Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

Commissioners, members of the public, this time I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Sonoma City of Sonoma Planning Commission of March 19th, 2026. If I could get a roll call, please. Commissioner Barnett here. Commissioner Gorman Jenkins here. Commissioner Donbach here. Commissioner O'Neal here, Vice Chair Nent here, and Chair Wick here. Thank you. Thank you. And at this point, I'd ask for a motion to approve the agenda as it appears this evening. So moved. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Barnett,

I. Commissioner Gorman Jenkins, I. Commissioner Donbach, yes. Commissioner O'Neal, yes. Vice Chair Nent. I chair Wyrick. I thank you. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And at this time I'd ask if you're able to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the standice for all. Okay. At this time, I'd ask members of the public who wish to comment on any item not appearing on tonight's agenda to come forward. 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.

There any members of the public who wish to address the commission tonight? Later, Commissioner Barnett. I don't know if this is the appropriate time to ask the question, but um it's been my impression that the matter of the designation for the Sebastiani property has already gotten some consideration by the city council and uh accordingly is a discussion of that on tonight's agenda.

Um the specific section in regards to Sebastiani is not okay. So given that that is not on the agenda if you are here as I suspect. So so that item was on during the last regular planning commission when it was when it was heard during a public hearing. Come up come on come up come on up. the material submitted for the for this meeting for as far as land use goes included that and I thought that was that that would be considered tonight. That's why I've asked the question.

Okay. Well, thanks Larry. You're helping me out here. I'm going to make a brief statement. Um if you just state your name for the Steve McCrosty. Thank you Steve.

Fourth Street East. um a Sebastiani property neighbor and uh longtime commenter on the subject as you well know. Uh I might add that this nearly the same statement was made by my colleague and friend across the street from me, Arthur Grandandy, was made last night at city council. So, um we're here to say a few things. I strongly recommend that the land use designation in the proposed general plan be broadened to include more examples of commercial activity just than just a hotel. As you heard from many in the community, a hotel in the Sebastian property is not a popular proposal and yet it continues to be used as a prime example for future use. As a matter of fact, my wife and I are opposed to a hotel on the property with questions about the real need for one, as well as the pressure it would create with noise, traffic, etc. Other suggestions from the community have included a community center, an arts and crafts collective, and a residential retirement development. Why not mention and specify some of these potential uses in the general plan? I ask, for example, the benefits of a retirement community or senior living center seem clear. In addition to contributing to the city's overall housing target, it would bring a stable population of re residents who would be part of the community without adding significant traffic or pollution or draw upon the city's limited resources. Several of us in the local neighborhood have arranged a discussion with the CEO of a business called Wellquest Living, uh, a wellestablished developer and manager of residential retirement facilities in in California and in other states. He confirmed his

interest in considering a proposal for the property uh, and hopes to engage in conversations with the owners of the property. Well, not why not specify this kind of potential use in the general plan, please, which would signal to the developers that the city is open to more than just a hotel. I strongly recommend that you include a residential retirement community in the general plan use designation along with other potential uses. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your comments. Are any other members of the public in attendance tonight wishing to address the commission on any item that does not appear on tonight's agenda? You come forward and state your name, please. Yeah, Vic 40, I just wanted to check during the uh your uh agenda here. You're going to be talking about this very same thing. No, we are not going to be talking about the Sebastian, excuse me, Sebastian item in particular. That item was discussed at the previous uh publicly noticed hearing. So tonight we'll just entertain those items within that that agenda item that are uh do not relate to Sebastian. Well, I'll just make a comment. Sure.

That isn't on the agenda then.

Udamentally, I think the uh first of all, my name is Victor Confory. Uh live in Sonoma. Uh the uh the staff has done a good job at uh uh adding some uh corrections or not corrections but adding some additional information on the the uh paragraph that was is in the staff report regarding the Sonoma mixed commercial use and uh you know so there are some good good uh progress here and getting rid of some things like uh light manufacturing train and visitor serving scratched out recommendation to scratch those out by the staff but I would like to focus more on the the hotel. Uh I don't think the that the word should be in the general plan document this paragraph because it does it's sort of such a wide open uh use uh you know it could be anything from like the lodge down on Broadway. Oh, sorry. It could be anything from a, you know, a large uh uh large hotel that is a focus on on uh resort type services, pools, restaurants, meeting halls, weddings, etc. And it's and that kind of use is too intense for a location like this. So if the if the uh the term hotel has has to be especially in a general plan sense uh it should be made clear that it's this is not a large hotel and uh you know you could use the term

of a boutique hotel or put a number on there like 25 rooms as a limit on the on the size of the hotel. I mean, all that's getting into more detail that you wouldn't see normally in a in a developmental I mean, in a land use plan for a new zoning, but it's still important, I think, to make it clear to to everyone that a large hotel that's really isn't appropriate there. the uh the like like Steve just mentioned, the traffic, the noise, the uh uh you know, all of the activities that go along in it with a hotel like that. So, it's doesn't really belong in that side of town. Postales of that size should be on the main thoroughairs, be on uh you know, Broadway. There's property down south on Broadway that's could be annexed. There's property on West Napa Street that could be developed. Uh, and then Highway 12 going around the bend there. There's properties there that are more appropriate for a intense commercial use such as a hotel. So, those are my comments and great. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Conford. Appreciate you.

Good evening, Tom Graves. um also a Sebastiani and a um McCrosty neighbor. Um must seem here uh just uh for a brief uh editorial. Um I was so impressed with you guys at your last meeting when you you really dug into this uh topic and of course I was pretty delighted when you all agreed that um it's a significant issue. It shouldn't be rushed. The um uh the cost of making a mistake is frankly too high. Um, however, I was awfully discouraged at the last city council meeting because they did not share your um, I won't say interest, but your interest in detail, your interest in exploring uh, the item uh, and your interest in listening to what the community has said in in a number of different ways. Um, I think the most powerful way besides perhaps the the continuing to grow petition that's online is the January workshop that the city held uh at which there were over a dozen tables and there was nearly a 100% agreement in three or four concerns. every single one. First one on the list of everyone's table was evacuation. Second one, let me see if I can get this right. The third one I recall was density, whether it's housing density, commercial density, or a combination of

both. Um, but the concerns of the uh town's people and our neighbors is very clear. uh that wasn't really reflected in the um discussion of the uh city council and I sent those very specific comments to the mayor and I got a uh who I understand um often zooms into these meetings and I got a very um personal and kind of surprising response from him that said um you don't seem to understand that the planning commission and the city council have two very separate uh roles and I guess I don't and he nicely uh suggested I meet him for coffee one day and he'd bring me up to speed and I'm looking forward to that once I get my taxes done before I get in trouble. But um you know uh uh as a former business person I would ask you know why are you guys doing all the heavy lifting if the city council is not going to listen to a unanimous recommendation. I don't really get that. But um so that's my editorial. But I I I just want to reinforce this is a big deal for the city of Sonoma and and there's no uh there's no reverse gear on this little car. Um uh my neighbor, Mr. McCrosty, and others have suggested a a senior living community, which I'm just about ready for, especially in this hot weather. But um I think I think it's a big world. There's lots of other ideas

that many have not been brought forth. I I would think with uh the Sebast Sebastian's existing wine- making facility there, it would be a great opportunity as they're using now for smaller wine makers to use those facilities for uh students of vindiculture to uh have some wine- making workshops and uh lectures and seminars etc. And um it would not only make use of the the the uh existing facilities, but it would keep it keep the Sebastiani name and and the the the legacy associated with them and with the city of Sonoma kind of front and center. So that's just an additional simple idea, but I'm mainly here just to thank you guys for your hard work and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Graves. How are you?

I'm Becky Sager and I'll be very quick and it'll be six minutes between us. Um I just want to thank you too. That meeting on the 19th was um it of it made us just feel terrific that you were listening, you were thinking, you know, your expertise in the planning arena and the questions that came up made so much sense to us as you know we've been deep into this for the last year and a half or so. And so I just wanted to say thank you. I couldn't I could repeat a lot of things that I won't at the moment. Um, I too was surprised at the city council meeting. Um, and you know, we're all open to looking at ideas. I loved that you guys understood the risk inherent in establishing, you know, a a predetermined, you know, density, for example, that could really backfire on us. And we we didn't feel that some of those things that are more than nuanced, frankly, were being seriously discussed and considered in the city council meeting. So I thank you. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and your expertise and on an ongoing basis we'll be here and we have lots of ideas about the property obviously. Thank you.

Thank you Mrs. Sager. Are there any other members of the public that wish to come and address the commission on any items not appearing on tonight's agenda? Okay. Excellent. At this point, we will move on to the consent calendar portion of tonight's agenda. Are there any changes or edits to be made to tonight's consent calendar? Okay, seeing none, can I have a motion to approve that? Move to approve. Second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Oman Jenkins. Hi. Commissioner Donbach. Yes. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes.

Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick. I. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. All right. This evening's agenda does not have any items on for public hearing. So we will skip down to section five items for discussion. And we'll start with 5.1 general plan discussion or ad hoc committee general plan discussion and comments on the draft land use element. staff report.

