, it would be inappropriate unless unless a business is operating in the evening hours and that we should um consider it carefully and and I feel that we have considered it carefully. I I would agree with Commissioner Willer's assessment. I think it's a modest backlit sign similar to Moon Mountain which is on the east side and Capoetta on the on the east side and Moon Mountain on the west side. Um, and I I would approve this with the condition of approval that we limit it to business hours.

Any other comments? Commissioner Bernett?

Well, um, my concern about this application has little to do with the design and plans for the sign itself. I certainly would support its use the of the illumination only during business hours. Um, I guess that my concern, and it's not something we can hold against this applicant, is that is this going to begin the process of the other wine tasting operations wanting illuminated signs, too? And are we then going to face, you know, additional applications for illuminated signs in this on this street? And um I can't answer that question, but but business being what it is, I think the likelihood of that happening is probably pretty good. So I throw that in there only as a consideration. The only other thing I will add is that legal non-conforming uses are subject to all kinds of limitations. For example, the footprint of the building cannot be enlarged. Um, and uh, and there may be other conditions that apply to legal non-conforming uses. Um, uh, I don't know if the other commercial uses of residentially zoned properties. Um, uh, is true of all the other commercial uses on that section of the block. Um, I suspect it probably is that they are grandfathered in and uh, as legal non-conforming uses. Um, so I I think imposing a condition such as the

illumination be turned off when the property is not in operation as the business is is appropriate and um and in accordance with the typical kinds of limitations that are placed on legal non-conforming uses. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? Commissioner O'Neal.

Um, I do think that the elimination of the monument sign is an improvement to the street view and I do think it's um I'd like to go on record saying that I would really be objecting to a illuminated sign that was a monument because I think it's too distracting for people driving up and down the street. Um, the fact that it's placed um back against the structure, even if this is the main structure, I think it's um way more subtle and I I like that. I think it's just a little bit more elegant for the approach to that neighborhood. Um, I also think that visibility of the business is an important thing and using the illuminated sign against the building as opposed to a monument is just um keeping that streetscape nicer. So, I do I like that.

Any other comments? All right. I'll make a motion to approve a sign permit for two new illuminated wall signs on a residential property at 383 First Street West with the condition of approval that the sign be only illuminated during business hours. Is there a second? Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Oberman Jenkins. Hi. Commissioner Donbach, yes. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick. Hi. The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Congratulations to the applicant. Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Bohar, and your thoughtful comments. Appreciate it. Okay. Moving along to item 4.3 of tonight's public hearing. discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a modification to a use permit, design review, and variance, including a new variance for the approval of a renovation of the second floor, an increase in the structure height of a duplex built over 45 years ago. This is located at 310 2nd Street East. Is there a staff report? Absolutely. So, I'll clarify as we go through this. Um but yes, this item's for a new variance as well as a modification to the um use permit design review and variance that was previously approved uh at a hearing in May of 2025 and specifically address the remodel and expansion of the duplex which is technically a non-conforming structure due to its setbacks. The property is developed with a 2,829 foot duplex on a 6,672 foot lot. The property is located in the northeast planning area and is within the historic overlay in its own medium density. So this project will be proposing an increase in the height of the duplex by one foot on the second floor and replacing all of the exterior walls on the second floor so that uh larger flaming sorry flaming framing can be added for support. Um the modification to the design review is necessary due to the enlargement of the windows on that second floor with the increase in height so that there's compatibility with the new height. And the proposal requires the new variance because the demolition of the second floor, the walls on the second floor, uh makes it makes the total change in exterior walls greater

than the 50% that's allowed for non-conforming structures. So this would be considered a new structure and needs to be uh reviewed as such. So this is the existing floor plans with the demolition. You can see the first floor is on the right and the second floor is on the left. the second floor with the dotted lines shows you where that demolition will be occurring as well as the first floor um which is what has triggered the new variance to be required. Uh this is an image of the west elevation with the proposed modification along with the previous approval from May. So you can see the height difference along with the change in window height and those entry uh entryway heights. This is the east elevation. Here's the north elevation. Oh, sorry, that was the south. And this is the north elevation. And just to be clear, none of the other additions or changes from the previous approval are being added. There's no uh increase in the in the floor area or anything like that. This is specifically for the height of the structure. So in the analysis uh was found that the project's compliant with all development standards in northeast signing area except for those site setbacks. The changes proposed would not further expand on the non-conformities and is still compliant with the height standards as it will be below 30 ft. The project is compliant with the development code and general plan uh by promoting higher density infill without imposing rigid sty stylistic restrictions and the proposal promotes innovative designs uh to make the duplex more livable for the tenants. The historic resource evaluation that was done previously determined that the duplex didn't qualify as historic and the proposal is consistent with the design standards and doesn't have a historical character characteristic that will be altered and it's not expected

that it will be impacting historic characters of the adjacent properties. So the adjustment is consistent with the intent of the zoning uh zoning district for higher density infill and the variance will treat the development as the new construction and intends to continue maintaining its existing setbacks as they were approved in the previous hearing and the increase to the height of structure um is within the height limit that's consistent with the zoning. So the approval of the variance would allow for the property owner to use the existing duplex footprint as is as it is now whereas the current development standards would require them to partially demolish some of that residence to be able to meet those side setbacks. The approval doesn't grant special privileges in our uh in our findings and uh gives the property owner an opportunity to design the duplex in a way that improves that livability overall. So should the planning commission determine that the findings can be met, staff recommends approval of the modification to the design review and variance uh sorry and the new variance including the new variance to allow the reconstruction of the sidewalls within the required setback and increase the height of the duplex and staff's available for any questions. I believe the applicant is available as well.

Thank you very much. I'll first ask if any commissioners need to disclose any exparte communication with any interested parties to this application. No. Okay. There questions of staff from the commission. Commissioner

Jacob, I've got two questions. Um the first is I'm confused as to why this was this extra foot of height wasn't included in the original application for the variance back in May. That's my first question. The second, this property has already been demolished and is under construction now. So why are we getting it now when they're already under construction? So to answer the first question, u from my understanding is they had an architect who passed away prior to the hearing at the previous hearing. Um and so they went forward with what was drawn out in that at that time. Um when they were going into construction, they realized that there was some changes that they wanted to make for the height that felt appropriate for the structure. Um and in doing that, they determined that better framing was going to be needed. So they wanted to request that um that we review that. When it comes to the work that's already been conducted, um that was part of what was previously approved. So they started the work for what was previously approved and then stopped that work once they were from my understanding they stopped that work before uh to get the approval and then they could continue.

Okay. Any any follow-up questions to that or Okay. Any other members of the commission have questions for city staff? I guess my question uh Jacob would be whether a specific reason was provided to you for the request for the um additional elevation. Was it structural? Was it aesthetic? I I recognize that the applicant's here and will come and address us, but I'm I'm wondering specifically if it may be better for the applicant to address just because I didn't I didn't receive a specific one besides u potentially aesthetic value.

Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. I would invite the applicant to come forward and speak or present. Sir, if you could state your name for the record. Glenn Kamoto. I reside at 324 Second Street East, which is next door to this property. Uh your question about why this hadn't come before the commission initially. Uh the architects initially thought that we would redo the roof using scissor truss and get the height uh as we address the roof and the roof height wouldn't change. But as we started construction, did the demolition, it became very clear that um that we needed to lift the roof and the existing second the whole second story to get the new floor joist in because the first floor has been approved for an addition of one foot to bring it to 9 ft. And we're also putting in two inches of of concrete so that you don't catch footfalls between the floors. So, we had a plan and as Jacob said, we lost our architect um unexpectedly and as we st got into construction, we said, "Oh, this this doesn't make sense." And in addition, it's it's 2x4 framing. It's not in very good shape. The building was poorly constructed and the contractor's strong preference and my preference is, "Hey, let's demo the thing." And under the code, we can demo everything but 12 feet. and the planner said just demo the whole thing and that's the right way to do it. So the 2x4 framing is going to be replaced by 2 by six framing much stronger. It's going to take a lot more insulation. It's going to be warmer and a 9- foot ceiling in these days is considered more livable. It's just just going to be a nicer space. But it's the

same square footage. It's just got more volume. Was the original plan for an 8ft ceiling? The original plan was for a 9 foot ceiling internally use without changing the exterior structure at all. I see. So we thought, oh, it's, you know, we can just leave it the way it is. Bad idea. Turned out to be a very bad idea.

Understood. While the applicants at the podium, do any members of the commission wish to ask any questions? Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Okay. At this point, I would open this item to public comment. Any members of the public present who wish to come and address the commission on this item can come forward and state their name. Claudia Raniker.

Okay. The first floor uh walls were originally 8 feet. They got they increased that by one foot and there was 20 in of insulation. If you'll look at the plan, a space of 20 in for insulation between the two floors. So that makes the first that makes an increase all of 32 inches. On the application that I've read the from the staff said they wanted to increase that second story another 12 in because they feel that that makes things much more livable another foot. But most of the people in the world live under 8 foot ceilings and I don't believe that's going to increase any comfort. So also in that report it says they also wanted to put another two inches for in for uh soundproofing. This all of this together with the t 32 in that are approved will bring that total height increase to 46 in the the building is suspended. The top floor is suspended over the first and it's set at 48 in. So there's a 48 inch gap that 48 that and being okay. The variance has allowed Okay. So that the variance from last year has allowed the allowed the building to sit five feet from the fence line under rule of the old code. But the height allowance is being controlled by what code allows today. Today's code holds a 7 and 1/2 ft setback and a 30foot height allowance. But because the building is being held

at five feet, two and a half feet closer to the fence line, any height increases will only intensify the force on boundaries. The original building was not aggressive because the setback and height allowance were in sync to prevent that. Height allowances are concerned with the height of the roof. This building has a very low pitched roof of six feet. So very little of the height increase is absorbed by the roof height. It is a sheer wall like Villa Cheese, but the building does not bear down on you because there's space around it. This is overbearing. And because of all that, I am asking you to re-evaluate this current request for more height increases because that will make the building excessively overbearing and excessively dominating and to make a more mutually and I'm asking you if you can to make a more mutually respecting decision for both of us. But before you do that, I would like you to ask the property owners in private if that is okay with them because I think they deserve a decent amount of respect.

Thank you, Claudia. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Okay. Are any other members of the public wishing to address the commission on this matter tonight? Okay, seeing none, I will close public comment. I will bring it back to the commission for discussion. Any members of the commission wish to Yes. Um Jacob, I'm having trouble reading the um drawings. Can you um between the previous approval and the proposed modification, what is that height difference? the overall height. Is that what you're asking?

Well, what is the previous approval? What's the height on that one? 24 feet and one inch. Okay. And we're only we're increasing it one foot to 25 ft and one inch. What is Claudia's comments about the 48 in increase? My understanding was since she's no longer here is a deviation from baseline from the initial what was the initial the height of the initial structure prior to consider. Okay. Not between the first to the second the first approval and what's being considered here.

Yeah. Um, I did uh speak with her at uh one point and it had to do I think part of it had to do with the spacing between the first and the second floor um and the difference there. I I'm not fully understanding it, but um I think that was part of where the height difference was um was between that insulation between those two floors. Thank you. Any other commissioners wish to apply? Mr. Na,

I'll make a comment. Um, again, I appreciate the public's comments. Um, but reading through the report, my understanding is the difference between what was approved in May and now is this 1 inch um increase um one foot. Thank you. More than one inch. Um and that that there's also the same setback issue of not seven feet but 5.3. Yeah. Which was approved at that time. Right.

Um and so when I look at the overall there no there's no change in other aspects F or site coverage. Um and that the 25 ft is within the maximum that's allowable. Um, I would I would say that I'm supportive of the change because it it really doesn't change the overall structure. The only change here is one foot of height, which is within the the code norm. Um, and it is improving the house and improving the structure. Um, and what I heard tonight was also that it's improving the safety and the foundation of the structure. So, I I would be inclined to approve it. Thank you. Any other members of the commission have comments?

Commissioner Bernett, um what is the um what is the height of the finished building as proposed and what is the permittable or permissible height of a building in that particular situation according to the code? So the maximum height for the zoning uh for this planning area is 30 feet. The maximum height of this structure will be 25 feet and one inch. Thank you.

Other members of the commission have comments. I will join in the comments of my fellow commissioners and that I support the approval of this application that on balance the additional uh 1 foot in height um doesn't negate any of the findings that were previously made. We're not here to relitigate um the findings of um what was uh what was discussed in May and approved. And uh for that reason and all the reasons previously mentioned, I would be supportive of approving this application. With that said, is there a motion?

Motion to approve. Um you can find it here. the um the variance, including a new variance in the approval of a renovation of the second floor and increase in the structure height of a duplex built over 45 years ago located at 310 Second Street East, including the action to approve the categorical exemption. A second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner Barnett, hi. Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins, hi. Commissioner Donach, yes. Commissioner O'Neal, yes. Vice Chair Nent, I. Chair Wyrick,

I. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you to the applicant for his presence tonight and uh to the members of the public who came to participate in the discourse. Moving on to item 4.4 four of tonight's public hearing discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve design review and use permit amendment for

may I discuss item 44, discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve design review and use permit amendment for exterior modifications to the front facade and operational conditions located at 9 East Napa Street. If there's a staff report, please.