So, no staff report. We're just going to jump right into our land use element um drafts and as previously stated, we're just going to skip over the Sonoma mixed use part, but I did go ahead and make the edits that were directed by the city council um and adjusted that accordingly. So, with that, we'll do this is our very last element. and I know you're super excited about that. Um, so we are going to go the same way we went before. We'll go section by section if you have thoughts, comments, edits. Um, what was before you and before you right now are our ad hoc comments. So start off um they have the introduction section. Um, sorry. There we go. Um, okay. Um, the first comment that we had um was here from the ad hoc Donna. Um, about adding some more language from what we heard from the public. Um, and I think for this first section that was really the only comment. So, did anybody have any other things they wanted to add or questions. Okay. Um this was in regards to um just kind of what is F and what is density um and um how they relate together separately. And so that's what our comments were around. Um,

and they were more just like thoughts and further discussion items for future. Um, and so you'll see later on the section where we have some conversations around F proposals. All right. Um content section is again same formatting where we just do a quick summary of all the goals that are in the land use element. And then these are some comments that were provided um on um these different summaries

question at this point. Um, we're reviewing these comments, but for example, this one from Donna says, "I suggest we are explicit about rural versus open space as it relates to natural outdoor space." Now, um, the uh outcome of a comment like this is going to be what? Are we going to actually change the language and and be more explicit about open space character, which I believe is what it relates to, or is this something that will be crafted then presented to the city council or is this something that we are writing? What's and and if the suggestion is supported by the commission, is that something we undertake at this in this meeting.

So if you um have a specific suggestion, so right now when we see suggestions on the comments, then I look at them when I put everybody's comments together. So not just planning commission, but other comments and see if there's similar comments and then ways to integrate those comments into the text and then I will do those final edits and that's what I provide to the um consultant. City council isn't reviewing the drafts at this point. They'll when we get our all the commissions are reviewing certain sections or elements. Um and then after all those comments are taken in as well as from the community um that final draft will be presented to all the commissions again along with um the city council.

So we will have an opportunity to review your revised language. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So if you have additional edits though or thoughts. So in this case we have rural and open space and then the if you look down at the next sentence it says rural and natural and so it's how what does it actually say within the goal itself like in the policies and things and how are we defining it and just making sure that we're using consistent language and terms. Thank you Commissioner Galba.

Yeah I just wanted to make a a comment from the ad hoc. Um the things you see that are italicized are things we did add as suggested language. So again you don't have you can add other language but I just want to let you know so and open space was added and natural was added. So that's just an example of not only the comment but some language that we suggested. Thank you. Thank you. That's actually very helpful. Okay, I got questions at this juncture. Okay,

um with the process, what will be um who will be doing the detailing around the definition of natural open space, etc. Is that the ad hoc or is the planning commission? You. Oh, lucky you. Thanks. I'm putting everybody's comments into one draft. It's fun. Okay, I think we're good to move move along.

Okay. Um, let's see. So this section, this next session section is about the different land use designations that we have on our general plan map. And these are the descriptions along with their density and if they have commercial component, then it also incorporates an F. um question.

Sure. So, are we saying that in the Hillside zoning district that we will not be allowing second units? No, that the second unit count doesn't count. I think when this general plan amendment was done originally with the hillside that that was specifically stated um I think we could probably remove it at this point but the law has changed to say where ADUs don't count towards density.

Okay. Um and another question on in the hillside area how many undeveloped lots do we have left in the city and How many of those are 10 acres or less? So, none of our lots are 10 acres. Okay.

Um they're all less. Um so, they'll all be allowed to build um a unit and I I don't know. I think we have three maybe. All right. Yeah. I'd be um because that's such a sensitive area. I I would definitely want to delve a little bit more into what are those laws that we're that and being very um strategic and how we might want to address the development in those lots because they are the last treasures of the side. So, so we do have the the zoning code itself deals a lot with the actual specificity of development on the hillside. This is just um describing that designation as being a residential zone. Bernett,

I don't know if this is unduly burdensome,

but because it is a constantly changing landscape, but I'm wondering whether or not some explanation of the essentially the land use rights granted by state law on residential parcels might be helpful to include in this document in some way. by reference. In other words, the discretion that the city of Sonoma has as to um land use and housing in particular has changed dramatically. And um I think that to the extent to which we can be explicit about the areas in which the city does and does not have control could be helpful. Because I think a lot of people are under the impression we have greater latitude than we do. Any other thoughts or questions at this point?

Okay, so these none of these have changed from the current general plan. except for the increase in density which we've previously discussed um on where am I the medium density to 15 and high density to 25 housing opportunity to 30. So those are the density changes but the descriptions have not changed. So they were they were bumped up um I think by a factor of five. And then commercial um we bumped again to 25 but we also add in a minimum density um of 11. So this is consistent with the high density residential that's what we had discussed previously. So that's what's reflected here. So comments, let's see.

So here's one right here. Low density should be raised to 15. So the the minimum density. So instead of 11 to raise it to 15 is what the suggestion is. Is that supported. It was supported by the ad hoc. So, correct. It's just to increase the men.

So, there was no metric. It was just kind of an arbitrary 11 to 15. The um it was always 11, right, and high density. So, that's just what they had kind of formed out. If everybody's supportive of that, the law can make that change to minimum 15.

I'm personally not supportive. I'd prefer to leave it at 11, but if I we'll probably be in the minority, so whatever the will of the rest of the commission is. Well, the implication of increasing the density is that it does make it easier for a developer to achieve a an ROI by having a higher number of units. By the same token, if 25 or I think a minimum of 20% of the development is classified in the affordable range, then they get a 50% density bonus, which takes the density up anyway. Now the question is if we raise the minimum density does it remove the incentive for affordable housing. It it and consequently increase the potential for density bonus so that the density then becomes not 15 as a minimum but becomes 20 22.

It becomes a complicated analysis. My preference is to leave it, but I'm willing to Well, it's hard to know the way in which quote unquote the market will respond.

Sure. U you know at this point just as a general observation I think I can safely say that despite all these state laws and and standards that they have imposed in so far as the city of Soma is concerned it hasn't meant any difference whatsoever. We're not building affordable housing. The affordable housing we're getting as a result of our inclusionary requirement. Period. and until, in my opinion, and this was the subject of an editorial in the Sonoma Valley Sun newspaper in which I admittedly am a principal, um, is that unless the city beefs up its affordable housing trust fund, it is not going to have cards to put on the table and we are not going to get a significant affordable housing project. Period. So,

I don't disagree with you on that point. So, I I think uh I think we can play with the numbers all we want. The fact is is that all the density bonuses and the SB9s and the 330s and the blah blah blah, it's not producing housing. You're saying the difference between 11 and 15 density units per acre is is insignificant in the analysis. It's insignificant. I mean, nothing seems to be making it and in the case it's insignificant, my preference is to leave it.

Um, I agree with Chair Hyrick and I I'd be I want to hear what what the reasons were for taking it from 11 to 15, but I think putting it in the developer's hands to make that financial analysis is going to produce a much more welcoming environment for a developer. And so, I'd rather not see us get too restrictive on that. I'm not clear as to what you're recommending. I'd say keep it at 11. Okay. Does anybody else have an opinion?

I I think it was the reason the reason for my initial question is I was trying to assess if there was some sort of metric that was being used to raise the density and I think Larry Commissioner Barnett raises some good points about density bonus. I I just worry about unintended impacts or consequences of raising density without doing a thorough assessment of what that actually means in practice. So we talked about the the overall raising the densities. We've talked about like we talked about a year ago the minimums then when we added them 11 was what it was 15 was what was recommended. The idea obviously being that you get more units on those lots at a minimum for those that want to do a smaller we get a little bit more density by force. Um that's the idea behind 11 to 15 and then therefore you're going to get maybe one more affordable unit out of that. So that's the that's the concept. Any other thoughts on that?

Well, I'll just add that, you know, there are balancing arguments on both sides. Raising the minimum density does mean because our inclusionary requirement is actually what's producing the affordable units. Increasing the minimum density does increase the number of affordable units potentially that get built. that seems to be a just a fact of the way it's playing out at the moment, the way things are constructed. On the other hand, um, talking about the unintended effects, it may be that it opens the door to higher density than anybody would want on that parcel and that that going to 15 and then adding a density bonus to that depending on the whims of the developer may not end up with being the kind of project we actually want. But we don't know which way the winds are going to blow at this point. The way the winds are blowing is nothing we do is stimulating very much construction. And the projects that have been planned like Montalo, which was going to be a significant number of inclusionary units, is now up for sale. And who knows whether they'll successfully sell that project. It may sit with its entitlements long enough that they expire. I mean, what they got? Two years, right?

No. two years from now there may be nothing and we're back to an empty lot. So, you know, there's really not much that I'm seeing that we're doing that's having much of an influence other than the inclusionary requirement. So, so if there's anything that is that is effective about getting any affordable units built, it's the inclusionary requirement. Changing the land use densities and the other things doesn't seem to be doing anything because nobody's going to build the affordable to to lose money and And the marketplace is not about losing money. It's a marketplace is a housing market is a capitalist enterprise and nonprofit housing is not particularly capitalist. It's

Miss Nent. Do we do we can someone speak to um Commissioner Willer's um rationale for raising it to 15?

I I can just make a comment. It was a long conversation, but part of part of the thought process was that there are only two areas, highdensity residential and housing opportunity that are speaking to density. And so part of the goal was to maximize those areas um if we are going to have any kind of density increase. So those might be areas where we already accept that there's going to be higher density and we don't know what the world will look like but the idea was to just maximize the density where it exists now um and it was a little bit arbitrary but it was somewhere between more than 11 less than 20. So we there was no scientific method. I don't know if Jennifer remembers, but we were we were trying to the the density where we thought the density would be accepted.

And where are our high density parcels? They are on the um west side. Um and I think they're pretty much all built except for like maybe one um right now. But if somebody if we move forward in the future and said we wanted to identify more areas per high density then it would be in place and this is what would apply right

but in order to decide we wanted to designate more parcels for high density we would have to have appropriate parcels clearly and um and based on my familiarity with the city. Um other than acquiring undeveloped parcels that are adjacent to the UGB and get annexed in um there's not really much even on the west side in that category of what could be converted. I mean, would we consider, are you saying that the city might in the future consider changing a a density designation from a medium density residential to a high density residential?

I can't speak to the future. I'm just it was just a conversation that we had of like if an opportunity arose, let let's put what we want high density to look like in the future. That's what it's about.

Okay. Well, I used to live in a medium density zone. When I owned the bed and breakfast on West Spain Street, it was actually zoned medium density residential and it was grandfathered in for commercial use because it was granted a license to operate as a B&B in 1981 before we had that zoning designation. Um, so a transition for example on West Spain Street, this was between this was the block between uh first street west and second street west for example all of the houses on both side of the street. Um uh the example would be the conversion of that zoning designation from medium density to high density on parcels that in some cases um um even currently could be split for SB9. um as residential lots and that potentially could um have either the structures that are there removed and replaced with higher density structures, which I assume is an option if a zoning designation gets changed. um um and would you know essentially create a denser circumstance in the blocks associated with the plaza which you know is fully commercial and and high high high high density as it is. So I just I'm I'm just trying to think in terms of practical implications. What would be the potential of high density designation in places where it's not now? And how would it affect those those neighborhoods and those streets? Um uh I don't know whether the houses along First Street West adjacent to to this building. I

don't know if they're zoned medium density re residential or low density, but they're probably medium density residential. So, they are they too are examples of trans neighborhoods that could make a a radical transition to a a much higher density than they are now. Um so I mean that's the practical application of changing the uh the high density definitions um with the potential of the redesation of currently medium or low density designations at present into the higher density is you know these are transformative events

but I don't but that's not what's being that's not the situation here. I mean, that's a future event if the city decides to do it, but that's not what's on No, I understand. But this is a 20-year plan and the city council can add its prerogative um change zoning designation at any time during the next 20 years. But they could change it to any of these then, you know, they could and I'm not saying they would change counter argument. I understand and and that's that's what I'm trying to stimulate here is you know what because the the problem is none of us have a crystal ball

and we we're forced into coming up with these 20 year plans but the world doesn't work in a 20-year horizon anymore. It works on a five or maybe a 10 year horizon.

Yeah, we we know that Larry but I think you know that that's the situation. That's what we have at hand. So, I think we're doing the best that we can to try to have flexibility in the system and and we can't keep saying that we don't know what's going to happen in 20 years because it's true we won't. So, I think we're doing the best we can and there are folks that want to keep it the way it is and there are some folks who think that adding four units is not going to be radical transformation. So, I think that's what's at hand. We're all of us have a subjective bias toward what we're trying to do. So, I appreciate your comments, but we can't keepounding the fact that we don't know what's going to happen in 20 years until somebody else changes the the general plan. So, I I do appreciate your your

No, I get that and and I am enjoying I'm enjoying the the back and forth. The the one thing that guides my thoughts is not so much about what's going to happen as looking at what actually is happening. And what is happening is nothing basically.

That's right. And that dynamic is is bigger than the state. That dynamic is a dynamic that's global. And it has to do with, as you said, with capitalist intentions. So for us to change that would mean we'd have to change the ability of nonprofit affordable housing people to have be able to buy this land and develop it. and and until people are willing to step up and do that and it will not be it will not be governments because they don't have the money. So until we're ready to change the the whole playing field so that affordable houses get private money and they can actually build we we can't drive this at all and that's why probably why the uh denova left because because right now the market's shifting to home ownership away from rentals because of not being able to pencil out. It's true.

Well, I'll just make one last comment and then we can decide what we're going to do. Um, uh, I think that government does have a role to play in financing affordable housing, but this city has basically ignored that opportunity for years. Um, I have been pushing for a methodology to create a reliable high revenue stream into the housing fund for at least the past seven or eight years and I have gotten no traction on it at all. I can't find a champion on the city council to lead the charge. They my ideas range all the way from a community fundraising campaign to get the people of great wealth to kick in some money to put it into the affordable housing trust fund so that land can be bought and contributed for a project. I've talked about reallocating city expenditures which frankly I'm still disappointed to see is being spent in some cases on a lot of fluff and nowadays very expensive consultants and instead redirecting that. There's ideas about changing from a general law city to a charter law city and increasing the transfer tax. Our transfer tax is 55 cents a thousand. It's the lowest you can be in the state of California. We could double it. We could triple it. There would be cost ascendant with becoming a charter city, but other cities are doing it. And the and the cities that are putting money on the table are getting the projects. Heelsburg's getting the projects. I've got an interview set up with mid mid pen to find out why it is that nothing's happening here and I know what the answer is going to be. You can't play the game unless you're a player and have something to put on the table.

Well, I hope the ad hoc gets activated this year. All right, I think I'm going to try to bring this back to center here and offer a way to move forward. Might we take a straw poll to see who is in favor of increasing the densities in high and uh yeah high density residential increasing to 15 and then a show of hands to support the uh keeping the the original uh density at uh a minimum of 11. So just yeah which just do one of them.

I was describing the the alternatives. So who is in favor of increasing the minimum density in a high density residential to 15? Okay. Okay. Thank you.

All right. you know, good. It just tells me too of things that we can talk about later and have more more discussion around some of the other things.

But to keep in mind that the way the city appears today was not an accident. It's a result of the plan that has been in place for 20 years and the standards that were put in place for it. So if we like the way the city seems to be, we can't just ascribe it to chance. This was a matter of a planning process akin to what we're doing right now. And in 20 years, somebody will sit back and say, "Boy, those guys had their heads on backwards." And a final response from Donna. Uh the general plan is a living document. We have the opportunity to to flex the general plan before the end of 20 years. So I just want to remind everyone that we have that opportunity. It does. It's not cast in the stones that came back from the mountain.

Only four times. That is true. But but four times is better than no time. Four times a year. Four times a year. That's right. But I think if we add up the number of general plan amendments over the last 20 years, it's probably less than a handful. But that's that comes down to us. Comes down to political will. Yes. All right. So F. Good discussion.

Yeah. All right. So I was just glancing at our existing um commercial just so I could understand. Um so this is literally what we have currently in our general plan for the F. Um the comment from bill modify F to recognize commercial only residential only or true mixed use i.e. commercial only.6 residential only 2.0 mixed use 1.2 with a maximum 70% commercial. Um this came up um mostly because of a combination of things. One being if you want to qualify for density bonus with a mixed juice project, you have to do a 7030 split. That's the rules. Um so what would be what would that look like density wise on a site? and

70%

70% being residential. 70 residential 30% commercial is the way the the rules and then you could have a density bonus on your residential. Um I was just listening to a legislative about another change that's getting ready to happen um on density bonus. Um yeah, there's too many this year again. Um sorry it was brain I hurt my brain today. Um but so we're so that was the conversation but if somebody was going to do just a solely commercial project do we want a different F component versus the the 2.0 being all commercial you know as I know some of you will say the market decides these things too but um is that is that something that we want to do is is kind of quantify if it's a use it's going to have it can be the 2.0 know so that we can get that density versus if it's just commercial it's really the low end that we're looking for.

Commissioner Da and just to give you color because um is that we were trying to incentivize for residential over commercial using that F designation so that it didn't it didn't see being how do you how do I say this? It doesn't drive the price up for for a commercial property and then outpric for any kind of residential. So that was the make sure I've explained that properly but that was the what we were trying to do. We were trying to incentivize for residential development over commercial in this instance.

So thoughts? Well, I think I I I'm generally supportive of that and um once again, I can't forecast the future, but if I look at what's going on now, commercial development has got a very uncertain future. And um so I think um we should accommodate ourselves to residential use because you know we're not going to get any office parks built and we're not going to have big businesses move here. Um at least if history is any good.

What about a truck and auto center? We had one of those. I would agree, Commissioner Barnett. Any else? Okay. Okay. So, I'm getting a consensus that I do want to look at separating a commercial versus a mixeduse F. Yes. Okay. Commissioner question.