Sure thing. Diane Levine, associate planner. Good evening, commissioners, chair Wyrick, and Vice Chair Nent. Nice to see you. So the item before you uh in summary as Hayrick um chair Hyrick described is for design review for exterior modifications to the front facade located at 9 East Napa Street uh at OSO. It is has a general plan designation of commercial zoning uh commercial. It is within the historic overlay and the plaza retail overlay and it is within the downtown district planning area and there was a previous historical resource evaluation done on it and uh it was determined to not be eligible as a historic resource. So on the right is the exterior of OSO as it is now and then on the left is a rendering of the proposed changes and we can visit back if we need to. So the the proposed changes include uh insetting the front facade to make it flush. Right now it's sort of at an odd angle as you're you're probably aware of. Um it would go from four smaller windows to three larger windows. Uh and perhaps most notably um moving the the entrance from the west side to the east side of the front facade. The wood awning uh for lack of a better term would be removed as well as the um dark ac uh wood accents and dark tiling. And the a color change would occur and the replacement of the existing metal windows and door would be replaced with um as you can see a green color in that

same um material. And throughout the plan set you you may have noticed um alluding to signage and sidewalk seating and both of those items will be handled uh under separate permit. So, we're just sort of focusing on the the changes to the front facade and the amendments to the existing use permit. So, again, here is just providing a bit more detail on the materials in color and lighting. Um the existing material is stucco, so it but you almost can't tell due to the dark color that's currently on the building. Um, so it' be a bit more not noticeable when they go to this lighter sort of off green color. Um, and then the darker green for the windows and doors and um there's just a closeup of the the lighting features there that would be down lit. Um, and there is a time schedule in the lighting schedule that's in the plan set. I would also like to note um that the you may have also noticed that I mentioned in the staff report that the location of the gas meter was called out to be on the front facade of the the building and the applicant definitely acted in the best interest of the city in regard to um operating on the plaza and worked with P Gen to apply for an exception in order to be able to do the upgrades that they're wanting on the interior for their tenant improvements with uh while still being able to use the existing location which is um in the sidewalk there. So the moving on to the amendments quite minor really um and actually a reduction in hours for the exterior on Fridays and Saturdays. Um so generally staying the

same um and all the other applicable uh conditions that were that are in the existing use permit would remain. Um and then really it's just a change in the arrangement of seating. So they would go from 29 interior seats to I I'm sorry uh 26 indoor seats to 29 and eight outdoor seats to 14 in the rear patio. And although the number of employees per shift was not um specifically expressed previously um that would not go beyond six employees uh maximum per shift and as in the the existing use permit uh with the total occupancy not to exceed 49 and that would not change. So there are a number of findings including the design review findings, the use permit findings and then um design review within the historic overlay um staff does feel that it meets all of the findings and we are recommending approval of the design review and the use permit amendment to the front facade and operational conditions. and and also asked that the project um be considered uh categorically exempt pursuant to section 15301 um which is existing facilities. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. And we do have that the owners here should there be any questions that should be directed at them. We have uh David and Kelly Bush. I meant to mention that in the beginning.

Miss Levine, thank you for your report. Commissioner comments. Commissioner Barnett. questions. Excuse me.

I noticed on one of the renderings there were looked like three tables. I'm not sure if it's been proposed formally that these become part of the application, but um this obviously if if uh approved this way and if the drawing indicates a change in seating capacity, would this not increase the outdoor seating capacity by six seats? So, uh, that's why I mentioned in the beginning the sidewalk permits are, um, applied for under a separate permit. So, that won't be part of that's not part of this application. The 49 is the 49 is in reference to an interior occupancy. Um, that just they would have to stay under 49 on the interior in order to not trigger other, you know, fire requirements or what have you.

No, I understand, but go back. There was one that had to to talked about seating in the garden and uh there was a change uh interior 14 rear patio seats from eight outdoor seats. So that just has to do with the I Yes. Perhaps I didn't clarify that's in the rear. So that just has to do with the rear. Yes. And but it's not changing their total number of occats. Correct.

And so if I understand you correctly, if they do want to go forward and apply for some seating in the front, they're going to have to make a separate application to do that. Yes, that would be done through the sidewalk seating permit. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Dela.

Thank you. I have a clarifying question. I just want to make sure I understand um about the gas meter and and whether we have to make that a condition of approval. There's there was some language in the staff report that suggested that. So I just want to make sure I understand. So there is a front there is a gas meter. It's just not a new gas meter. Is that correct?

So the existing gas meter is actually under the sidewalk there. Um it's not on the front. And so I actually did include it in the conditions of approval just because I really like to have the plans match exactly what what's what we see come in as a building permit or or whatnot. Um and so I didn't have them refresh revise the plan set. Um so that's why I called it out but it would remain as such. They had originally P Gen now wants um when certain um upgrades are triggered. They want the gas meters on the front of the building. And um so we had an internal discussion because we hadn't heard this come up before and there was concern over the impact that that would have aesthetically on the plaza. Um and so we spoke internally and then uh we spoke with the applicant and they were um willing to apply for an exception with PG& to maintain um the location where it is now which is not visible. Okay. So just two follow-up questions. Um so um just a process question. So since you already have it in the conditions the we if we were to uh recommend a motion we wouldn't have to include it.

Correct. Okay. The second question I have is around safety and what happened to corner 103 with the underground gas line. And I I'm do we have any insight into whether even though PG& approved that that they really refortified that? That's not a gas vault. That's not gas. That it was power. It was I apologize. I thought it was gas. No, it's electricity. Okay. But again, the an underground the underground.

So, I'll I'll answer that part of it. Okay. So, um after that occurred, um PG& did come out, reassess um all of the vaults, looked for that specific type of electric fault and identified those that may be within our sidewalks that are of that age and type and have already looked into updating all of those. And so, it's already in process for all of that. Um the um the reason why they want them up is really just to read meters and accessibility purposes more than anything. It's not um because of safety. Okay. Thank you so much.

Great. Any other commissioner questions? Commissioner Bernett? Um are we being asked to consider the uh color scheme for this in this application? That is within your privy. Yes. And so were there any I would have liked to have seen um this color scheme in context with the other adjacent properties.

Yeah, that's understandable. Um you can see a glimpse of it here or and I can also so we have soul desire on the left which is the lighter cream and then also in the center and then parkside to the right. So it would be a tone may perhaps it could be referred to as in between the two. Um, but I can also we can pull up um Google or uh Google Maps right now too if if that's something that you want to

Well, you know, normally um even just a color change on the plaza would trigger a robust discussion. Uh not to mention a change in the actual structure of the facade, which is this what this includes. I'm not in love with their wooden um uh canopy or whatever you want to call it today. Um and they haven't indicated what kind of signage. Uh OSO does have one of those. We were discussing them earlier backlit type illuminated signs but there's no indication on this as to what kind of signage they want to do.

Right. So that was the other component that will be they wanted to defer that to another application.

Okay. Once again, I'm I'm a little concerned about considering each of these pieces in isolation when the reality is that um we'll be dealing with uh a comprehensive change in the context of whatever gets approved as the final approval for this particular location. and I'm not seeing a a submittal application that um reflects the totality of those changes. So, I'm having a little I'm finding myself resisting a little bit going ahead without more information to put this all of these changes in context.

Okay. Um and just to note or clarify, the sidewalk seating wouldn't be something that would come before you. We those do get processed administratively, but I understand um your concern in in regard to the signage. Um if you'd like me to pull up the street view, I can do that or whatever you prefer. Well, I I wouldn't mind seeing it, and I'll have to use my imagination for what it would look like with these green colors rather than a mocked up composite of of how the uh final would look. I just I'm just surprised there isn't a more complete visual presentation on this. Do you want to ask if there's any more questions and then we can pull it up while we're

It seems that there is. Uh vice chair na uh just clarifying question is OSO and uh is it park side are they related? Are they the are they in the same Thank you. We have questions of staff while we're pulling that up. Might this be an opportunity to invite the applicant to come forward and address the commission if they so choose? There's no requirement.

Great. And if you just say your name for the record, I appreciate it. David Bush ush.

Um I mean it's it's a pretty simple remodel. It's a restaurant now. It's going to remain a restaurant. We're just improving the space, making it more comfortable. Um, improving the facade, I believe. Looks a little outdated and a little drab. Um, and we really just want to create more of a neighborhood restaurant on the square, casual place, um, and a much more comfortable place. The backyard obviously needs improvements. Um, and we would love to get some sidewalk seating. We just think it makes the place more vibrant and, um, really attracts people more to the square. I think people want to sit outside. We hardly ever fill up inside when it's nice outside and having tables out front like when we had the parklets really gave us a lot more life, especially on that side of the square where it's pretty slow sometimes, especially as far as foot traffic goes. So, you know, that's the goal for the project. Um, we're just a small family business doing our best.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, thank you for pulling this up. That helps me. As I say, I wish um it'd been a mockup of the colors in a, you know, wouldn't be hard to do in Photoshop. And uh so I would have hoped and expected and I guess my position is that any changes to the plaza to me um demand an extra level of scrutiny and consideration. It's just it's just the way I'm built. And I'm not opposed to change. I happen to enjoy Oso as a restaurant. I've eaten there many many times and um um but I think that uh going forward at least when we have changes to a facade of any uh plaza business. Uh I would like to see those changes rendered in the context of where they are their neighbors. And I know it'll be extra work for applicants. I'm sorry about that. But, you know, I uh having worked with Photoshop myself for 35 years, it's not that hard to do. So, I'll see where the rest of the commissioners.

Thank you very much. Any other commissioner comments? Questions? Excuse me. Questions? Any more questions? No more questions? Um, any comments? Excuse me. I need to open public comment on this matter. Are there any members of the public wishing to address the commission on this agenda item and see? Oh, Mr. Abadilly, state your name, please.

JJ Abdily. Um, I'd just like to state that uh I think OSO is a real gem of restaurant to have on the plaza. It has unique offering um different than most any other place. It's one of the rare places we can still get a bite at 8:59 p.m., which I really appreciate. And I think we all know how hard it is to run a restaurant. I I hope the commission can help make it a little easier for a business owner to run the business the way he wants. And from the looks of it, I'm not much of a color guy, but I think I can I think I can picture like a dark dark green, and I think it'll look well look good in the context. So, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other members of the public wishing to come address the commission? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for comments. Commissioners have comments. Commissioner O'Neal.

Um, I like the new design. I think that that angle is um awkward and I think that this is a really clever way to make it a little bit more comfortable there. And I do really encourage the outdoor seating. I think it makes the look more vibrant. I think the plaza would look more vibrant. I think that the dated reclaimed wood um worked 12 years ago about when you guys put it in and a refresh is a great way to have people remember. Oh, Oso. Yeah, I haven't been there in a while. So, I actually am fully in support of this. I think it's a really nice design and I look forward to enjoying it. Thank you, Commissioner Dbok.

Yes. I I also um really like the design and I really appreciate Oso as a business in Soma um and as a community member. Um one thing I hope is that somewhere you'll keep the pig the pig bear.

Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Willers. Um, Jacob, can you pull up or can you pull up the color chart that the colors are were actually applied for that you have up in the corner of the one slide? So I I think this is to me this is a failing of SketchUp and a and the thing we should be paying attention to is are these colors because I think that the stucco color the paint color of the stucco is actually um very close a little bit more vibrant than the next door neighbor um to the to the west. Um, and is it correct that the tile is the internal area?

Yes. But that that's how it was labeled on the plan set. So does is it the entire al cove? Here we have Sarah who was the applicant on on behalf of the owners if you don't mind. I'm Sarah. I'm the architect. Uh, so the tile would be right behind where the seating is and the rest would be painted to match the tile color. Yes. And I agree the SketchUp colors are kind of difficult. It's a notoriously tricky program with the colors. The top right is the best representation of the actual colors. So it's darker the stuckle color and the tile as well are darker than the rendering is showing.

Thank you. Yeah, I I I think that the you know the image that you see of the opening is much different than what the final appearance is going to be. And so I have no trouble with the color selections as a design. Any other comments, Mr. Bernard? Okay. So I want to I want to understand the picture we're looking at now with the little tables in the front and those two versions of greens. These are not the accurate colors. Is that what you're telling me? So, the colors on the right are the accurate colors, which are far less um uh

well, they're they're they're more compatible with the neighboring properties, but I'm using my imagination at this point in order to fill it in, which is why I'm concerned that that in future applications like this on the plaza, we get more detail before it comes to this commission. because I don't you know I was a graphic designer professionally for for 20 years uh before I changed careers and um the one lesson I learned in that craft was don't leave much up to the client's imagination because everybody imagines things somewhat differently. the better that you can show in a rendering precisely what it is you're intending, the better off you are. Otherwise, you run into the individual taste of a client that has to do with a color that may not be what's intended. So going forward, I would I would recommend to staff that, you know, we not we not have a variation as significant as this in terms of representation representation of how something's going to look when it actually is going to look quite different. So that being said, um I think now that I understand the actual colors that are going to be used, I have far less concern. And in terms of the design and the layout and the removal of the existing structures, those are all fine with me and I agree with the sentiments of the audience. I think the that so is a wonderful restaurant to have in town and I want to have them want to see them continue to succeed.

Great. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. I will just join in saying that I'm supportive of the the changes that are proposed in this application. I I I will actually joined Commissioner Barnett in his comments that I I believe that the um plaza facade is deserving of a maybe a little higher scrutiny than other not as prominently displayed areas of our city. But uh what's proposed here isn't anything that can't be uh you know remedied by a different painkiller in the future. So with that I would be supportive of uh approving this application. And with that, there any motions on the floor?

A motion to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins, I. Commissioner Donbach, yes. Commissioner O'Neal, yes. Vice Chair Nent, I. Chair Wyrick, I. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. At this time, I would call for a fivem minute recess. I want to be respectful of the the time that uh the members of the audience have spent thus far tonight and uh would call for a five strict fivem minute recess at this time. Thank you.

members of the public, if I can encourage you to take your seats, please. Director Gates, are you close to being prepared? Okay. At this point, I will reconvene the planning commission meeting and go back on the record in item uh 5.2, which based on the action earlier will be moved to the top of the items for discussion portion of our agenda tonight. I want to begin by just thanking the members of the public who have remained here and who have obliged us uh after an hour and a half of other regular uh calendar agenda items. Um the fact that you're here speaks a lot to the fact that you believe in this process and that you believe in your city and uh the fact that there is um a pathway forward where I think uh you know that there's going to be a there can be a happy medium and that uh people can be um proud of where we live and um so I will reiterate thank you very much for being here and being involved. With that said, we will move forward with 5.2, which is discussion of the general plan ad hoc committee comments on available draft general plan elements. And I will turn it over to director Gates.