And Jennifer, why don't you type that? I have a question for you. you can talk. It's fine. Okay. Um the your your note of the 703070. Um so again, that's one that we would want we would need to codify as well. And I know there's a president at the state level, but is that another thing we should bring up that we want to codify the mixed uses 70% residential 30 almost at least

we I'm making that I'm keeping that note here for us. I'm not going to put it in the general plan, but when we talk about the zoning code and we have the section because that's where the section we talk about residential and mixeduse component that's where we'll we can get into those details. Right. So there's been discussion at this point and earlier about referencing in the general plan a state law that exists today. What are the implications if that law were to change? Obviously that's

right. So we're not going to put spec specifics here because they change so much that we can do um what we've been doing or what we're going to do especially around the density bonus is there'll be a clause at the end of the section that basically says and all gives difference to state. Yeah. All the state law will will differ to the state law but then also in incorporate all of their changes. though we do still recognize that we still have to make the edits to ours. We just are there's just no way to keep up to be honest. Not does that. So isn't it understood that state law trumps what's exists in our general?

You would think so. Okay. But we still have to make the civics got to make the All right. So, um, this was comment. Where did it go? Did I Did I delete it? Just a com. There was some language about the Verona triangle. I don't know where it is. It was under gateway content. It must be on the gateway agenda. I haven't.

There it is. There's the There it is. Um, so we talked about this um because some people don't know what the front triangle is, which is fine. Um, I didn't either, unless I drive by it every day. Taco Bell. Um, yes, it literally is Taco Bell. I only bring it up because it's not anywhere. Should have called it Taco Bell Island, you know.

So, Four Corners and Verono Triangle are two gateways into town on Highway 12. And so that's where that comment came in is like maybe we could just add that specificity with our entrances on Highway 12. So um I will be clarifying what Vernono Triangle because it's like the Bermuda Triangle get lost going the wrong way. Um all right mixed use same comment um and same comment that we had in the commercial section

um for F correct um uh this is this is related to the high density but we already had that conversation so I'm just gonna keep keep the previous conversation and so we can keep moving. Um,

sure. I'm sorry. The Soma mixed use. Um, that's the one that that's the one that we said that we weren't going to be entertaining at tonight's public hearing. Yes. So you just wanted to see what the edits were by the council. Yes, that's correct. So they took out visitor serving and light manufacturing and reduced the density to 15 for the max and then set a floor area ratio of.5 which is consistent with um the lodge

and director gates the italicized language that is that also represents changes that have been made since the council's no those are the edits that were at home. I see. Thank you. Well, if the mixed use can go up to 25 and why wouldn't the Soma mixed commercial use go up to 25? Well, it was the conversation by council. For that specific area kept or was reduced to 50. May I make Commissioner G?

Um I I don't want to miss the other comment by Commissioner Willers about the maximum unit size back there. So just one more uh it's a little bit higher I think. Yes. Consider there it is. Consider maximum residential unit size. So remember that we'll talk about more of the detail parts in the code itself and that would be more code oriented.

Okay. I just wanted to bring it to the attention that if anyone had any questions about it, so just as a reminder, ADUs don't count towards density. So there are their own beasts and you are allowed to have an ADU and a junior ADU on your lot. And uh this year Diane will be bringing forward the ADU changes and the opportunity to discuss whether or not um to allow the sale of ADUs just now.

And just to clarify as it pertains to SP9 for example, any residential lot can be subdivided under SP9. Am I not correct? No. There was very specific zones that we had identified a couple years ago. a year ago now I don't remember um hillside they're blending hillside out hillside so yes the small it was Soma residential res rural residential I can't remember but historic area it's not allowed

no historic you can't exclude historic so the it's just this the ones that are predominantly single family those are the ones that we have to allow SB9 and then there's a minimum size, right? So, those can be split, but they can only be split once. So, if they're large, you get one time, one bite at the apple, and it has to be 64D or 50/50. It's somewhere in between, but in theory could be developed with multiple ADUs and you could end up on a parcel that has one one unit on it now with as many as four or even

four units as a max. So you could quadruple the density overnight. I just think that needs to be clear to people.

Okay. Um I'm assuming we don't want to talk about this one. I don't know. Um so public facility um we have based on earlier discussions a year ago we've added the ability to put housing on public facilities because this is our land or school sites things like that. Um and so this is um we needed to add the density. So the density is going um to mimic high density residential

question. Can you give an example of a facility where it would be appropriate to put in some kind of housing. So, it's allow the opportunity for housing on any of our public lands that we've already identified as public. Um, and then an example could be any of the schools. That could be sold. Yeah. And then developed under these parameters. Um I do have a question on the park.

Is that something that we can consider that the density with the exception of caretakers units, residential units are not allowed? And there's one specific park I'm thinking of, um, the Mason House, because in the back of the Mason House where the cottages that's falling apart is land that would be perfect for housing. We would need to redesate it because parking I parking a park designation is very specific and only allows certain types of uses. And I don't know that I don't know that the political will would be there to say that we would do housing on parks. I think it would be better to say that we would modify the land use to be a public land use or if it was going to be housing that we develop or partner with some a development to do because it's our land and we own it.

Um or if it was to be surplus land um then we would we could redesate it but surplus lands act. It basically be anything. Um so so as we go through this process now is there a place where that where we have to be aware as we're developing the land use that we can incorporate this and make it an option in the future. Um I think we can talk about it. Um do you know the land I'm talking about? It's not it's not developed. It's like just eucalyptus trees and garbage. Um, depends on who you talk to. So, maybe there's somebody living there.

Um, no, I mean, I'm not talking about the house. I'm talking about the eucalyptus trees. Um, and all the things. The the home itself is historic and it was given to us. So, there's probably Yeah, I'm not talking about the house or the cottage land.

Yeah. No, I know. Um, so what we hope to do soon, not this year, but we're going to focus on the plaza, but we have identified in our uh conservation and open space element to do a parks master plan to figure out what kind of um resources that we need. It may be land that we need for another use to provide recreation. So I don't know what that looks like moving forward if they did want to carve it out in the future, but that can be part of that discussion with when we identify what our needs are around parks and recreation. What was that?

Um, okay. So, keep it at 11.

Do we? Sure. Let's Let's have another stra. What is this one about? This is the public facility. So on public lands or public designation land use, if there is a housing project, that density is 11 to 25 or is it 15 to 25? I see.

Probably the largest piece of cityowned land that remains undeveloped is the St. Francis Preserve, which is not far from the lodge, was dedicated to the preserve as a quidd proquo for the St. Francis housing developments that surround it. I was on the city council at the time that that that happened. The people who live around it enjoy the open space. It currently has a kind of a walking path and there's a little bike bikesmanship course inside of it and it provides egress to I think it's Carter Park uh on the uh north uh western side. Um it's big. I think it's seven acres. Um, you could put a lot of houses in there if you had a 25 units per house. That 25 time 7 300 houses.

It's It's not It's not designated public. What is it designated? RM, which means residential medium. So, it's already designated as a as a housing potential. Yeah. So, it never changed its land use even though we purchased it. Um and but it was dedicated for the purposes of the restoration of the uh something other it was mitigation. It was a vernal pool mitigation exactly

um for the development. Yes. But the mitigation has expired and so we're going to do another biology to determine what's going on on that site. Um we have some other ones that actually have conservation easements on them that have excuse zoning. So, we're going to work on those to redesate to make sure that those are accurate, but there's nothing of that size that we have.

So, public would be the blue on this map behind me. Um, so you see the school, we're re we're changing the cemetery to the north of the cemetery where the um where it's more of the open space to be open space. Um, let's see. where we're sitting right now is blue is public. Um, and the schools are really it um for the blue public and that's what those would be on. That makes sense.

Okay. Is that does that answer your question? Okay. So, at this point, we'll just take a straw poll as we have before uh with By a show of hands, are there commissioners who are in favor of increasing the minimum density in public facility uh zone beyond that of how it exists now at 11 specifically for the public public facility. Okay. Well, I'm going to count Bill since he came up with the idea. Fair enough. Fair enough. Well, he came up with the idea. We wouldn't even be talking about it if it wasn't for him.

All right. Overlay designations. Um so again, this is another one where we create we talked about um affordable housing overlay. um with a minimum of 25 residential units per acre is what we had discussed. Um the details are going to be in the zoning code itself, but here's kind of the general idea behind it. Um the there is no maximum. It could be just that it's 25 units min and max um on that. I'm just throwing that out there that that's that's what we've done so far.

We currently do not have a affordable housing overlay, do we? No, we do not. Okay. So, this will be a new designation. We don't know where it's going to be. We do. Okay.

Yes. We've designated them to be the Staples, the church, and um there's three sites that were already identified as um housing. They weren't reszoned as housing opportunity. They were identified in our housing element to provide our arena and they had been previously used and so they already have a minimum as long as they give 20% they get a whole ministerial process anyways. So we're trying to get more of a a good affordable housing overlay that gets more of what we want out of it um versus just 20% when our inclusionary is 25.

And what was the third parcel? the three there's three parcels. We talked about it when we did that zoning ordinance um late last year in December. Um it was the two down by the gateway or Gateway commercial next to Kier um Memory Care and then there was the lot next to Safeway inclusive of Safeway because their lots are really weird funky and they're going to need to re uh allocate their lot lines. And then the other one is a house that is on West Napa, the um the little um farmhouse that's there on West Napa on the right hand side. Normal property makes you're driving down. Okay. Next to the gas station that I had to drive little one and it goes all the way back to

It goes back and it has an L-shaped. Yes. Yeah. Well, the only comment I would make is that that unless Safeway has any interest in developing their property, any redesation of on our part is essentially just whistling in the wind because if they don't want to do anything, nothing's going to happen. And my impression of Safeway at this point is they don't want to do anything unless they get something out of it. What they want is to expand the store. So, um I'm just not sure of the of the effectiveness of assigning an overlay to a property that is ultimately under the control of the property owner and and unless they wanted to do something um it's never going to produce anything. So, I I don't know what to do about that. I mean, that's true of every property. But but that's a big property with a lot of potential. So I just I don't know if it creates the impression that there's a potential for more affordable housing than there actually is because of the owner of the property has expressed up until this point zero interest in it.

Commissioner Dumba. Yeah. I'd just like to make a comment that the the concept of an affordable housing overlay is more than that. The concept of the an affordable housing overlay is a mechanism by which the city has levers to incentivize development. And so we don't really have many levers. And this is one if you go beyond just the density of the units, it's talking about how we could do things like take away fees, we could subsidize, you know, infrastructure build. So, I just want to orient that we have other overlays and there's a larger intent to the overlay to in this case to incentivize affordable housing.

Director Gates, I have a question. Can you provide an example of a development that exists today that has a 25 unit per acre density in

I have to go back to my slideshow that I prepared. I did identify one. Which one was it? I think they're on west isn't on West Spain. Yeah. Is it uh what is the name of that place? I don't know the name. That's it's 23. So Alipa. Yeah. So it's about 23 co the non-memory care. The other one on the west side is around there too. 24 25. Um, Altameira I think is that 20 something like that. Altameir is 20. 23 20. No, 24. And the this the satellite the one on Madron that one's right next to the lodge.

Well, that's the one I was talking about. I called it. Okay. Okay.

So, if a developer was to leverage the maximum amount of density bonus, they could achieve 50 residential units per acre. Yes, but let's be a little realistic on what that means because there's I've yet to see an affordable housing developer kind of go to that level. So remember, once you hit a certain height, you're a different kind of construction product. When you have a certain density as well, there's a lot more um which is something that they're working on with the building laws is exiting requirements around that density. You still got to park it.

Um so do you though you do with waiverss and concessions

there? You will not be able to actually fund your project and get the loans that you need. So remember they're still they're still using traditional banking means to do a project and so they're you know we were talking on a call today where they um you know the the funding um and I've been on other calls before but the there's a lot of ties to funding when you're talking about banks and loans and what their expectations are and you have to be able to park it. As many times as I'm like have conversations with developers too. Can we reduce the parking? Can we try to do because we've already reduced it a lot. Can we just meet our requirement? No, I need more. You know, that's why some of those cities are actually turning to maximums instead of doing minimums. But then the development can't get the banking. So, it's kind of this weird in between of things. The other aspect, the thing that people are using it more for is maybe it's height. Maybe we said you could only do two stories and you really need three stories for multifamily housing. That's really the new thing. Like even the market rate, they're coming in and doing, as you know, the town homes are all garage on the bottom and then living the next two floors. So two or three stories. Um the others that I'm seeing is maybe it's F. So how much they want on the site. But then we're running into storm water needs. How do you get all your storm water collected and retained on your site? We also have um setbacks. So if your setbacks are, you know, really large front, rear, sides, and you've constrained your building blocks, then they push against that. So when you think like even

Montalo, what was our density on Do you remember? Yeah. Is it 35? And they Monto got a sight coverage waiver. They got an F. So they didn't ask for density. They didn't ask for an increased density on that one. Okay.

Um the one that we're looking, you know, we're looking at other ones that are not asking for density. What they're asking for is the exceptions to our setbacks or F or some of the objective design standards. That's what they're really looking for to help them um massage the project to to be able to build it on that site more so than you're seeing density, especially here because remember what we were just talking about which unfortunately seems to be the trend is with the um rental market tanking right now. like they're we don't know what's going to happen with Mola per se, but they're doing what they need to do right now. And some of the other projects that we've heard about from other cities is that they're on pause till they figure it out and what's going on in the world affects gas prices. And as we know, gas prices affects construction prices. So, we'll see what that looks like as well. Can we plan that out for 20 years? No. Because it's going to happen again, right? We were all, you all remember what it was like 20 years ago. We were having the same conversation when the market completely crashed. So I'm just

Okay. So 20 25 uh density per acre but that was just a that is our standard. So remember the state law for us for to meet our housing requirements and um also future arena you have to have in our jurisdiction size um or type which is an urban rural jurisdiction we have to have a 25 dus per acre designation. So, this gets us there without actually designating that property as a housing site for increased housing.

Can you explain that last part one more time? I'm sorry.

Sure. So, in the law, if we ident when we identify sites for affordable housing to meet our arena requirements, we have to make sure that that is a minimum density of 25 building units per acre. That's the density that we're looking for. That's what the law has told us. In more urban areas, it's 30. So, we're looking at the 25 to 30 area. We haven't seen anything go above 25 in our history here so far. Um, so that's kind of where we set that number at is based on that. Um, this allows that affordable housing overlay to be laid on something that may have that lower density currently, but without changing it to allow a higher density without the affordability. Does that make sense? So, we're only doing it on specific sites only if they are providing that affordability. We're trying to incentivize without having money. We can give asurances and that's where if you do an affordable project, we're giving you that we're giving you that assurance.

And how are the sites uh that will fall under the affordable housing overlay? How are they identified? So, so far it's just again the one the church that we talked about before. Um and we had talked about um Staples and changing that um and getting that whole corner right there um was underutilized. So those were the two that are outside of our existing housing element.

Okay. And that was a function of staff recognizing those as housing opportunity areas. The Staples one was a conversation with the general plan task force and then I we brought that to you guys um in 2024. Yeah, I remember. And then the um church was brought to us by the church. That's right. Thank you for refreshing my recollection. Commissioner O'Neal. Um I'm just a little confused when you're talking about the rental market is declining the Yeah. where demand or

so for for like projects the larger projects development not single family home rental it's the actual development projects of rental projects okay that those construction dollars because of the high interest rates and the high cost of materials etc rental demand was down no rental demand has not gone down by any means that's where I still have interest in rental markets here and to build rental here But we have heard from our friends um that have done a lot of building that it's slowed down considerably um for them. So Okay. All right. That makes sense. Thank you.

Okay. Does anybody else have anything to add or questions regarding the affordable housing overlay? Any objections to how it reads? No. Okay.

So, nothing else has changed. The only question Um that that's in the wrong place. Sorry, I just realized that. Um the question that I had on the historic district overlay and we can change this later. Obviously, right now we're doing the what we've talked about before is doing getting potentially getting rid of the historic overlay in the future. Um which is fine. It can be in here. um for now and then we can remove it or not apply it in the actual map later on. Um I just wanted to just remind us what we had talked about in that the overlay is a large area right now and we're doing that comprehensive citywide survey to help us identify maybe actual districts, historic districts. So that definition could then be used more as this district

partialized. Yes. Instead of being broad. Right. Okay.

Okay. All right. UGB. Um this is from our uh actual vote that was done. I copied the text and moved it here. Um, so we're not touching. No touchy touchy. Um so the historic um so Donna's question was renaming the historic district plaza district overlay. Um so we have multiple historic districts within our city. We have four so far and one of them being the plaza. Um, one of the things that we'll be doing with the zoning code when we do those updates, we are going to massage the pod because we realize we have two different prod maps. One for wine tasting and then one for everything else. We're going to try to massage that to see what you want it to look like because it gets a little confusing as you head out Napa, West Napa. Um, so we're going to look at that and then when we we can have further discussions once we if we want to lay that overlay on top of our actual districts um in the future with the zoning map. So the overlays don't always show up actually on the land use maps just described. All right. Um I will edit this summary

page with the changes that were above. Um there was a comment um about not from you all but from the public about wanting to see what those specific land use changes are. So if you remember in the land use element um from the last time we did the general plan, it identified the changes that have happened um zone like for each um by parcel. this change to this this is what that meant in the sense of density or you know effect. So we are going to have that in the next round. All right then we're in the first goal. I I I understand why all this language is here. Um, some of it strikes me as uh u I don't want to be overly porative, but for example, um, maintain an equitably distributed and fiscally sustainable land use plan with balanced levels of employment and housing. Um that that sounds more like a goal to me than a policy explain to me you know how it you know what distinguishes a policy from a goal. I mean I I guess you know I always thought that that the goal is supported by policies which are then buttressed by implementation measures.