Thank you. And also based on that reorganization, my understanding is that we are going to first focus on the discussion around the Soma mixed um description. Correct.

That was my understanding. Okay. Um, so, um, to start there, um, and I can bring up things that you may request at any time, but just to kick it off the discussion. So, just as a reminder, on January 14th of this year, um, a community meeting was held at the Vintage House that many of you did participate in. It was an agenda planning commission um, meeting. Um and at that meeting um the goal of that was to gather input on what a Soma mixuse could look like on the Sebastiani property. So participants were asked to um participate in a roundt format to work together to discuss that potential uh uses. So each table did color in um different land uses on the map and completed a land use table to identify the specific uses that they would prefer to see in a future if a future development was to occur. Um at the end each table did present their maps to the group and those results um for each table were uploaded to our general plan website and then they were also attached to your um staff report. In addition to the maps and tables from that meeting, the community members were that were unable to attend as well as those that did um were offered the opportunity to also participate in that same exercise. So those also um were provided to you and attached to the staff report and they were available um online um on our general plan website. So based on the input um and all the comments that have been uploaded um specifically to the Sebastiani folder um we've created one folder in our general plan comments just for this purpose um based on um just so that we could allow for more focused um separation of the comments. Um while there were a lot of those that participated that would

rather not see change at all um if the change was going to happen that's what those maps represented. um the Sebastiani, the future land uses that we saw the really the focus um and this is me summarizing so people may have taken different things but um really focusing on preserving agriculture and or open space where it exists today and to increase or create more buffers um using landscaping between existing and any other commercial or higher density housing to preserve the history of the Sebastiani Winery. um to um if change was to occur. Well, again, no change is preferred that the commercial hotel or multif family development was preferred to be tucked away on the sites away from the streets and again buffered um from the neighboring properties. Um also to maintain a small building character especially along the street edge. And then concerns um were raised around noise, traffic, and safety um with a new development if that was to occur there. So based on the input and direction, um staff is looking for direction on any edits to the proposed cinema mixuse description, including the name. Um I know a lot of people don't like the name, and that's fine, too. Um it's just a placeholder. Um but if there's any changes at this point, um that's what staff is looking for direction from the planning commission on. And um again, some of the level of detail that um is um really would form any future development would be part of the zoning code. Um which also is um something that the general plan ad hoc um group is um discussing as well. and that input from tonight could also feed that uh

discussion around that future zoning code. So that concludes my brief presentation on the item. Again, I can bring up anything specific that you may want to look at um or some of the things that were presented. Um there were a number of submitts after um so hopefully you had a chance to at all of those that were uploaded um to get different kinds of feedback. So with that um did want we do have a number of people here. I didn't know if you wanted to ask me questions and and then do public comment before getting into discussion or not.

Yes, we can go. Would would there be an objection to fielding public comment first prior to prior to entertaining questions? Yes. Yes. Has there been a historic resto resource evaluation of this site? Sorry. No, there has not been yet, but that would be required with any potential development.

Okay. Um, is there any benefit to having that completed before we even look at the potential of resoning? Um, so even though something is historic doesn't mean that development can't occur. Correct. Right. So there's an environmental process with that. So if um if anything was proposed on that site to change anything, we would require it. We're currently in the process of doing our uh citywide survey

um for historic resources um to determine if there are other resources in town that haven't been uh identified. This is an early California landmark, but it's so early that it actually doesn't it's not automatically uh on the California register. Um, so it would need to be actually assessed.

Okay. And the reason I'm asking is I'm I'm thinking that a lot of the property is not historic, but certain parts of it are truly historic, and it would be I would find it very helpful to get clarity as to what the different pieces are and how we would want to respect those going forward. So that's where I was coming from. Okay. Thank you. questions from the commission. Mr. Millers,

um I just have a general questions for for the commission as well as for the public so they understand what what are the ground rules so to speak in our discussion of this item tonight given the fact that it's a um general discussion of a general plan potential zoning change. Um, so it's not a public hearing for an item. It is a discussion, but we're at the point in these discussions where we're making edits to um the document or potentially even the land use map. The planning commission is not the deciding factor. Um, and again, we would look to city council to provide any final direction on how we would want to move forward on uh any discussion that's being had. Um we um staff has just scheduled a um item for the city council on March the 4th to provide a general plan update um with a couple of these changes that are presented not um not just this but also um the two uh requested land use changes that would affect the map would be presented as well to city council on March 4th for final direction so that the EIR studies can be finalized um along with that draft general plan.

Just a follow-up question to that. So fair to say that the planning commission in this sense has a acts an advisory capacity. That's correct. And it helps to inform the city council on the direction that they ultimately take. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett. Would it be of value and is it our task tonight to uh edit or modify the language of the proposed new uh land use category?

Yes, that would be within your purview tonight. That is um part of that discussion is what does that how does that read? um and um if there's certain things missing from it or other edits to anything within the land use element that we want to have addressed. There's the ad hoc has provided some additional comments not just on this but in general on the land use element specific to Sebastiani mixed use. There's been a number of questions around um a level of specificity that is um not typically seen necessarily in a general plan. Um and then concerns raised about the unknown um about a future development project and what would that look like? Um, in this case, a general plan again sets kind of the higher level policy. The zoning code sets um the limitations and the box as well as the uses that go inside that box. Um but um the uh uh I know that there's some concern around mixed use and not you know having one use or another use um on the site um and things like that. So,

so, um, just to further clarify that, um, we're talking about to we we can talk about tonight the specific words included in the definition of a new land use designation, which which specifically isn't a general plan land use designation. and it's a zoning map designation, but the two have become conflated in my mind in that u in that the new Soma mixed use designation as it's been called um has certain allowances in it in terms of what it is um permitting as possible uses within that designation. So, is that on the table tonight? A discussion of that specific language?

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. I I just want to make sure I understand. Um, on page 197, you have a summary that says Sonoma Sebastian property targeted land use framework. Is is that is that language from staff as a proposed I I'm not sure. Sorry. What page are you on? I think it's 197. It says summary Sebastian property targeted land use framework. I'm looking at the agenda. Okay. I on your computer page 197 of 286.

It's not something that's on the screen though. No, I don't see anything on the screen. Yeah. Okay. I don't know what it is you're looking at. I'm looking at the agenda, page 197, and there's a thing there's a there's a under item 5.2 and it says summary Sebastiani property targeted land use framework. That's how it's entitled. Page 199. Oh, I I'm I apologize. It says 197. Oh, on mine it says 199. Okay. Okay. Apologies. This one? Yeah. Yes, that is a public comment. So, the summary is a public comment. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to understand where that language came from. Thank you.

Yes. So, it ends. So, the me the the one that's right above is our summary of the land use tables, right? Um and then where that ends uh ends that um that item, okay, that portion of it. and then the rest are going to be the public comments suggestions. I would also add that this would also be the appropriate time to discuss the merits of whether a new land use designation is appropriate at all. Am I correct?

If that is um going to be that's a possibility so it can be removed. Um so any changes to the land use um map or descriptions are on the table. Okay. Yeah. One other comment. I mean I think one of one of the things that came up in the ad hoc is is whether to call this a specific plan because of the site size or versus um just adopting zoning. So I just adopting the land use by the zoning code. And I just wanted to bring that up and ask if that's still an opportunity for discussion.

Um, everything is open for discussion. So, just as a reminder, a specific plan is a zoning code. It's just um includes more things than just the zoning code. Any other questions?

Okay, I have some questions. Uh, Jennifer, could you speak to how housing laws like, for example, SB35, AB 2011, AB130 could potentially be used to maximize residential development at this site under a mixeduse uh designation as it is reflected in the proposed language currently. So um those are actually not about maximizing those are just more about um creating a ministerial process um around housing developments um um and they have to meet certain standards um don't typically see SB35 because they actually require um the um the wage that the word just escaped me. Amy, help me here. um

prevailing wage

prevailing thank you um the prevailing wage requirements um and I can't remember 2011 is the same way um the one that maximizes and what you're thinking about when you say maximize is going to be density bonus law so any property that um is of a certain size and we allow a certain density that gets a minimum of five units um is allowed a density bonus just by law if they provide a certain percentage affordable. Um they don't have to use the actual density increase but they do get incentives um a certain number of incentives and then unlimited concessions and waivers. Um and the idea behind that is that by providing that affordable you're reducing your ability to get your rate. And so, um, sometimes you need those waiverss and concessions. Um, maybe it's F, maybe it's setback, maybe it's height. Uh, it just depends on the project itself and what they're looking for um to meet that. So, anything that has housing pretty much in this town that can have five units can have a density bonus project. Um, so that's really the only law and that is a state law and a state requirement and it's an uh code as well.

Okay, thank you. Um kind of on that note, um how could h how could a potential developer of that site use a concession or one of these incentives um to devel could they potentially develop 100% housing a residential project at at that location? So 50% they could have 50% um density bonus but they perhap um I can't remember what the percentage is. It depends on what level of affordability it is. Um then yes they could have a 50% um increase um in their density. Um typically um this city's never seen that. Um I personally have never seen that um in my other jurisdictions but yeah anything's possible

and it's all about what the project is and what they need to to get their project.

So thank you for obliging me helping me to understand. So waiverss and concessions could include things like not having a parking standard for example. So density bonus automatically identifies the parking standards that go along with density bonus and we actually are consistent with that already in our code. Um what you're thinking of is um the project that we just approved on Montalo their density bonus request was um to an increase in their F. Um we've seen setback reductions. um we see typically um sometimes you see height increases um uh site coverage. Um so they just range and basically the idea is that those development standards um the standard that has to be met is that the development standard um reduction is allowing the affordability of the project to move forward in the sense that they're providing these affordable units. So, it's helping helping them either increase that density, get more on the site, um maybe spread out across the site a little bit differently.

Okay. I guess I'm just trying to get my arms around, you know, for I think it's 20. Is it 20? We're calling it 22 acres, right? 20.

Okay. So, mixed use, it it allows a residential component in the description. That's what mixed use intends. I'm trying to get my arms around the scope of what could be there if a developer utilized the tools that are available to them to maximize density, to maximize development. Um, and that that's where my that's where my questions are coming from. I'm trying to get my arms around that. I'm trying to get a a solid understanding around what could potentially be there if they potential developer met or crossed the threshold that would allow them the highest density bonus and the highest uh or the the greatest amount of waiverss and concessions. What would that look like?

Maybe that's too broad a question. Can't go there. Okay.

No, it's it's an unknown, right? It's all going to come down to what the project is and what's being proposed, right? um what is um that goal of that project um every project that I've worked on in my other jurisdictions with multif family development every single one was very different and it all comes down to the developer themselves and how they develop their properties. Um the developers are very different on what they're looking for. Um they also have different returns on investment, right? um depending on what their funding streams are. So all those things play into what they at the end of the day they're going to be asking for. Um the aspect of the zoning code too is you know what we're trying to do is um around this is also define the boundaries but also how do we incentivize to get what we want out of that project. Um, is there a way to do that? Maybe, maybe not. Um, in that sense of waiverss and concessions, but um, I'll let developers speak for themselves. But, um, there are obviously certain cases where developers will don't care about community um, and just come in for their product, but in other cases, some work, you know, with that and understand what the needs of that community. um at the end of the day their project has to be marketable to the community.

Sure. So I I guess that inspires a much broader question and what tools do we have to get what we do want to see? Uh we I feel like we've seen this model um where a developer or an entrepreneur comes and they they get a project entitled right or a conceptual project entitled and then they sell it. What mechanisms do we have to tie? Maybe that's too broad a question, but um I'm trying to understand and I'm trying to help the public and my commission understand what uh what the upsides of this are and what the downsides of a reszone are or arts. Um fair to say that a reszone to what's currently titled as Sonoma mixed use commercial would open door to uh state the the impacts of state laws that reduces local control over what happens there.

Is that is that fair or is that unfair? So, I'm going to go with it's going to be a depends situation. Um, if this was a full-on housing reszone to just housing, I would say yes. Clearly, yes. Um, just because of the way that the laws are are now. um the um you know if there was only 10 acres or something like we have specific regulations and there's new ministerial processes um for housing multif family housing developments in certain instances. Um there are also other things um on each site that may be different that affect that ability to develop. um mixed use. The way that we have it written is that it's not just a housing project. It's housing and commercial,

right?

Um there is um a mixed use in density bonus that has specific um uh ratios um as well as other um aspects of that. Um so is it there? Yes. Is it always going to be there? Yes. Um at this time frame in the foreseeable future uh the state is going to continue to move in this motion. Um they've already I mean it's already been said that even shopping centers um can be changed to housing. Um so in this case the the city can take the the front end of it and say okay this is what we want with change. Um or you don't have change and maybe in the future somebody wants to come and make that change and then then you're getting a proposal of something that you would then be reviewing as a proposal. Would the elimination of a residential component in what's allowed in the zone help to protect I'll use the word protect our community from the impacts of what I consider overreaching state laws?

So if you have no housing and you just continue to allow commercial or expanded commercial potential. Um then yeah, you wouldn't have per se those I'd have to look specifically at that commercial uh process, but Okay. Feel like I've had the microphone for a long time. I'm willing to uh let anybody else get in here who's interested in Commissioner Don. Yeah. I have a couple follow-up questions to that. I mean um the first question is even if it's a commercially zoned property, you can still build residential property on that. Correct.

Unless we spec specifically state in this zone type that there's no housing allowed in our commercial zone. So let's say we just in the same sense that here we've identified it to be a special zone. Right now it is a wine production zone and it has its only one uh in the city. um and it has its specific uses that are allowed. So if you added additional commercial types to that then and didn't include residential, our res our commercial and our mixed use zones do allow multifamily residential in them and have identified a density. That doesn't mean that um you didn't you have to.

Okay. And and the second question, you know, um the public came and they and I've looked at the tables and they've put their preferences down and in other of our um our uh municipal code for other designations of land use, we have these tables that we allow things to be permitted or use permit or not permitted. And I think that that's something that um we use, we understand, and seems like um a lever that the city can use to really designate like other land use um parcels what we what we accept and don't accept. So with the input that we've received from the public around that kind of use table is that one mechanism where we can actually kind of construct what's allowed and not allowed on the parcels and um along that line there are several small parcels in the 20 acres. Correct. And we talked about it there's some that are more agg and some that have a winery and and um there was a request for preservation of that winery the the historic portion. So, how do we how do we craft that into a code? Um, you know, there's a table of use, but how do we craft the subparcals? Sorry. Is your is your question is there a way to modify allowable or allowed uses in the existing zone to achieve what we see as the will of the community? Well, that's I I that's why, you know, I brought up kind of a a sight specific plan because this is a unique property. It's 20 acres. It has multiple components to it. And um we've heard the summary from the public that some areas

want to be buffered. We want, you know, we want to have some A. I saw that there was residential that people were okay with and certain kinds of commercial. So I think that from my perspective reading all of that, we do have a framework and I'm just wondering how we put that framework into this unique parcel um by designating different areas if we can do that as part of this um unique code. You know, because what we have here is like I'm not sure if somebody could bulldoze the Sebastiani building or they could take that building and make a m a multi- uh family unit. That that's what I'm not clear about. So, are there ways that part of the part of the area would be uh designated commercial or residential, part would be designated open space? That's what I'm I'm not clear of what what levers we have as um a city to help direct that.

Yeah. I ask a clarifying question of commissioner. Um are you basically asking whether or not it's possible to have multiple land use designations applied to this overall 20 acres rather than a single designation? Is that the question you're asking? I guess my question is since we're this is a new designation, are there ways that we can specify just like we did with four corners, are there ways that we can have a a a specific specification of what can be in that parcel? Well, no parcels. Yeah.

No, I understand we're we're that that was related to the issue I brought up earlier about, you know, modifying the language of the proposed designation. But I hear underlying your question, the question is rather than having one designation apply to the 20 acres, can we instead is there an option to create multiple land use designation within those 20 acres? I guess that's an alternative way to do it. So,

it's probably not ideal, but

it is not ideal. Um, it's not good planning practice. Um, we actually have an area of town where we have two land uses on same parcels. Per law, those zoning, those setbacks and things have to occur um from the actual location of this arbitrary line that's not actually a parcel line. Um and it doesn't quite work the way you would think. The other aspect is we cannot down zone. So you can't take away the development rights of these parcels that already have development rights to make them open space. Um the aspect that is more difficult in the conversation has been because of the variety I would say of uh parcel sizes, shapes um historic uses. Um the railroad corridor went through here, right? So that's why we have little slivers um of parcels. Um and so there's the idea behind a mixed use and having one is that when somebody comes forward with the um a subdivision or new parcel map and reorganizes all the lines or reduces the number of lines that you have one zone already. When you have two zones, the fun begins. Um, and where those lines are. Um, so that is the reasoning behind applying a broader um zone criteria to such a variety of parcels at this point. Um,

I in my head cannot envision how we would separate the parcels by use type. Mr. Millers, therein lies the rub. We live in a community that is exactly what you're talking about. And yet law wants us to create a community where everything's perfect.

All one color here, all one color there. And we live in a tapestry. We don't live in the one color there, one color here. And so compatibility is the tapestry. Law is the one color. And we're struggling because we have a we have one of the largest parcels aggregated, one of the largest parcels in our community to deal with. and it doesn't feel right to put one thing on it that allows all kinds of things because we don't know what that future is. And and so that to me is the real issue on on this parcel or these parcels I should say and we should continue to save these parcels even though it's one zone as a as a wine production zone zone primarily because that's what was happening on the at the time and made it conforming. Um, it's difficult because all of those issues that are raised by taking the taking what would normally be a series of small parcels and allowing something to happen on the 20 acre parcel in our community is not the tapestry that we live in. And so, um, I've been struggling with this and it's the first opportunity we have to talk about it, but there's so many external forces on it that it really takes, in my opinion, it's going to take very careful consideration and applying a single zone to all of the parcels doesn't feel right. And I think it needs more study to do it correctly. Um, and

yeah, and I'd like to add to that. I mean, I'll put it out there. I'm a Strong Towns fan, and I really do think that this that, you know, that infill um that we had in the early part of last century, it is more compatible with with this town. And if there's a way that we can really roll up our sleeves and figure out how to I know it's hard, but the current design standards, good planning may not be good planning. you know, it's just kind of what we've all accepted over the last century. So, I I would um I want to solve this problem. I I want it to be good for this community. H want housing, want commercial that's compatible, open space. So, I I really would love us to to be able to do what's practical and what's feasible for this 20 acres um of land that we have. Um, and I I I still would like it to be a very specific kind of zoning.

So, seems like we're kind of getting away from questions, which is okay. But, um, do right. I want to give I want to start a good round of of uh of public comment here. Are there any final um maybe broader questions from the commission of of Director Gates before we jump into public comment? Commissioner Millers.

So if we left it as wine production and made no change to the parcel parcels um and a um uh I can say a developer, we'll just put it that way. The developer decided that they wanted to take on the 20 20 acres of land and come forward with a project. It would simply require if it included things that are not in the wine production zone, it would require a general plan amendment to allow a project that is acceptable at the community level if it met those standards to make the general plan amendment. So you would probably do a general plan amendment with either specific plan that you want or a new designation with that zoning.

But the evaluation of that project wouldn't be dependent on the zoning. It would be dependent on the application. Correct. And the review. Correct. So as one total project. as one total project including subdivision yards. But the but the city at that point would not be setting the precedent for the development of the property and thereby wouldn't be um wouldn't have to accept an application if it was non-conforming.

Well, it wouldn't be non-conforming because it didn't exist. Well, non-conforming being that it isn't wine production and doesn't you and it doesn't meet the uses of the land that way. You know, it's, you know, people can propose whatever they'd like to propose and the community can come out and say yes, we like that or no, we don't, but we don't have to define our laws on on proposals. And so, so in my mind is if we don't change the zoning, we have a quasi derelict land use. Um but it doesn't have the a potential negative impact of of all of the things that you chair have brought up and that is we have a very aggressive state housing law. We have very aggressive state housing laws right now that don't allow very much community input and and while we all want housing, we all want to be able to also know what that's going to be and how to control it. and we don't have a lot of discretion as soon as we open that box. So, you know, I I'm just asking that because in some ways the protective thing is to leave it as it is.

Did I have a question mark on the end? I said yes.

Oh, you said yes. Okay. At this point, I would like to give the public a stab at coming and addressing this issue. There's enough hot air up here as it is. So, we'll turn that down for a minute and uh turn it over to the public. And I'll just remind everyone if uh we're tonight because of the uh the audience members here in attendance, we're going to try to abide by our three minute maximum. And um another way to show support for the comments of someone who's at the podium is to raise your hand. Um, we I pay attention to that and um we'll go ahead and move forward. So, if you could state your name, please. Thank you.

Janet Bole. B as in boy. O Y L E. Good thing I talk fast. Even though my blood sugar is dropping, I'm going to talk in faster. Um, unlimited concessions and waivers. Scares the heck out of me. Um, and it is five parcels. We shouldn't have to treat it all as one. Uh, I like tapestry. That is the world. So, okay. Uh, good evening. My name is Janet Bole and I'm here to provide comment on the proposed land use change for Sebastian parcels. After attending the January 14th public meeting, it is clear that many engaged residents have serious concerns about redesating this site in total. So as Sonoma mixeduse, the consistent theme was that the designation feels too broad, too undefined for a property with this level of historic significance and community impact. For that reason, I respectfully urge the city to designate the Spastiani site as a special planning area rather than applying this newly created mixeduse category before any specific project has been proposed. We're getting the cart before the horse. A special planning or area would allow the city to evaluate actual sight specific proposals when they are submitted instead of pre-approving a wide range of uses in advance. This is not an unusual request. Across California, sensitive and historic sites are commonly governed through sight specific planning frameworks rather than broad mixeduse designations. My concern is practical. Under current state housing laws, once zoning and land use standards are adopted, cities are often required to approve projects with very li limited ability to deny or modify them. We just saw this play out last week in St. Helina. The city attorney explained that once they their zoning was changed, the city had to approve the project. In fact, the mayor expressed in quotes quote deeply he was deeply disappointment that this project was not really delivering what our community needed. However, he had to approve it. Um, we all know the Sebastiani property is special. A special planning area designation would allow the city to define sub areas, preserve agricultural and historic elements, establish clear limits, and ensure the development

aligns with infrastructure and fire and evacuation realities. Just like what happened last week in St. in Helina once a broad designation is adopted that prudent management may be lost. There is a broader uh uh implication if this precedent is set here in the city. Think about 27 acres at Cherry Block. If we approve this this if the city classifies this land use as a proposal, the county could follow suit. I met I took the initiative. I met with our supervisor Hermaceia and she was not able to assure me that such an expansion is unlikely. So current, think about it. 50 acres in our backyard could be all development. This is a slippery slope. Let's wait till the proposal is presented. I got 22 seconds. Okay. We currently have over 1,200 signatures on petition calling for responsible land use. Responsible land use does not mean no. It means evaluating each proposal carefully, transparently, and on merits when it is actually before us. Therefore, I respectfully request that we designate the bastion as a special area planning. Thank you,

Miss Bole. I'm impressed. Two seconds to spare. Sir, if you come forward, please, and state your name. Thank you.

Yeah. Hi, I'm John Edelman, and thank you for letting me speak to you tonight. So, I'm going to be brief. I've submitted this before, but I want to to you in writing, but I'm going to read it to you. So, a case against the proposed uh mixeduse changes to the Sebastian property. Uh the proposed general land use plan changes allow mixeduse development on historic Seab Sebastian properties to represent a fundamental departure from Sonoma's adopted planning principles community values and public safety obligations while exposing taxpayers to unknown and potentially substantial infrastructure costs and insurance related costs. Framed as an economic solution, the proposal rests as an optimistic assumptions that are unlikely to materialize and would instead produce irreversible harm. increased wildfire risk, evacuation failures, loss of agricultural land, historic resources, erosion of Sonoma's identity and the sense of place, retail bleed possibly from the historic core and a precedent that undermines integrity of the uh general land use plan itself and all goals uh uh LU 2, three, four, and five when you read them. Apply it. Applying a single mixeduse designation as we just spoke and everybody in the room did with a wide residential density range to Sebastian properties departs from common California planning practice for historically significant fire constrained and partially operational sites. Um comparable jurisdictions typically rely on sight specific planning thank you um tools to manage sensitive properties, limit residential intensity and preserve historic and agricultural assets. uh blanket zoning approach risks irreversible impacts on a site that functions as a historic winery and agricultural campus. Uh it offers the current owners and potential futures investors a vacant redevelopment opportunity. Do we want to do that is the real question. Uh, critically, the proposal ignores viable and safer alternatives already available to the city, including vacant parcels along established commercial corridors and the

adaptive reuse or repurposing of outdated commercial buildings for residential and mixed residential uses. It also fails to account for the likely bleeding of the retail and uh visitor serving uses away from the plaza Broadway and existing commercial districts, weakening Sonoma's historic commercial core. The treatise sort of consolidates the principal arguments raised by citizens, experts, and community stakeholders and sets forth a clear alternative path. So I that's what I would say is a clear alternative path to recognizing development, preservation, transparency and adherence of the adopted plan that you already have. Um risks of a pro profit extraction by out of area development interests is a a real reason. the permanent loss of historic buildings, the agricultural land loss, and the Sonoma way of life. So, I urge you to reconsider this blanket mixeduse plan and let a developer come forward with a plan that's acceptable for the community and propose it here in front of you all. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your comments. Sir,

good evening. Uh, my name is Marty Bennett Bennett TT. I'm a longtime consultant for the hotel workers unionite here local too. I've lived in the city for more than 30 years. I urge that the general plan draft land use element conditionally permit any new hotels and that you require a study demonstrating that the hotel would not increase the demand for affordable housing. Hotels can increase demand for affordable housing because they often pay workers low wages, few benefits, and these are not sufficient to live in the valley. In 2025, the California Employment Development Department reported that entrylevel Sonoma County hotel housekeepers earn 1832 an hour and an annual income of about 38,000. However, MIT economists calculate that in Soma County, two full-time working parents with two children each need to earn $33 an hour or an annual income of $108,000 before taxes to cover basic expenses, food, housing, health care, transportation, and child care. In 2025, United Ways of California reported that nearly onethird of households in Sonoma County are working poor, meaning at least one member earns income from work but still can't cover basic expenses. Most hotel workers and their families are working poor, struggling to make ends meet. The UC Berkeley Labor Center studies revealed that if service sector workers wages are so low, many will be forced to commute to less expensive housing markets in Solano, Lake