So I'm wondering what role if any of these policies have other than a a theoretical fleshing out of the depth of the goal. And I don't know frankly what it means to have balanced levels of employment in housing given that the city has absolutely no control over levels of employment. It's not something we determine. So, I don't even know why it's in there. I mean, it sounds good. Maybe that's why it's in there. I mean, if I was in the general plan consulting business, I'd put stuff like this in here because it really, you know, it bulks it up and it makes it look like I did a lot of work. But maybe that's overly porative.

All right. So the goal overall is to maintain a balancement of land uses in the big sense is the the the specificity I guess in a policy in this case is that it be equitably distributed and fiscally sustainable. Always good goals slashp policies. I think policies are roles to me too. But um that's why I always am like what do we want to call each level because they blend because I've seen some of the policies that we have are more like actions and so I've been trying to finagle a little bit around that. That being said, maintaining equitably distributed, fiscally sustainable land use plan with balance levels, it's really trying in a very verbose way of just saying that we want to make sure that we have a land use plan that provides for both

that it's distributed across the city so that we're not here's this and then the rest of the city is something else.

Okay. So maybe there might have been a a simpler way of saying it. The problem with this policy is that it makes me want to know, okay, could we define equitably distributed and could we define fiscally sustainable and and define balanced levels of employment and housing or or are we just going to throw the words out because they sound good. I mean, they don't I don't know what the hell it means uh other than what you know, a reasonable person would assign as a meaning to to concepts. Um, but whatever. I, you know, much

of a general plan is to me filler and this is one of those filler policies, the feel-good policy that doesn't really mean anything because I don't know what the hell it means. I mean, when you when you hear the word policy, a lot of times it invokes this understanding that it's a law, right? It's it's a concrete something by which other things are evaluated and that's how we move forward. But I I think the word policy is what you're talking about Larry. But

well it is in part and and the question then comes up what if the city makes a land use decision that seems to violate a policy define depending upon how you define it. I mean, if in fact, you know, the policy calls for an equitably distributed and fiscally sustainable land use plan and somebody proposes a project that some people don't feel is equitably distributed according their definition, you know, is it all of a sudden the accusation or the city's not not implementing or or following its own policies. I mean it it's coming up already when you see the conflict between certain decisions and city policy. City policy and the safety element says that higher density development should be located in the low fire risk region of the city and yet we don't seem to be doing that. Are we violating our own policy? And what's the implication for violating policy? Do you go to court for violating policy? I don't think so. But you may be able to go to court if you violate a policy. I don't know.

Sorry. I put simplify or I can just delete.

May make a comment. I mean I think um so I see policies as guiding principles of a goal and so that if there is a decision that needs to be made you have something to look back on as you're trying to guide that decision you may decide not to go against that you may decide to go against the policy but that's how I see policies. I I think for 1.3 um what I took away from this was this idea that we want commerce and housing and that um you know we want to try to be as equitable as possible so that we don't have slums in one area for instance. That's how I interpreted it. So maybe the rewriting I don't think that's a bad policy. I just think maybe it perhaps it needs to be re rewritten so that it's it's understandable by the common person. Can we choose another word other than policy or is that that's

so we've so yeah no we we settled on goals policies actions as the the three tiers

and I don't think that's our decision that's the structure of the general plan what happens if an equitable distribution uh conflicts with something that's fiscally sustainable.

Again, they're guiding principles and when you put the guiding principle on paper, you're guiding yourself to your decisions. You may choose not to make those decisions, but then there can be a discussion around why you chose not to to make that. Well, yeah, and I get that and this is no different than it's ever been. But um but you know, we're basically just trying to logically and reasonably support what's essentially meaningless platitudes because feel-good language and makes everybody feel good about our general plan. That my it's just an observation. I've been watching this process for 35 years here in Soma and you know feel good stuff, you know, gets lots of lip service. The policies that actually actually implement the goals gets less. I mean, I I'll make reference again to the housing trust fund. The housing trust fund in affordable housing gets all the lip service in the world in this town, but it doesn't get really firm fixed policies that have produced affordable housing other than the inclusionary requirement which now goes back 30 years. Okay. So, I've there's only two actions and it was to map. So, um, and then review the the zoning code. So, we'll be doing those both those things. Um, coordinated growth is goal number two. Did anybody have any comments, thoughts on this section?

What is the what is the nature of our coordinated planning with the county? What do we do? So we every time that we get a project that adjacent to us then we would review it against policies that we have created in our in our general plan. Uh and is is that something that is reflected in the county policies? In other words, do they have something comparable to it as language in their general plan as to how they work with the cities or is this just something we want to have happen or they have they agreed?

So legally they are required to give us notice of projects how we want outside of our jurisdiction to look we put in ours. They also have with our adjacent especially in the sphere of influence in their general plan they talk to things and then they actually so when we are doing annexation projects they have provided already their review of our pro of the potential for annexation and then give us that we're compliant with their general plan. So we do likewise. So,

okay. I guess I'm thinking of what's going on on um Garrick Road and the Levelvel Valley Road section. Um the city's UGB of course ends

in that vicinity and the assumption has always been at least on my part that there was a tacit agreement with the county that the level of intensity of development adjacent to the UGB that takes place on the county would be done in recognition and respect the intention of the UGB and not essentially extend send a highly dense urbanized development project on county land adjacent to the UGB which was intended to protect the expansion of the city's intensive development into undeveloped lands. Um it seems to me that a a fair amount of homes are being built on county properties. I don't know what the density is. Maybe they're using a rural residential density at this point. I'm not sure. But, you know, over the last 10 years, the number of residences, some of them quite large, that are being built in the hillsides and the area out just outside the UGB to the east of the city has increased dramatically. Uh, Seventh Street East, same thing. The the nature of the homes there have all gotten bigger, very expensive. and uh 7th Street East is, you know, just a block or two from the city limit in the UGB. So, um I just I'm wondering whether the use of the word coordinate planning is what's actually happening or or is it is it coordination essentially them notifying us of what they're going to do whether we like it or not? I mean are they actually coordinating with us or are they just doing what they want?

Remember these are aspirational so we want to coordinate with them and that's why we have like the SVCAC exists and things like that. So do we know if they want to coordinate with us? I think so. I we talk all the time. Do you? We had a meeting today where all the cities get together and the county and we talk about today's meeting was just about housing. We just that's all we talk about. Um if there's certain projects we already have contacts with the county of who we talk to on certain things. Well, okay. Well, I'm glad to hear that because, you know, I uh I don't have an awareness of how much coordination actually takes place. Try.

Thank you. Uhuh. All right. I'm gonna keep going.

Yep. um goals, actions. Um so our affordable house overlay um actually exists in our housing element to create an affordable housing overlay, Donna. Um we just went back through the whole thing again um and we found it um and um so it's there with its own uh time frame and everything already. I think Donna's comment is significant which is which kind of relates to what I was talking about which is how's the rer actually hitting the road associated with all these aspirations or is it just just talk and you know I I'm not sure if there's a a better feedback mechanism so that uh commissions like ours actually are better aware of the degree degree to which um cooperative collaborative relationships are actually happening. Staff may be aware of them. It would be kind of nice if the awareness of that was broader in the community including to the commissions.

Commissioner,

I just make a comment. I mean in general I mean this is where I have a lot of issues with the way these documents are written because the way to write a goal is a smart goal. You know it's measurable it's specific it's relevant it's time bound and um I think there are opportunities to write those kind of goals for some things maybe not for everything but it would be nice to have a metric associated with these and that's what's generally missing. sometimes these they're missing because it's out of our control. So we should be writing things that are in our control as well. So that's my comment and so it would it would be I'd like to see more of that and that was where the the comment came from.

I I support that entirely. I would like to offer a revision in LU2D work with legislators and the league to achieve an appropriate degree of local control and regional governance. I would recommend and support the idea of changing that language to say to sustain or to preserve local control. How about return local? That's that's too aspirational.

I'll just I'll just add just just for how I would advise this be written. There are so many issues coming down from the regulator. IES in Sacramento. I would not limit this to legislators. I would say work with state policy makers. I would further add that there are a number of local government associations that are actively lobbying to try to preserve and strengthen local control. So I would not limit it to League of California cities. I would change that to state policy makers and I would change League of Cities to probably local government stakeholders or local government associations because are a lot and they are very focused on this piece albeit not always successfully but that would be more consistent.

Thank you. Would you say state policy makers

and Amy you used the word preserve instead of achieve that my suggestion was preserve. Okay. I I'm wondering if you have any suggestion as to how the remainder of that might be worded. Keep us out of trouble, Amy.

Well, you're welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Barnett. Um, I don't even think appropriate degree works anymore. I think it would just say to to preserve and to preserve and protect about maintain local control and regional governance. Yeah.

All right. Thank you. Anything else? Yeah, I do have one comment. I, you know, I know you said you found this policy, but I hope we will get to review it at the ad hoc to make sure that it has the language. Are you talking about the affordable housing? Yes.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Lies compatibility. Uh question. Um, is compatibility too subjective a standard? What what what is compatibility? I mean, I I I I see that opening up a can of worms.