Mendescino counties, particularly given the long-term trend of stagnant wages and raising rents. Commutes roughly double for costburden renters who move to more affordable housing markets. If hotel workers rent locally, many will live in overcrowded housing, impacting family health and their children's educational achievement. In addition, many low-wage hotel workers will be forced to rely on public subsidies like medical, cow works, and food stamps because of low wages. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Hello, I'm Sonia Caribel. I'm also with the hotel workers union, Unite Here Local 2. Um, I submitted a letter and I'm going to read from that. Um, although maybe condense it a tiny bit. Um, so, uh, again, my name is Sonia Carabel and I'm with Here Local 2, the hotel workers union for the Bay Area including Sonoma County. We represent workers at the Fairmont Sonoma Mission Inn, Hyatt Regency Santa Rosa, AC Hotel Santa Rosa, and Pedaluma Sherin. Our sister local, Unite Here at 49, rep represents workers at the Great and Casino and Resort. Together, we represent around 1500 hospitality workers in Sonoma County. Our mission is to improve working conditions and build worker power in the hospitality industry. Uh, this draft used land element, draft land use element creates the new Sonoma mixed commercial use designation on the Sebastian Winery site, permitting mixeduse housing and commercial development. We have no problem with denser mixeduse development. Our members struggle to find affordable housing and we support building housing particularly when it is affordable to hotel workers. However, we are skeptical about permitting hotels as part of this new zoning designation. We are in a housing crisis, not a hotel's crisis. A mixeduse development with housing and groundf flooror commercial could help to alleviate the housing crisis in Soma. However, a hotel could make the problem worse if it creates low-wage jobs without creating enough affordable housing to offset demand. Hotel jobs in the Sonoma Valley usually pay low wages, which means workers generally cannot afford decent housing nearby. Soma's economy is already very tourism focused, and this has led to extreme inequality. We don't need more bad tourism jobs. We need more housing for workers. The draft land use element says of the Soma mixeduse commercial designation, allowed uses may include wine production, agricultural uses, hotels, and other visitor serving uses. Um, we suggest that hotels, if they are permitted at all, be conditionally permitted so that the specific impacts

of the hotel on the local economy can be evaluated. If they are simply permitted by right, there will be no opportunity for the public and local officials to weigh in other than potentially on the design of the hotel. Uh we have a suggested amendment uh which says allowed uses may include wine production, agricultural uses, hotels and other visiting serving uses with the addition hotels will be a conditionally permitted use with a required study that demonstrates that the hotel would not increase overall demand for affordable housing in Soma. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Hi. Hi commissioners. My name is Becky Sager. It's s a g- e r. Um I'm going to assume as they often do in these meetings that you've read the submissions and I could I I I've sent one in. I've sent many in and I couldn't say it better than my friend Janet did tonight. We share the same concerns. Um, I want to make one small point, maybe not so small before I say what I came up here to say, and that is I'm looking at the land use map before and after from the current general plan to the proposed. And there are two sections of the Sebastian property that are agricultural. It's not all wine production. So there are two land uses there now, as far as I understand. Three. Yeah, there's one tiny commercial, right? Mixed use. So we we do have existing and to your point, if we left it, we do have agriculture and wine production. And the one thing I've heard so consistently from everyone who gives feedback is keep the green space green. But what I really want to say tonight is thank you. Um this is the first time um in this whole excruciating process that I've felt like we've been heard and that we share concerns that are real and based on common sense and reasonable and critical to this community that we all love. And that's why we're here. We're not here because we don't want housing for people. We're here because you think about the last five or six years in this town and in this country. You can't predict what's going to happen five years from now, right? You can't predict that somebody might not come in here and say, "I want to take advantage of the bonus density laws and build a thousand housing units there." And then what do we do when we have a fire? We're already sleeping with our go bags, folks. We've seen the studies. We don't need the studies. This is basic common sense. So, I am getting all worked up here, not because I disagree with you, but because I love the conversation that's happening. I appreciate it. As someone who cares

deeply about this along with my neighbors, please continue to listen to your constituents. We've got,270 people so far signing a petition for responsible land use. Read it. It's what we keep saying. Readsoma.org. We are not against development. We just want it to make sense and we wanted to keep this town as wonderful as it is. Um, so thank you for listening to us and let's keep this dialogue going because we got to come to a solution that works for Sonoma. Thank you. Hi, my name's Jeannie ShraMM and Sm um on the January 14th uh community planning session. Uh it was an excellent beginning and I want to commend you for organizing it in the first place to stimulating creative input from the community. At that meeting, I met Mitch back there and a lot of us met other people that we never knew and it got the discussion going. The land use designation determines what the proposals are in the first place. So, I'm thrilled that we're having this conversation today and that you are, as uh the lady just as Miss Sager just said, listening to us. I think the issue here, the key issue for all of us is how can this property be best used to support community and civic priorities and values while also addressing the economic and sustainability issues. Mitch and I worked together with a couple of other people and we handed in a submission late today, a submission of ideas because anybody can't write a and especially inexperienced people in 40

minutes. So we got together, we got some ideas and our priorities that under underpin these ideas were evacuation, safety, density, vehicle and foot traffic, maintaining the physical, functional and aesthetic integrity, transparent, visionary, and participative decision-making process and recognition that Sebastian winery property, though unique in size for the city of Soma, will set a precedent for how other agricultural properties in Soma County will be considered in the future. And that's a very important thing for all of you here to keep in mind. The property is boarded by county residents. And some of the things that I'd like to point out in the evacuation report, three of the seven uh reports that uh that dangerous areas, three of those seven border this property. Um there is a we want to any housing, senior housing, a third of our population is seniors. That is expected to grow, according to county statistics, countywide, 26% from that number by 2030. That would enable people who live in the area to age in place. and we want to see um the things that we love about Soma preserved and to have visionaries. We have a we are very lucky to have amazing professionals in our community who are extremely accomplished internationally renowned architects and others. So we would like to say let January 14th be the beginning not the end. We'd like to encourage you to form a community advisory board where we can have continue to have discussion like this. Thank you.

My name is David Dixon, DIX. I actually live in the county on Level Valley Road and uh I was looking at the agenda tonight and I saw a memorandum from Jennifer Gates about uh 577 and 511 Level Valley Road which they wish to uh have a land use change to allow them to develop housing there. I I'm a big believer also of of I don't know if it's going to be housing I guess but change the land use from a to something else. And I know that we have what we call downgrading where you don't take a you don't take a commercial or residential area and downgrade it to uh rec space or agriculture. Is there a possibility that the city can look at the same rule of not downgrading a to make a mixeduse residential use or commercial use because you're losing all the a place about you can really make a difference if you think about it. I don't and also I don't know if 577 7-Eleven Valley Road is related at all to the Sebastian project or not. So, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is Mitchell Price. P R I C E. Uh, a lot's been said tonight, but I wrote this out earlier, so um, I'll just go from my script. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mitchell Price. I am an architectural designer and a lifelong Sonoma resident. I've spent the last several weeks studying this site carefully, not just as a development opportunity, but as a civic responsibility and uh for the next generation of Sonoma residents. The Sebastian property sits within an established residential fabric with limited evacuation routes and circulation capacity. That physical reality should guide our land use decisions. The question before us is not whether this site should evolve, it's how. It's a fire constrained residential uh context. We should be deliberate about introducing higher intensity destination oriented uses that increase peak traffic and emergency complexity. This is also an opportunity for the city to think more broadly about economic resilience. A balanced revenue base, one that includes community serving and locally rooted uses can strengthen Sonoma over time. This 20 acre site is one of the uh last large centrallylo properties within the city. That makes it rare. Rare sites deserve long-term thinking. Uh this property could, excuse me, this property could support lower intensity uses that strengthen residents first and generate steady daytime activity without overwhelming the neighborhood. This approach allows us to reuse uh would allow us to reuse and thoughtfully adapt the existing structures to the greatest extent possible. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that economic vitality and stewardship are not opposites. The physical character of Soma, its walkability, its historic fabric, its human scale uh was created by restraint. I encourage you to approach this

property not as a blank slate but as one act of stewardship for the next 50 years of Sonoma. Thank you very much. Thank you Miss Cornwall.

Good evening. Um Caitlyn Cornwall Soma Ecology Center. Um uh I am notly not sure if this is the right time to make this comment but other people are making comments about things that are not exactly their South Aian properties. So, just uh wanted to make a comment about 577 Level Valley Road. Um uh uh there have been a lot of public money spent over the last 10 years or so looking for places um upstream of the city of Sonoma for uh water during storms to spread out and reduce flood risk in the city and also to recharge groundwater. and um Sonoma Water and the Ecology Center with various sources of public money have looked pretty hard in the Nathansson Creek wershed for opportunities to let water spread out in the winter. Um and uh it was very very hard to find places that where that's possible and the best the highest priority location for allowing that to happen is that property. And so um I think before the city decides to change its uh land use designation, there should be some thought given to whether there are parts of that parcel that should be um uh where future uses must allow the ability for water to spread out there. um and it connects hydraologically to uh parts of the Sebastian properties. The some of the topography is still there. So we haven't had major flooding in the city for a while, but we have had really major flooding in the city over the last 30 years and it will get worse in the future. So um that's one point and my other point is um about the Sebastian properties. Um, for the first time ever, uh, in my long time at the ecology center, I went last year to the Sonoma County A Summit. And, um, it is a time of real hand ringing in agriculture

right now. And one of the big challenges that agriculture faces is the loss of agricultural processing facilities. Um, we have amazing food growers in Sonoma Valley and increasingly they don't have a place to make value added products or even to um, process and clean what they're harvesting. So, um, I'm sure a use like this would require some kind of public assistance or subsidy or something, but I think that's something to consider with a historic processing facility like the one at Sebastian that it could be used for food um, and local businesses uh, in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Formal. Mr. Grandy, come forward, please.

Evening, commission. Um, Art Grandandy, 1314th Street East of Gr. So, I live just up the street from the Sasiani uh main building and pass it regularly every day. And I'm not going to repeat a lot of the things that uh I agree with that have been said just to make this shorter. But um I wanted to express I think a couple of main things. If one is one of my suggestions and it's not just my idea but endorsing others is a special planning area allows the planning process to go forward but require um further detailed exploration of any proposal for the property without having to define upfront uh the the accepted uses and that's clearly something that that ought to be considered. I don't we don't need to debate it now, but I think it sounds like from what I read about it, it's it's a very useful thing. The second thing is if any changes are being made to this property, density is the key a key concern and it was just outrageous that we had seven to 25 in the proposed wording of of the document. I mean totally incompatible with the neighborhood on all sides of that property. Um we have in our zone in our coding zones uh the medium medium density residential which is 3 to eight density and even given the possibility that that might be doubled still would allow you to be uh within possible reasonable uh range. So there are choices within the current uh coding choices zone to uh uh control the risk. The an additional thought is we need to have an alternative some alternative

uses as possible for that property if eventually there is some commercial uh aptitude or acceptance of of commercial and um a senior residential facility of which there are many types around uh stages of living uh CCRC profit nonprofit all of that is is details in the weed s of what is done. But um we did have some of a small group of neighbors there had a conversation with a major uh developer and operator of uh homes and uh he knows the site and they said this would be an ideal one to look at for a residential facility. And I'll just point out that uh these count as uh housing units for meeting the uh target target goal. And as addition uh res people who are residents in a community like that are members of a community, they will the the certainly the uh independent living ones will be able to be customers in town and join the community. And I think that's all I have to say.

Thank you. All right. Uh JJ Abdily and um I think it may be helpful to have the description on and on on the screen because like that's what we're talking about. But I want to echo I I do also appreciate it seems like some like conversations that haven't been been able to be have in public form or being had. So I appreciate that. I also appreciate uh Commissioner Willer's consternation about the process of like trying to put together a single definition on what is actually 17 parcels, not five, that have three different zoning designations currently. Um I've kind of struggled with the same thing. I'd love to learn more about the specific plan process. I think the reason to have the conversation today and the reason that this general plan process which is now almost two years underway is it's an opportunity for the community to send a signal out on what it wants. And let's also be clear that that the description here is not talking about what is what is desired like it's not really talking about um you know what um should be done there or can't. It's what what you said this best. what is the community willing to accept or not accept? It's it's not a preapproval of any kind. It's it's quite the opposite. It's a it's an opening of a door that says bring a project that um can fit to meeting our goals in the general plan which are stated as housing, economic development, and maintaining community character and do it in a way that um that then this is the idea that I've had I think to maybe address Commissioner Willer's concern that I shared as well, which is use the development code to get specific about the restrictions. Nobody wants to tear up the vineyards that exist there. Nobody wants to remove the green space that exists there. So use the development code to put the restrictions. We have actually really great opportunity because I will call it heritage mixed use

because I think it's much better because it also reminds us of how long it's been there and how important it is. But we have the opportunity to create specific restrictions, constraints in the development code that will be specific to Sebastiani and it won't apply anywhere else because it's the only place in town that has this zoning designation. So I would really urge us to keep the door open, send the signal that these parcels have a role to play in the asset base of the future of Sonoma, a very important role, one that is probably uniquely positioned to provide unlike any other. and let the development code guide the rest constraints that I think we all want to place on it regarding protecting certain aspects of it, maintaining residential feel in certain places. All of those things can be done in the development code and should be done in the development code. Um, and I agree with most of everything I've heard regarding um, the challenges with density bonus law and having too high of a zoning standard or sorry, too high of a zoning a a density range particularly on the upper end. And I I've looked at that site and you when you break it into parcels, you look at keeping the vineyards on the west side. Five acres is pretty much what you're left with on the west side and that's a lot of 15 units per acre is plenty of units over there. You couldn't fit much more on there anyway. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Hi guys. Uh my name is Bill Couturier. Uh c u t u r i e. Um I live on loitus. My wife and uh we're right next to the place that we're talking about and they are thinking of putting a whole bunch of town houses right in our backyard. We're not happy about that. Maybe that'll change because I know nothing is concrete, but just the idea of having 50 town houses right behind Los Cacitus would not be in keeping with GLU2, let's say. Um, but my other thing here is people are thinking, well, it's just is it a hotel? Is it a bunch of condos? Is it I think there's a we could take a little bit out of the box. And it seems to me everybody that I think is here um is worried about their house burning down. They're worried about being able to afford insurance because it's going up thousands of dollars every year and it's not sustainable. Um there's a bunch of water out there in this property. There's a giant well. There's there's a problem with much water coming in. Right. I'm was up in Portland for a while at the Washington Park there. They built a reservoir. Beautiful, bigger than we need, 12 million gallon, but it's it's hit and they have a little lake on top of it that's beautiful. And it's this charming place that people can walk around, dogs play. We could have something like that built and have a little place lost the side of it where

there's like drones that carry water and could fight fires and this could be a central place where it would be both recreational. Uh you're good. Okay. I'm just saying we could save SNOVA, create a beautiful recreational place and uh lower our insurance costs because we're in a high fire zone, right? So, good things could happen. It doesn't all have to be about housing and there's plenty of places to build houses.

Thank you very much. I'm Richard Trant. You heard from my wife Bert earlier. I think if you think about what this town is, it becomes to me to be very vivid that this is an opportunity for people that live here that might want to stay here in their oldest oldest ages. Why can't this be a community for people that are here in this room and in the in the future. It would be so great to be able to be close to your your loved ones in a place where you know you're safe as the as the the as you get older. So I think it would be amazing for for Sonoma to have something like this to go to the next stage. It would be un it would be absolutely amazing. And I think it would I think it would just be for so many reasons the right thing to do. If you think about what it is, it's glorious. And um please don't let it go. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you for everything tonight. I really appreciate all of what you've said and such a great deal of thought put into it. Um, which makes me feel relieved because I have felt like this was going towards mixed use and it was going to be like stopping a train. Um, I forgot I think I forgot to say my name.

Pat Summers. Uh, su ms. Um, I was fresh out of knee surgery at the meeting in January, so I did not get to participate. But from what a few people told me, they felt like the map project was kind of putting the cart before the horse and they had to put on that map where a hotel should go, etc. Well, who says we need a hotel? And where did that even come from? Um, I happen to be in the hospitality industry and I've been dealing with the fact that we have a lot of changes going on in this county. We have um a wine industry that has a lot on their plate and a lot to deal with. We have a reduction in um hos in a hotel occupancy and it's not a thing that's going to be fixed in the immediate future. It's going to take time. Um, basically it is my firm belief that we do not need any more hotels. Occupancy is around 55% and we don't need them. Uh, I live on Geroke Road. I'm a board member of the Geroke Road Fire Safe Council. I'm extremely concerned about overpopulation and increased nonviability of of uh evacuation. We have a lot to deal with and we don't need hundreds of more people at the bottom of Gerokei Road. It's um not that I am opposed to very thoughtful development that can enhance the community, but we need to retain our pockets of agriculture and the beauty of of what we have here. It's very very special. It's irreplaceable and I don't want to see it go away. I want to see it continue and thrive. So, thank you for your good thoughts on all of that. Um, very much appreciated.

Thank you very much for your comments, S.

Thanks to everyone and for all of your questions and insights uh from the commission and everyone who has already spoken. My name is Ray Shik. I live uh on uh East Napa Street uh with my wife Diane. And I think what uh was very interesting actually about your your uh question um Commissioner O'Neal is the idea of possibly um stepping back and thinking a little bit about the process differently because fundamentally the the notion of a land use plan is about setting the direction the vision of the the community that we're planning for and that's not simply a physical vision. It's the vision of what the economy should be. It's the vision of what the businesses should be here. It's the vision of how do we place properties in a way that it actually accentuates the current businesses and has plans for where new businesses and where new housing goes. But fundamentally, it's it's about defining the experience of the future of Sonoma. And I think there's an important conversation around that because Sonoma is a destination about experience. It's a destination for all of us moving here because of the experience of Sonoma. And this parcel has such a significant impact uh on the community in many ways. It was mentioned about the retail bleed, but you know, if we if we flip the plan and say, "No, let's think about this more holistically in the overall plan of the city, not as an isolated piece of property kind of at the edge of the city. Now, how do we really reinforce retail behavior in the downtown? What about putting more hotels downtown to drive uh the economy of the square which is struggling at times and the businesses are struggling there. So to me I think there's some steps that would be valuable in the process that maybe have happened and we may not have seen them already which is a true economic analysis uh of the potential

uses of this property and their impact on the city. an analysis of the de the demographics of the city and where the city is going in terms of the population in terms of age in terms of economic strata. So that we're planning for the overall experience of the city and not just looking at this as a use plan but a plan that really defines where we believe the city should go uh overall as a as an integrated component of the city not as a separated uh parcel from the city. So everything from a historic uh analysis, an economic analysis to a certain degree the environmental analysis. It feels to me that those should be part of this conversation. Understanding that in typical uh planning there's sometimes the steps happen a little later but having those having that analysis done so that we can make the decisions properly around the land use having the the information and the data around what we've learned with that kind of analytics ahead of time the housing analytics ahead of time as an example would be extraordinarily valuable in this process.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Barnett, state your name, please. Uh, Chair Hyrick, members of the commission. Um, Council Barnett, um, I have a few thoughts here, so I'm going to go through them as quickly as possible. Um, this is obviously a very important discussion. Um, I think we would all agree Soma's number one goal throughout this general plan process is to preserve community character and authenticity. And that means historic significance, our quality of life. Um, this is also people, making sure that Sonoma continues to be or, you know, continues to be what it used to be, a full spectrum community. And that means all different people, all different ages. Um, it also means securing our economic future. That means considering new sources of revenue and also housing. Housing is an economic issue as well and it also is preserving as much local control as possible in an era of new state housing laws and so there are smart strategies to make sure all of the above happen but some modifications need to be made in this general plan uh proposal and draft going forward. First I want to talk about the Sonoma mixeduse plan. Um, if we are updating the land use, if we are updating our general plan for the next 25 years, I really think now is the time to discuss this area and and honestly take the time to get it right. I mean, don't decide tonight. Don't decide next month. Take as much time as you need to get this right. Um, but in my view, status quo is not the option. I think that would be irresponsible. I think that would be a failure of your fiduciary duty and the city council's fiduciary duty. Um, uh, Commissioner Willer's proposal, you know, to, uh, accept applications as they come in and do a general plan amendment is not a bad idea. The reality is through that process, once the land is reszoned, that plan could change and those new state housing laws could apply anyway. Um, spe special planning areas

are ideas as well, but state density bonus law, all the new state laws apply to special planning use areas as well. And so I think a hotel use should be considered. Of all the hotels that have been considered over the last tw since 1999, I think this is actually the most natural place for one instead of right on the plaza or on our public lands over the hill. When it comes to housing, um that has been the number one priority of the Sonoma Council for the last 10 years. And I think it would be a little contradictory or hypocritical not to consider housing for these properties. Um, that said, neighbor concerns, all of our concerns about the new state housing laws are are real. Um, and that's why I think the current proposed densities are way too high, not just in the Sonoma mixed use zone, but every zone throughout Soma, because state density bonus law allows you not to just get 50%, but through AB1287, you can do a stackable density bonus, and you can double the maximum density. And when you double the maximum density, you often require the waiverss and concessions needed from the development code. And so in my view, we should be lowering all of the densities. And besides, we've had maximum densities of 20 units an acre over the last 25 years in Soma. And no project has been built. I don't think economics justify those higher densities in Soma. I think, you know, they sound good often, but they oftent times don't come to fruition for a variety of reasons, and the economics don't just pencil. And so I think there are, if I can just have a few few seconds. Chair Wy,

20 more seconds.

All right. I have three solutions. We have to lower the minimum and maximum densities, not just here, but throughout throughout the city. Um, and another uh potential solution is the historic district. I think the Sebastian um historic district along First Street East should expanded to include the entire property. A lot of the new state housing laws do not apply to sites that have historic structures or historic districts on them. And while the density bonus still does, it is much easier for the city and Jennifer over there to deny waiverss or concessions by making a finding that impairs the character of a historic district. So I think now is the time to do this, but there are solutions that we haven't been discussing that I think would make everyone happy with this process. Thank you.

Thank you,

Mr. Woods. Step forward and state your name, please. Michael Woods, M chairman and members of the commission. Um I agree with Ko to the extent that the densities are are an issue. I also think that amending the general plan to accommodate a project that you don't have in front of you is challenging. It's challenging for the community. I'm usually here with developers as you know. Um so so so my view is sort of taken from lots of projects that I've been involved with and also working with cities over the years. Your general plan jurisdiction is one of the few tools in your bag of municipal tricks so to speak where you've still got some control. And I say that some control underscore some. Um, I don't think you can put it past the legislature to at some point in the next couple of years say that if you've got a mixeduse district that allows commercial and residential, thou shalt not prohibit a 100% residential project. And if you've got a 25 DU per density, you know, units per acre in your general plan, theoretically, you could have a very large project and theoretically it could be exempt from seeker review and a ministerial approval. And giving up that discretion to me is not advisable. You know, I'm used to seeing the planning commission exercise its discretion, use SQA as a tool, impose mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. You know, we're used to those tools, but in the current environment, if you don't keep your discretion alive to control your general plan, I think you're giving up a lot. Um, and I'm I'm I would think that if if you have a binary choice of either to adopt Sonoma mixed use for this site with a lot of density involved or leave

it at the status quo, I think you should leave it at the status quo. I don't know that that's a binary choice for you, but minimally the densities would have to go way way down. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your comments. Okay. Are there any other members of the public who wish to come forward and address the commission on this topic? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public comment and I will bring back to the commission for discussion. Let me ask a process question.

Um, what do we want to try to accomplish going forward tonight on this topic? Garter Gates, do you what type of what what type of feedback or direction would be the most helpful for you in light of the public comment we heard and in light of the comments uh thus far by the commission. So, um I would like to hear kind of a straw vote of what um individually so I can get my straw vote um what they're your guys are thinking um individually um in regards to Sonoma mixed use um and then I can present that to city council.

So the straw vote suggests that it is a binary choice. So

well it's not necessar like straw vote in the sense of continue to work on it. Let's just keep it the same or um you know we've have some edits some small edits being proposed. Um, so it's just going to depend on kind of where you're saying. And when I say straw, that's me going, okay, that's pause, you know, from this individual. Pause. Pause. Or no, I won't continue to work on it. It's still a goal on this general plan. Um the um so again March 4th is the meeting that we're going to city council and so I'll be preparing that staff report next week. So I'm going to give an update on all of the elements to them and where we are in the process. So tonight is the last bit of the elements. There's no more elements after tonight if we can get through them. Um I there's not a lot of on the other two. Um but in that in that sense so I will put that forward.

Okay. So so to ask a clarifying followup. Yes you can.

Okay. Just so just so I understand, are you saying that that you're going to uh I guess I'm a little concerned that that we're going to the city council at this point. I is it going to the city council for them to render a decision about anything or is this just information? So, um, based on the discussion tonight, any changes, right, we're making modifications to the different elements. Yeah. So that we can finalize these drafts to get them, um, get into the finish up the environmental review process. So that is the goal for tonight. And then the goal for the March 3rd is to kind of finalize these drafts. So in that sense it is a kind of direction I'm seeking um to move forward versus pause the general plan.

Okay. So um um the this timetable is this um uh is this something where that is a self-imposed timetable? In other words, what I'm what I'm sensing is that uh there are a lot of opinions out there about how to go forward and they range. And if I were asked tonight to render a final opinion as to what I think we should do, for example, with this land use designation we're talking about. Um, I would do it if I had to, but I hate to feel pushed to do it um without uh more opportunity for conversation and discussion. It's already 9:00. We're not going to go on for another two hours. At least I'm not. And and um I'm concerned that that we're moving ahead quickly, but I'm not sure what the what the timetable or the establishment of the deadlines for these timetables where they're coming from. Is this something we've self-imposed? Is something that you want to do? Is it something the city council has imposed? Is it the consultantism? Where are these where are these dates coming from?

Um so it is um a goal to complete the process by the fall before the fall except September. And so working backwards within an EIR and another 60 days of public comment still to occur. That's where we're kind of falling into it is that the edits and everything need to get to the consultant, finalize the EIR so that we can release it for that 60-day um time frame.

Okay. And and the and the completion date that you've targeted in the fall and I don't know whether we're talking October. Okay. So, you've got a clear date in mind. Is that once again is that something that is being imposed upon us by the consultant? Is it being imposed upon us by anybody? Or is it just simply what you would like to do so you can get on with business. Not to I'm not I'm not saying that in a in a derogatory way. And what are the what are the repercussions of not meeting the goal?

Um that we probably will delay for another year. Why is that? Um just because of timing of what's um going to be occurring in the fall. Okay. And that that doesn't if let's explore that just for a moment. If we delayed for another year, we're not violating state laws. I have two elements that do need to get done. Yes. My safety element is already Yes. should have been done two years ago. Um and then I um one other element needs to get done. I think it was the circulation that's

okay. But but the but the overall general plan update accepting those elements that are that are overdue. Um uh there's no we're not in risk of violating some timetable of the state for the approval of the new general plan. Right. Not for the rest of it.

Okay. Um, you know, for example, you mentioned the safety element. I mean, we haven't had a robust discussion yet about about the nexus of the safety element and where development ought to occur in the community based on the high fire risk zones. There may be that with a further exploration of a topic like that, the conclusion that would be drawn would be that if development or expansion of the city uh development should occur, it should occur in some place not adjacent to a high fire risk zone. I mean, that's that's a possible. I'm not saying that that that's what will happen, but that's a possibility that an analysis would say we'd be better off having development on the southern end of the city, which is not a fire high fire risk zone than on the northern end of the city, which is I mean, anything north of Napa Street, as I understand it, is high fire risk. So, um I'm just I just I I guess what I'm saying is I I feel like all of a sudden we're rushing, and I don't like feeling rushed. I hate to make decisions feeling rushed.

So I think in the straw poll, you know where Larry stands.

Would it be helpful to go commissioner by commissioner and have each give three minutes of where they stand on the issue? Is that how you like to frame a straw poll or would you like to frame it in a more um what would be the most helpful for you to say or go commissioner by commissioner and say give three options do nothing leave it as it exists adopt SMU as it's written or come back to the table is that helpful to simplify things or no

I'd rather have more general eneral conversation around it than making it so strict because I don't think that's really quite as applicable. Um, I think I already have a general idea of where some people sit in that and I can re I can state to you all what I hear after you say it and then you can nod, shake, disagree um afterwards. But I think just getting an understanding of the where you you sit on the topic of the Sonoma mixed juice. Um that would be helpful. We can go from there.

Does everybody understand the directions? Okay. Commissioner Willers, we'll start with you.