I'm open to synonyms. I think as an aspirational goal, I think I I'm comfortable with the word compatibility. I don't know that we need to define define that as because we we do have decision-making bodies that can help to in infer or to decipher what compatibility means. Don't don't get me wrong. I like the idea of compatibility, but this is exactly the kind of subjective term we've been told to remove because we cannot base our decisions on something as abstract as compatibility because compatibility may be in the eye of the boulder and we're not supposed to have standards that are interpretive

for housing for just housing. We can do it with other things. So just just keep those thoughts around the housing and well do we do we need to make that clear that so this one's just around land uses in general but when you do a housing project we can't make a finding that it's compatible that finding those findings cannot be subjective right but we can have land use compatibility subjectivity um so if there's no housing then the question is whether a a uh you know uranium plant is compatible, correct? Or today the the AI,

okay, data centers. Any other thoughts? Well, do we need to say in here with the exception of land use except for the purposes of designation and for land use that blah blah blah. No, I promise I'll keep you out of trouble, too. What'll keep us out? I'll keep you I'll keep us out of trouble, too. What if you're not here anymore? Who's gonna keep us out of trouble? Well, you know, that's what I mean. Like in the general plan zones, I'll keep you out of trouble. Okay. I'm just being difficult. You're fine. Good at it. All right. Um,

four. Okay. Unless you want to get into harmony. or unity. Harmony sounds much better. Yeah, that's a musical term. Um, all right. Actions. Um, Okay.

Community character. Yeah, I know. See, we weren't even there yet. We got here now.

Um, and yes, we know everybody has different opinions of what's attractive. Um, and what our I did a whole thing on community character. I did a whole community meeting on it. Everybody had a different answer. So, this is a mess. Sense of place. That's not on the That's not on the judgment criteria list anymore either. Sorry, we're going to deny your project. It violates our sense of place. Well, that's not going to fly. I'm waiting to see what the um uh implementation measure is for supporting a sense of place.

Okay.

Since we're not allowed to use it. So, you can't implement it if it's not a legitimate criteria. Remind me what goal Lu4 is.

I'm sorry. It's the character. Okay. Thank you. I'm amazed that's even in here. And I like it, but I'm amazed. I think all of your comments got shifted somehow. That is so weird. No, it's the SBAC. remember we had the there was another um action oh collaborative maybe

about working with the SBAC and and then that was your comment about it that's why there's a couple of comments that have shifted down in these sections that I have no idea why that's so weird I I resend the original I have the original still if I may make a comment I think one of my um I think under this section. I'm pretty certain my comment was probably around Highway 12 at 121 or something. Um because but I can't remember. Hold on. Let's go down a little. I also suggest extending Fifth Street West to Verono as an important corridor for connectivity.

Okay, maybe that was it then. That was your comment. So What we say fifth street to Verona instead of just a Leon? Well, Leon goes south, but you don't have the northern side. You don't have the northern aspect of fifth. That's what was missing. Uh, is that north yet? Not sure what you mean by leveroni going south. It goes east and west. She means Levon's at the south end of Fifth Street West,

right? And we're missing we're missing the north the Verono, you know, the northern side of Fifth Street which is at Verono. Yes. And basically the extension of from Spain Street north, right? But I that's what my comment was that it should extend north. Yes.

Right below me. Keep rolling. I This one's weird. I have a comment on 4D right below. I don't This is clunky, but work with local, regional, state, and federal funding partners. I would say work with public agencies and aligned organizations. Don't we have a lot of community opportunities to and I don't a funding partner is just clunky to me. It's probably silly but not sure current political environment there is anything called the federal funding partner.

That's my point. That's my point. And so I would just say work with public agencies and aligned organizations which could be non-public agencies but there's just not a lot of funing. And I do think a lot of our opportunities to preserve open space will come from funding from nonprofits and the private sector. That's a great call out.

Harmonious. We got it in. There's There's another one. When we're talking about our historic districts, it's got to be harmonious. Yeah. Everybody knows harmonious when they see it. You know when you see it wrong. You know when it's disharmonious. Yeah. I don't know. I just that's not made it up. There's another one. Cohesive and thoughtful design principles. Let's argue about that one. All right. Where is it? I'm getting rid of it.

Where is it? Lu 5.5C. And I want to talk about 5.6. Oops. It was Lu 5.5 up there. Oh, okay. I heard Z almost. I'm sorry that was not a C. It was a Can we talk about 56? Yeah.

I'm not sure I like the idea of encouraging parcel assembly to create larger, more efficient development sites. I think part of the fabric of the community is the fact that we haven't by and large done that. And so we're getting design solutions for smaller parcels that work on that smaller parcel and preserve our sense of scale. I don't want to um encourage the transition to a larger scale development just because we're saying, "Yeah, that's great. Buy up, you know, five parcels and combine them and now you can do something really big." I mean, I don't I don't get the I don't get the plus in that.

Now, the only property that comes to mind is Sebastian, but are there others? Well, that's what happened happened with the hotel on Napa Street. There was five or seven parcels that have been combined into one to create that large project. And um and if you extend that kind of development pattern into other places, you're basically encouraging a speculator to buy up adjacent parcels and then apply for a big development by altering the lot lines.

So we have a variety here of parcel types. um I would say so we've got traditional development um identified you know our historic more um historic areas we've cut up those parcels in a very traditional sense right then we have other areas where they have some really interesting um lines is one of them but I see them throughout town some of them are created through flag lots or other things. And so I think the idea is with like Montldo, we did do a lot consolidation there with those two lots. But part of that is so that we are connecting those developments as one development and not having easement access issues for, you know, the rear lot and things like that because they don't they're what I would call floaters. Um, we have quite a few lots that just sit in the middle of what were once large parcels and they were kind of remnant. Um, somehow they became a remnant square. Um, so this could be more of like we don't have to word it like encourage it, but we would only when it made sense for a development to be efficient. And well, could we replace the word encourage with consider?

Consider and then either get rid of larger lot consolidation, but it should I mean so I would get rid of larger. We can just say paral encourage the parcel or consider parcel assembly to create more efficient development sites. Commissioner Dela, that would be better. Uh maybe it should just be encourage more efficient development sites that provide opportunities. That's it. And then you if it's larger, it's larger if it's not. So just just encourage more efficient development site something like that because then you can decide in the

fit for purpose whether it needs to be consolidated or not because I thank you for pulling that up. I totally missed that when we were reviewing this, but I I would agree. Okay. I think one of the things that we want to do is balance the fabric and and Bill brought that up during our Sebastiani versus creating deserts um development deserts where there isn't walkability. So,

and it's good to keep in mind that government regulates uses not ownership. And the imperatives of the market on the ownership side um are to maximize the ROI and that may include buying up adjacent parcels and then proposing a larger project that otherwise wouldn't have been feasible and we can't really control that acquisition of parcels. you see what happened with all of this Matson stuff and how even you know individuals or individual companies can have a profound effect on a community because government doesn't regulate who gets to own a piece of property. So I'm just I don't want to I don't want to encourage something that that actually degrades the community.

Understand? I'm I'm there with you. Um so this actions are going to be about um underutilized doing objective design standards and reviewing our code of course. So technically we are not required by law to have an environmental justice element but it was identified as wanting uh environmental justice equity built into. And so this is how the consultant proposed to do that is in the land use element to have a section specifically calling out um focusing on equity. Um because technically environmental justice um with the element is really focused on um environmental impacts like health um with land uses and individuals. So historically you know, industrial areas and uh low income were placed next to each other and environment and children's health um like asthma impacts and things like that. And so this is kind the environmental justice movement was kind of from that push. Um but just because we don't require it because we don't have those kind of environmental impacts um it was still discussed as wanting to include equity in our discussions and it's something that's on the goals also of the city council. My question would be whether

we need to or can even identify those areas of the city that currently reflect reflect a lack of environmental justice. In other words, the implication of this is that something needs to be addressed, but I'm not aware of what exactly that would be. And so what is what is the problem we're trying to solve? Um I understand once again and I don't and I don't have a disagreement with these aspirations. Um but but I would like to have the counterbalancing argument as to the way in which the city has developed that doesn't reflect these aspirations.

But this is a goal. No, this is a policy.

Well, true. Um but I think when we get into when they're going to do like the park exam or whatever, if they have this framework to look at the justification of where parks are, what need to be enhanced. I think that this gives the language for that action um for looking at distribution of parks etc. So I'm okay with the language being more generic here more aspirational knowing that when they do the actions of our goddess whatever that they'll have this framework to use as a measurement. I understand. But for example, when it comes to parks, there was for many years a policy in place that depending on the size of the housing development, you were required to dedicate a certain amount of land for park and it was at the developer's expense to de to donate the land and uh the the park expense and the city would then take over the maintenance of the park where we ran into difficulty. was the budget for park maintenance and the fact that building these parks as a requirement simply meant there were more ongoing long-term expenses for the city. And then the Quimby act came along as essentially an inloo fee device to mitigate the requirement to dedicate land and parks. And so then the city, as I understand it, would in theory use the Quimby Act to determine where and how a park might be developed or created or land acquired for it. Um, I'm not sure what the current policy is on things,

for example, of park or recreation facilities created. Um do does our development code at present for example require dedication of land for a park or is it all QuimbyB Quimby fee related now?