Me. Um so I'll try to keep my three minute promise here. Uh where I stand is I don't think we're in a position to make a decision that I I've been through, you know, we've been dealing with this for over a year. We've been talking about it for over We haven't been talking about it for over a year. We've been able to think about it for over a year. Um there are too many external influences on this general area to responsibly make a decision without more information. But one piece of information that we do have that was the safe study that came along that was a very thorough document that I spent a lot of time reading and it essentially says no hotel low density housing and you can't do it without improving your infrastructure. So to me that says if I'm going to pay attention to what the study says which is an independently um you know financed study and has people behind it that that aren't a third party so to speak. Um what it says to me is we have to study the situation more before we start applying um uses to a property that we don't know enough about. Um and I and I also think that the The special study area is something that we could possibly use within the general plan context to say that we recognize that this is an important piece of property that we're going to have to deal with in the future and what we need to do it as a community via the typical process of implementation measure. we have to do this within a certain period of time to meet the goals of our general plan and give us ourselves the time to do it and agree

that we're going to do it so that it meets the goals of the 45 general plan. So I I my personal opinion is we either leave the zoning as it is and let pro projects come forward or we take the tact of introducing this as a special plan area and doing the studies in the future so that we can make a reasonable decision.

Okay. Bernett. Well, I've already said that I I feel rushed and I don't like feeling rushed. And uh so if that implies that uh we just leave things as they are for now, I guess that's where I would have to lean that um I don't I wouldn't feel prepared tonight to highly define how we're going to use these this uh these parcels. um because I I I don't feel we've had a robust enough examination or discussion. This is really the first time we've had uh back and forth or the opportunity to respond to the concerns of the residents. And I will characterize myself as I always have in any public capacity as resident centric. Um and uh I believe that um all decisions that the city makes have to be considered in light of what does the community want. And it's only through forums like this and opportunities like this that you can get a sense of it unless you put something on the ballot and have a vote. I've done that too. Um so um I I would support um Commissioner Willer's point of view in terms of the potential of looking at uh uh special plan or leaving it alone for now and um with all due respect to Jennifer and her goals and and and your timetable and the pressures you feel in the job you've got. I just I I hate making decisions and going with recommendations to the city council prematurely.

Thank you, Commissioner N.

I don't need three minutes. Um I feel strongly that I'm not uh after tonight's discussion, which is really the first discussion that we've had at at this capacity of a of a commission. Um, I'm not personally uh informed enough and would uh welcome further discussion. Um, it would be irresponsible for me to um to weigh in further until we had an opportunity for further discussion and I would want that further discussion for my own edification so that I can make a responsible uh decision on this.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Yes, thank you. Um, I I actually agree with all the comments that have been expressed by my colleagues. I came into this tonight not comfortable with a Sonoma mixeduse designation. Um, but I was unclear of some of the options. Um, I think uh, Commissioner Willer's recommendation for status quo is intriguing. I think there are still some inherent risks to that that I want to examine further. I appreciate the public's um recommendation for, you know, an SRRA. Um but I also think there are inherent risks associated with that. As some of you know, I'm very involved in state policy. I am not responsible for the land use policies and the housing policies that have been implemented at the state level, but I do watch them carefully. And so I'm trying to balance the risks of some of these recommendations because I think that's important. And I'm I'm equally intrigued by some of the other comments that were made about a historic overlay, maybe further examination of of our density designations. Um, I'm not trying to open up a whole can of worms here, but there those are intriguing proposals and so I don't feel terribly informed enough to make a a recommendation to the council. And I also really want to express my appreciation to the public. We have heard you. I did read those comments, by the way. There were there were a few um in the hundreds of letters we received that we're not reading them. And I can assure you that all of us here are and we've taken this very seriously. But we also have a job and um sometimes maintaining poker face is important, but we hear you and we value your opinions and I think we want to make the most informed decision that guides the future of this community. And I I do support a diverse community. So, I think um this general plan update is extremely

important and we need more time. Thank you, Mr. Nova.

So, um I too am not comfortable moving forward with just an overlay of the this snow and mixed use. And what I um you know, I agree we've been I've been really thinking about this a lot. I've heard from a lot of folks um and I really appreciate the comments and I think what I've heard tonight were also a lot of new ideas around um this idea of maintaining control, the idea of being creative about this. And I personally would like us to to move forward and try to incorporate some of the things we heard today as a a way to refocus the ability for us to maintain control um while at the same time not keeping the status quo because do we want the status quo for another 20 years? I mean, I don't think so. But I do think there's an opportunity for us to create um a plan and I'm a fan of specific area plans um that that would allow us as a city to direct what we want and not be passive about it. Um, if there's a way, for instance, that we can have a specific area plan and also bring in an historic overlay to maintain control. I mean, I'd like to think about those kinds of ideas um for us to be able to direct where we want to go and have some control over it. So, I too would like to incorporate some of the things that we've heard and and refocus what's possible um with regard to not only the development code, but also the general plan and the land reuse. Thank you, Mr. O'Neal.

Okay, set my three minute timer. Um, I have to agree with everyone here. Um, one of my first concerns was I felt like we were jamming things when we really didn't understand the project that was coming before us. Um, hotels are not that in demand right now. They're hard to finance. If anybody was really excited about building a hotel, I know Darius Anderson is still trying to secure financing for his hotel. Um, the fact that this is a very high fire zone makes insurability a really important issue and for housing that's such an important issue. I think it needs to be uh understood very well before any housing can be built there. I think as we have any projects come before us, we'll have SQA that we have to go through. A lot of the SQA process we can't do until we have a project, but I think the HRE is one we could. I'm wondering how we could possibly because the site is there. That's not going to change. I'm wondering if there's a way that we can actually um get a historic resource evaluation for the site so that any developer coming forward knows precisely what they're dealing with, what's historic there, what isn't historic, what do we wish to save, what do we not need to save. And I know that's not typically done. We always do the HRE after the project comes to us, but I'd like to see that as a possibility. I agree that with uh Commissioner Donbach, we wouldn't really want the status quo. If Sebastian came to us right now and said, "I want to put in wine production in this neighborhood." We'd all go, "Heck no." And if you ask August Sebastian about when he was a little kid and they had uh grapes coming in at harvest time and he was the kid who had to go around and tell all the neighbors trucks are coming through and the neighbors weren't very happy. So, no, we don't want status quo. That's

definitely not what we want there. But I think we do have an asset there that is a treasure but not the entire thing. I think parts of it are a treasure and parts of it we really want to maintain and we want to keep as part of our heritage and then other parts we want to repurpose and see them flourish and be more useful going forward. So I'm not ready to jump into the Soma mixed use commercial whatever zone. Um I I don't feel comfortable with that. I think this is too big of a test case for us to have a new designation on that makes me nervous because I personally don't feel smart enough to look at all the ways that somebody could take advantage of that. Um so my biggest ask is um what can we do about potentially getting some kind of HRE as we go through this process and having a community task force as was suggested that we could actually take this as a task force continue to on this, not wait till the next general plan, but continue to work on this knowing that we want to get this incorporated and get it taken care of very quickly. My three minutes went up. Sorry.

Thank you. Um, I will join wholeheartedly in what my colleagues up here on the dis have to say. Um, I come from a position of wanting to preserve the last remaining levers of local control that we have. And in this case, um, what's represented by the the proposed Soma mixeduse zone, I think, seeds, uh, too much, um, you know, could seed too much local control to a level to an extent that I'm uncomfortable with. Um, I would like to see more incremental, gradual steps taken to marshall the evolution of this extremely special and historic place that contributes so much to the sense of place um of Soma. Um, it's just too important to to rush. Um, I'd be interested to hear to hearing more about a sight specific plan. I'd be uh really interested in hearing about specific projects. Um I think that this conversation has to continue. Um I'm not anti-housing. I'm not anti-development. In fact, I'm pro both. But I'm pro- responsible development. and uh in an environment, a legislative environment where the inclusion of housing where there wasn't formerly housing, it opens up a floodgates to to potential disaster in my opinion. Um that said, if there's a decision or a recommendation that has to be made tonight, it would be mine would be to abandon the concept of Sonoma mixed use and to stay with what we have and to explore options in the next five or 10 years going forward. Maybe even curtailing what exists in the wine production zone to allow additional

uses, light retail, wine adjacent uses, maybe even a boutique hotel. I have no problem with that if it's done well. Um, but opening the floodgates, which I think the language in this mixed use zone as proposed effectively does, I'm uncomfortable with it. Those are my thoughts.

You want your summary now?

All right. Um, so I heard mostly keep it the same, but there's a butt there, right? It's continue the conversation. Um, that they something it's going to change and helping it change in the way the community wants is important to the plane commission. That can lend itself in different ways. Um right now it would be to um just keep it the three different designations it is right now and then um two options. One a project gets proposed for that site. Um another option is that the you know go back to the table if we did do a specific plan we would need to give budget um to do such thing um or we would wait for a project to come through um so there's there's a different options out there um for this. I'm sorry that you feel rushed Larry don't want you to feel rushed. Um, I don't want you guys to feel rushed on any of this. Um, I know it's a big deal. I know that it's 20 years of planning uh into the future that we know is we don't know what that looks like in the next six months. Uh, and I know that's really hard. So, I recognize that. Um, so that is what I heard. Um, I do have questions around what that looks like just because part of that change that um is being proposed that Sebastiani historic district is all currently um zoned um actually wine production. Um, and so

one of the changes that was being proposed is to modify that wine production on those lots to residential low. So I wanted to um clarify that keeping that change is still um good to go. Just those specific homes, those single those little single residential homes on the Sebastian cottages.

Yeah, the little cottages. The Sebastian, it's the residential historic district. Um, so those would be these little yellow ones right there. Sorry, what what was it? But they're consistent with all the load that's below it. That density that density might be 15 units to the It might be 10 units to the acre.

I think it's around the medium is between the low and the medium. Um but it's reflective of the zoning that's across the street. So that's what that small change that I just wanted to make sure that I clarify. If that those little yellow if if you're asking for opinions on that, I have no problem converting what are currently residential uses to residential zoning. Okay, that's just double checking. I just I would join in that.

Okay, I am doing some cleanup. So those were one of the things. So I just wanted to clarify that that that would still change. Um okay. So I think that ends that discussion. I do I know it's 9:24 but I do want the other two lots discussed please if possible. the other two lots, the memo on the f the um request on Levelvel Valley and then also on Sonoma Highway.

So, are we complete with this session? Yes. Okay. Five minute stretch. At this yeah at this point I will call for a fivem minute recess but a strict fivem minute recess reconvene at 9:30 please.

Yes,

we need to reconvene. It is uh about 30 seconds past my strict five minute stretch break. At this point, I'd like to thank the remaining members of the the community who are in the room still. And uh thank you for your insight. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your your care and consideration and uh we're we're happy and we're glad you're here and uh your opinions and your comments help us to formulate our opinions and move forward. So again, thank you. And with that, uh I believe we are still on item 5.2.

We are still on item 5.2. Um in front of you right now is the uh memo that was written in regards to land use change requests that have come in from specific property owners um um in regards to their own properties andor in collaboration with the property owner. So the first one is 577 um it's two parcels 577 and 711 Level Valley Road. Um the request is from agricultural to rural residential. Um staff did originally incorporate that into a draft future land use map for consideration um to incorporate it into the secret process. The request came in late um and knowing that we would still have multiple opportunities to discuss um it is um a request that would modify those two parcels. one is both are smaller than the 10 acre requirement um which is a one dwelling unit per 10 acre um on those agricultural parcels and then the change of those land use um property would allow two dwelling units per acre. Uh I do recognize that that's a big change um but rural residential does allow continued agricultural um use which is currently being done on the larger of the two parcels. Um so that is one. The other one um is on 1934 zero and through 9360 Soma Highway. Um these two um the request came in to do a mixeduse land use designation. Um there is mixed use on the property just to the south that is um a little smaller actually um in the commercial component part of it. Um this is all

mixed use down here. Um this whole area was identified um as housing opportunity. I did double check these lots specifically are not identified to meet our regional housing needs allocation. Um unlike the Montalo property which was um housing opportunity is uh 30 dwelling units per acre maximum. A mixed use under the proposed change would be 25 dwelling units per acre which would be a reduction of about five um dwelling units on these specific sites. Um and um that request came in. Both of them have uh letters attached and I do not see owner of Levelville Valley, but I do see um the director of the community health center. So with that, that concludes staff's very brief presentation.

Great. Okay. Any commissioner comments or sorry questions? Commissioner questions based on director's recitation. I do have a clarifying question for the the first one is 577. I just want to make sure I understand the the image. So when looking at it on the right side is that 577 that property that has a home on it and then the and that's 577. Uhhuh. This whole thing to here. What? Which one is 711? This one. This piece.

Okay. So 711 um already has a home. It's a smaller lot. So is is that it's but it's all on the same lot. I'm just really confused about it's two parcels. Okay. The lot line is right here. Okay. Right where you see those trees. All right. That's the lot line. And so the request is to change So, there's already a home on one of them. There is one home on this one. And then there's two small units over here on this one. And so, the proposal would be to change, let's just talk about the 711 that

the proposal would be to change that potentially to the rural which would allow another unit on that even though it's not 10 acres. This is I'm kind of really confused about this. Agriculture is one per 10 acres. Um the change of land use would allow two units per acre. So these two parcels are around nine acres of land. That little parcel 711 is nine acres. No, combined it's nine acres. Okay. So So for a total of 18, no, it's nine acres total. line. Yeah.

No, no, no. Oh, yes, yes, yes. Sorry. Total total potential total potential. Yeah. Units is 18. Okay. And and and that's where I was going. Thank you. But but obviously those 18 would be on that open a space because there's already home on part of it, right? It would be on the space where the lot line is going toward. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. On that note, do we know the intent of the um applicants? What their intention is?

Well, he he says in his letter that he wants to continue the agricultural use. The the issue is is that if we change the designation, some future owner of the property then is governed by the new designation, not the intention of use. So what the present owner intends to do is less significant than what the zoning designation of the parcel is historically. I have a question. The land to the south, is that county or is that city?

County. Okay. And what is the zoning? It's uh their version of a rural residential. It varies. The density is um attached to the counties. Sorry, I was looking for Mr. Woods. Um he knows Um I can't remember off the top of my head. Um what one unit per two true something like that. So so it it typically two acre minimum parcels

one unit but it's heavily controlled by not public sewer. Okay. So the allowed densities in the county and their version of rural residential would not be not be equal, but it also not wholly dissimilar from what they're asking for, right? So the difference would be nine. Does this have city water? I'd have to look to see if it's already serviced or not. I don't I do not know off the top of my head. And it does not have city sewer. I would have to look to see if it's been serviced or not. I mean, we do have lots within our city that are still on city water or sewer.

Well, I'm just looking from a future development perspective. Um, it if it has water and sewer and Yeah, I'd like to know it can have it. Where is it now? Where does it end? I mean, that's could be cost prohibitive if it's too far away. And that's something I don't exactly remember where it ends. I think it's going to end probably at the development if it hasn't already been extended. It'll end at the development that's just north of Sebastiani. That's where currently it ends even going up Fourth Street. It was just extended to Brazil this year.

Any more questions for staff before we open public comment? Okay, this time I would open public comment. Anybody wanting to come speak on this matter? Good evening. Evening.

Uh I'm Sarah Brewer. I'm the CEO of Sonoma Valley Community Health Center. Very nice to meet you all and be here. Um so we are um federally qualified health center. We serve 6,500 patients a year and we're also looking at the trends of healthcare needs in the valley and are interested in expanding and providing more care and better serving the needs of the community so we don't have to leave go to other parts of the county. Um we're also interested in providing housing. One of the challenges that we have is in recruiting and retaining staff and especially healthcare providers is housing. So looking to see if we can use this as an innovative way to retain staff and continue to provide the healthcare in the valley. That's our That's our hope. Okay. Yes.

So, do you own these parcels? Is the the health center owned the parcels in question that are being considered for this change? No, we don't own them, but we are hoping to acquire them. Okay. So, um your intention is then to acquire them and with the change in in uh the zoning designation uh have the opportunity to construct lowincome or workforce housing on this parcel. Yeah. In in addition to the clinic. How do you mean in addition to the clinic?

Well, the idea Yeah. Well, we haven't designed it yet, but the idea is to have there be housing and the the healthcare provided there. Oh, so you would move from the location that you were in. No, keep that one as well. But this is just a few parcels down. Uhhuh. And so you would com you would have both health serving use on the parcels as well as housing. Exactly. On this one on that the housing would not be on the one that's existing. That's quite an ambitious plan. Yeah. Well, we have a lot of healthcare needs that we need to Well, I understand. in an era of federal government cuts to community health centers. Um so you have a assume a robust fundraising plan in mind as well. That's the idea. Yeah. Along with a lot of other

Okay. innovative strategies. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Any other members of the public?

Mr. Granny, come forward. State your name. Art Randy. Um I go up and down Levelvel Valley Road quite often walking, bike riding. I don't think the possibility of having that developed to the the rate of two per acre for roughly 10 acre site and that location uh suits the uh the scene. So there are a lot of practical issues as well which obviously everybody already knows about water, sewage, whatever lots of complications. Money can solve some of those to some degree but not at this time. Thank you. Any other public comments? Okay, I'll close public comment at this time. Bring back to the commission for commissioner comments. Any comments? Commissioner Willers. Um, for me it's all about edge condition and and it's and it and it does link back to our earlier discussion. Um, one of the one of the reasons that's stated in the letter is because we're considering adding housing to the Sebastian property. Well, we're not. We don't know what we're going to add to the Sebastian property at this point. And so, you know, you create an edge condition of growth and the other edge, the edges around it respond. It's California development. It grows from the edge out. And and so my I don't think that there's a reason to reszone this land. There's a request to reszone it. And I think the implications of reszoning it in my opinion are too great given the edge

condition to to make it reasonable. So I am not in favor of this request for those reasons.

The other one, you know, it's it's intriguing. It's zoned housing opportunity. Um I think the mixeduse zone is almost equal. Um I don't I have no issue with the mixed use zone being applied on the corridor here. It's the place where it probably makes sense to do it. Um it is also the area where we have opportunity to have you know it's good to know that it's not being used for reena numbers at this point. Um and it's current zoning is what's it? It's housing opportunity.

It's housing opportunity. So it doesn't allow anything but multif family. You know, it's currently a mixeduse corridor already as a corridor. So I don't have any issues with that with changing that. I don't think the density the 30 dwelling units per acre is that great of an impact on these parcels even in their aggregate because it's all about parking cars as you can see next door to it. So great. Thank you. Any other commissioner comments? Commissioner D.

I will make a comment. Um I am also supportive of um the um redesation um of to mixed use in this parcel. I think it's a reasonable plan. It it fits in with the you know the zoning around there and I'd love to support what your efforts in trying to bring housing and uh expanded healthcare to the community. With regard to the other property, um I I would agree. I I think that um I was also um moved by the fact that this is a zone where we need to have perk and we need to to, you know, recharge our aquifers. And I think we need to really pay attention to that, especially here in the south end where our aquifers are really drying up the deep deep aquifers and soon seawater will come in and that will affect our ability to be agricultural. So I I really don't support that change because of the density that would be impacted there. Um and not knowing about the sewer or the water also um adds to that. Um and thirdly, this idea that we also have to really think about our other water resources um and our environmental resources um I think are for me it's it's not appropriate to approve.

Commissioner O'Neal. Um, I'm in agreement. Um, the Arnold Drive, that sounds like a great opportunity. And further up the street there is some of the live work condos that, you know, there's a mixed juice area there. So, that just to me looks excellent. Um, Levelville Valley, uh, as a runner going up and down Level Valley, we call it Lake Level, and if you ride your bike or run out there right now, it's a very large pond, and you have to time it to get through before the spray you. Um, that area definitely has some water pooling issues and I think that there's just too much that we don't understand there to be able to jump and just say, uh, yeah, let's go ahead and do this, especially not understanding the intent and what where it's going to go with it. If we just go ahead and say, "Yeah, they can develop this property, put two units per acre, but we don't have the infrastructure to deal with that water, and we don't have what we need. that the runoff goes somewhere because if it's not going to go out into those vineyards right now, where's it going to go? So, I'm definitely not okay with making any changes on that until we have a much clearer picture of it.

Your comments? Um, I concur with the um uh the um what the hospital wants to do with those properties. And yes, It makes it makes all the sense in the world. It's already there. Um, regarding Level Valley, um, with a lack of intention, I'm not compelled to, um, I and a lack of information about what's going on there. Um, I'm not compelled to approve that. There's just I just don't know enough.

Anybody else? Okay, I'll just join in the comments of my fellow commissioners. I don't have much to add other than um I I join them in their analysis of uh finding that a reszone to to rural residential doesn't quite meet the test um as far as you know edge conditions and and um I could see if we were entertaining the idea of um housing on the adjacent site then it might be a little bit more applicable, but and by the consensus tonight, it sounds like we are not. Um, so for those reasons, I join in not supporting the reszone for Level Valley, but supporting uh the change to mixed use on this other site. And I will

Does it need to be? I I didn't think so. Okay. Um um question. Yes. Um in the if there was anything in regards to the elements, I mean in instead of going through them unless anybody had some very specific comments um is it possible to move those uh edits forward or do you want them I know or do you want them moved again to the March meeting because we've moved them so three meetings now. I think

I I would be willing to entertain what my colleagues have to say, but I would prefer to move them forward to March. I think that they're deserving of a little bit more conversation we can have at this point. And I I would like to hear 5.1 tonight, too. Um so it would be my opinion to to continue the the balance of 5.2 to forward to to the March date and uh and to hear 5.1 before the 10 o'clock hour is there any

so the only input that I would make is that both of those both of those elements have very minor edits from the ad hoc because most of the um both most of the elements are driven by things we really don't have the opportunity to have any input on. Right. Um the safety element and the cultural resource element are primarily directed other than the way in which we're going to implement the the cultural resource are primarily directed by state law and so our general plan is consuming state law and putting it within it and structuring it. So I think the discussion would be relatively short um around those two because the edits are so minimal. In fact, one of them one of them we didn't really even edit. The cultural resource one we didn't even have any comment on. Okay. I I'd be willing to entertain a poll of who would like to continue those items within 5.2 to March versus uh hearing them tonight. Um, I want to understand if we do hear them tonight, what happens with 5.1

because I think that's a higher priority. But, um, so I I don't know. I'm I'm willing to go for another 20 minutes and we probably in my opinion we could probably get done and be done. I I suggest we deal with 5.1 first. See how quickly we can get it out of the way. That is my suggestion. Not that I want to rush. That is that is my suggestion. And and then we'll do it. Wasn't one of those colors tonight. Sloth. Yes. Yeah. Where did that come from? I don't know, but it was on one of the colors. It was a sloth gray. And I was thinking of you not wanting to rush. Not that you're a sloth.

What color is your house? Sloth. Okay. So, that said, we are going to table 5, the balance of 5.2, and move on to uh item 5.1, interpretation of multifamily dwelling. And director dates, if you would please.

Sure. Um and there it goes. Um so um before you is an interpretation um for your consideration tonight. So again, strict adherence um it's about multif family dwelling. Strict adherence to of the definition in the land use tables um for multif family dwelling would preclude multifamily residential development from including multiple structures being plural containing one unit each on a single lot because the definition of multif family dwelling refers to a structure being singular in order to allow mix of residential building typologies and a multif family residential development. the existing definition of multifamily development is more accurate um as a land use type rather than um multifamily dwelling. So interpreting multif family dwelling to allow mix um of building types also um comports with our development codes rules of interpretation in that a development code provides structure that should be interpreted as structures and the term structure is defined as buildings being plural. So there's two different um ways to interpret that. In addition, while not specifically listed in the land use table, a multif family development does meet the same intent as a multifamily dwelling in the zoning district and is substantially similar to a multifamily dwelling in the sense that it contains more than two dwelling units on a single parcel. And so recommendation is to approve the resolution accepting the zoning code interpretation. So that would be for purposes of the use table under um our section 191050. Multifamily dwelling shall have the same meaning as multifamily development which already is defined in our code.

That concludes my presentation. Amazing. Any questions of director Gates? Do I I need to open public comment. Any members of the public wishing to address the commission? I see none. Also, don't you bring it back to the commission for comment? Does anybody have comment? Okay. Neither do I. Is there a motion? Motion to approve the recommendation to change um the use tables under SM's E section 1910 050. Second.

Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner Barnett. Hi. Commissioner Gorman Jenkins. Hi. Commissioner Donbach. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick I. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Can we continue the discussion on the remaining points of 5.2? Is there any objection? I I have a question. Does that include the land use element or just the because the land use element is there. So that's three.

So my recommendation is let's do historic and safety. I'm fine with continuing for the fourth time the land use element or third time. I don't know. I think we started in December. Um but we'll get there. Um but these two I think are really short and I think we can get through them. Is there any objection to hearing those two? Okay.

And the first being historic and cultural resources. Anybody have any comments? Because this one's the easiest. I did present it to the Historic Preservation Commission last Friday. They do have Obviously, there a number of edits, so I will be incorporating those in the edits that will um go into that final version, and it's more for clarification purposes and and some key terms um around like cultural landscapes and uh intangible resources and and different things that um aren't quite in here.

I just have one one comment. Sure. And and and it just um it was just a flag as I was reviewing it and I don't have any There was a reference in on page 138. Can you give me the the Oh, sorry. Um, it's the actions in support of goal essay-2 item C. Oh, back down. I swear this is quick. It's just the way my brain is. Wait, you're talking about safety or housing? No, I'm talking about I thought this was cultural. I thought this was historic. Yeah. HC HC.

Yeah. Two. Okay. Yeah. HC to go down to goals. It's just a point of clarification. Keep going. Yep. Next page. See, you have reference to Senate Bill 18. There's no reference to Senate Bill 18 anywhere else in that section. So, I just don't know what it is. I thought maybe we wanted to explain it at some point. Okay. So, I'm just making note that that's my only comment. All right.

It's again, bills always kind of stand out to me. So, but I couldn't find it anywhere else in the in the draft. So, I thought we might want to reference what it is. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Sorry everybody.

Any other questions? related to this. You want to do the other one,

safety element. Um there were a few edits comments. Um I will be adding more around climate adaptation um based on what we've done in our hazard ation plan. I'm working with Sarah Tracy on that right now. Um and then also after the review of the hazard mitigation plan plan by um Department of Emergency Management and others, if we do have another opportunity to modify that, we're going to reverse also and and incorporate some of the things that came out of um the recent um evacuation traffic study. some of those details that are in there that don't belong in the general plan but really go into that hazard mitigation plan itself. So just FYI on that. Um so um just general if you anybody had any specific questions or comments on the safety element itself. Um there were a few um comments um in this element. Um just for also consistency sake with our other element, we'll be reformatting everything and and making sure that there's consistency. Um, and so there's just been just small little edits inside. Anybody have any questions?

Any questions? All right, I think I have to reopen public comment for anyone interested in commenting. Okay, close public comment. Commission comments. hearing. Seeing none, Director Gates, are you satisfied with your feedback for those two elements? I just want to note that it took two minutes. I want to say the ad hoc rocks. Yes. Go ad hoc. All right. Um, we have a 5.3. No,

we do, but I can continue that one that really going to be that's really connected to the land use element. Okay. So, so 5.3 is to be continued with the land use element. With the land use element. No objections. All right. Director comments and announcements. I I can't think right now.

Commissioner reports and comments. I will just quickly say that I think Jennifer is doing an excellent job marshalling this general plan process through and it takes some serious patience to deal with planning commissions and all the various other commissions under your purview and um interface with the with a um to our consultant and be an intermediary between the city the various powers to be to include the city council on all your commissions. So, we think you're doing a great job. I think you're doing a great job. I second that.

Um, thank you for your tireless efforts and um, keep up the good work. Hannah, you too, I guess. Um, and on that note, motion to motion to adjurnn. All right. So, move