No, we still have um requirements around providing you know open space and amenities. It just depends on the type of development but um we're not seeing subdivisions anymore for those types of things. I think the thing about this goal and the policies, it's not all associated with a land use decision. It's about providing opportunities and access. So, you know, making child care accessible within our land uses, making, you know, do we um there's things in here are talking about programs um because sometimes it's a program need. So it just g it's just a little bit more focused on um that versus a land use decision. It just it's in the land use element, but it doesn't necessarily pertain to a specific land use or a um again these are aspirational. Um

well, for example, we've got number 6.8. support local government programs and nonprofit efforts aimed at improving the lives of under reppresented or disadvantaged segments of the community. So I would assume that for example the city's support of um Soma Family Meal or HAS or some of these other programs would fall into that category. Correct. So, I'm c I certainly support the language and intent of it and um uh is that what it and is that what it's basically intended to do?

It's it's about providing access and reducing barriers is really what it's some nation is. Um, so if you know we've on the just for an example, we created the we worked with the county or the county came in and did their um uh service center um off of Soma Highway, right? And so we're providing access. So we are, you know, when they came in, we're like, "Okay, how can we work with you? How does that fit within our code?" You know, those types of things. So that that's the idea behind them is is do we look at what our policy is and how do we make sure that that's available and out there. Do we have things in Spanish and English? So if you noticed on Facebook, we're now doing English and Spanish. It's just it's kind of like more like that sense.

Okay. Guess there weren't that many actions. Looks like there's only three. Um,

I have a thought on 6C in alignment with or at least I'm trying to kind of align what you said,

Jennifer, is what if we So this whole one about collaboration collaborate on what I guess that's obvious, but I would say based on what you just said, I would add to improve access to services opportunities something to that effect. Okay. I would have said also inform land use decisions but you kind of you clarified that. So okay we're not touching that urban growth boundary. No touch. ask why we're you just is it a requirement that you just put the language in as is because of course it reads so differently than all other parts of

it is literally what was voted on. Okay. And so that's we can't summarize it or paraphrase. We the requirement is you just put it you in as is. Okay. So it is in verbatim and um if you notice I even kept the old CD1, right?

Because I was trying to ignore that part. I don't know where that came from. Um, my board doc is really messed up. Um, but I was trying to keep references similar. So, one point one 1.5 growth boundary. It's just left over from the old one. And I don't some of it would not be considered substantive, but I'm not playing that game because it seems it's very substantive to me, but if that's if that's what we have to do, that's fine. I was kind of hoping that we could break it down and kind of paraphrase it into less.

Yeah, it specifically says in the ordinance that was adopted that it was to replace to be placed in the journal like this. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Otherwise, I didn't realize it how long it was, but I I remember looking at something going, "Oh, oh, we did that. Okay, I need to make sure I pull that over." Well, having been um instrumental in the passage of the first UGB in the year 2000, I must say I'm delighted to see it still in the general plan.

Well, I very much support it. I just was trying to like simplify it but okay point well taken.

So I think I think at this point I need to open the public comment for this item. So, if any members of the audience wish to come and address the commission on the item that has just been presented and discussed, now would be your time to come forward. Caitlyn, thank you. There must be something wrong with me that I'm here for this whole meeting. Um uh so uh Caitlyn Cornwall and I'm speaking for Sonoma Valley Collaborative and my comments um echo a recent comment letter. Well uh maybe it's maybe it's a few weeks ago now. Um um so Snow Valley Collaborative the coalition looking for more housing and more affordable housing. Um there really does not seem to be any downside to applying the affordable housing overlay to more parcels. If if the affordable housing overlay is applied to more parcels like like all large parcels for example, if the economics work out for a future developer to do something affordable there, great. They can take advantage of all those incentives. If the economics don't work out, then those projects will not be brought forward and the city doesn't seem to lose either way. But for example, um the the Taco Bell, which has its own special zoning in which housing is allowed, high density housing is allowed, but the affordable housing overlay as it's currently proposed is not applied to that parcel. Why not? the whole the the description of the zoning designation for that parcel includes highdensity affordable housing. So why wouldn't that property be able to access all the incentives that are listed in the affordable housing

overlay? So one of the things that we asked for in our letter is to apply the housing overlay to a large number of parcels. Basically anything that is big enough that an affordable housing developer, a nonprofit, a midpen of Burbank could look at it. you know, I mean, the odds are low for those projects are really hard to do. So, why not make the larger parcels that are already very dense with, you know, a Taco Bell available for a project like that? So, that's one comment. Um, very, you know, most people are never going to read all of this element. Um, I think the beginning part of the element is really important. I think that it be understandable. That's all that most people will ever look at. And so I think and this is not really like something that the SBC discussed in great detail, but just as a reader and and even think about like future planning commissioners, I think the beginning part of this element, it's really important in the descriptions of the different land use designations that it be more explanatory about um the fact that there are more units probably allowed by state law. I think it's important to just include that with every it's only like six words in every designation, you know, 11 to 25 units per acre plus whatever is allowed by state law, something like that, because people don't know what they're what what the words mean unless you remind them about that. I think that's kind of important. Um, what else? Um, the UGB. So you just talked about how the entirety of it needs to be included, but there actually are two other places in this element where the UGB is summarized extremely briefly at the very beginning. It's the first page and the eighth page, LU1 and LU8. And neither of those locations, which again is all that most people will ever

see, um include what I think is a really critical part of the AGB. And Larry, if I'm wrong about this, you'll me straight, but there is an exception to the UGB, which is 100% affordable housing developments. And those that exception only shows up in that deep in the weeds part that you just were talking about. And I think it's important for people to understand what the GB means. Um, and even to understand the city's intent about affordable housing that that exception show up earlier in the element so people just know that is a thing. I I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Kayla. I appreciate your comments.

And you're and what how did you describe yourself as as crazy for being here? Maybe something wrong with you.

Something wrong with you? No, something's right with you. I completely disagree with you. Mr. uh after hearing the comments uh I we're working with MIDI pin on a uh I'm not involved with it directly but uh and they seem to have a uh track record where they're able to find funding through the federal uh federal uh affordable rental housing credit and I guess that's just part of the funding But the ability or the to encourage uh other nonprofit uh developers, but to get more uh for them to get more help to initiate things through uh at least the ability for a developer nonprofit see a lot more land available through the overlay. affordable housing overlay would be a real boom to them and the the ability to uh you know to get the uh the density up and just how they approach it. It's I really impressed because I'm we're involved with the church here. member of the congregational church, but the uh they're impressive, these people, how they operate, what they can do. So, anything that could help with that would be a a really positive thing to do. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other members of the public wishing to make a public comment on this item? You state your name, sir.

Hi, Dustin Lee. um uh live in Sonoma uh Springs north of here and um appreciate all the discussion. It's very interesting to hear. It's it's an interesting topic. That's why we're here. Um uh I wanted to say thanks for uh considering mixed use. It's a tricky thing. It doesn't mean it's going to be quality and uh what you want. Um but it's a start. Uh and I think what's you have at your uh command things like overlay districts to solve the problems that you're worried about. Like for instance, you could have a pedestrian overlay district to make things more crossable and to make the right kind of um things appear. Um so um um good on you for uh continuing the discussion and for making the language as actionable and real as possible. It's good to have that. Um and Yeah, I would say nothing would be more important than making these places. And what I mean by places is actually the streetscapes themselves, which kind of requires urban design. It's something you can't do with zoning as good as the zoning would be. Um, you need urban design and additional things to get uh the results. You know, people need to be safe crossing the street in general. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay, seeing that I'm going to close this item and I'm going to call it strict 4 and a half minute recess.

the regular planning commission hearing of March 19th. And as far as uh an order of affairs for the remainder of the items for discussion portion of tonight's agenda, it would be my suggestion to consider or excuse me to continue item 5.3 until the next regularly noticed public hearing. Is there any objection any members of the commission to continue item 5.3? Are any members of the public here for item 5.3 tonight? Okay. With that, we will uh open item 5.2 uh to receive a general excuse me to receive a presentation on the general plan progress. Director Gates. Oh,

I'll be excuse me.

Uh Diane Levine, associate planner. Thank you, Chair Hyrick. So this item is just a brief summary of the annual progress report for the general plan which also includes the annual progress report for the housing element. Um this gets submitted to uh LCI formerly O formerly OPR as well as HCD uh yearly and this was brought to council um yesterday evening and accepted by them. So you also saw staff this time around this time last year for the same thing. Um we have to submit these reports by April 1st of each year to report on the previous calendar year. Um the main purpose of these reports is to one sort of inform um LCI of local planning activities um and trends and fulfill statutory requirements as well um for both. But obviously primarily uh with the housing element

and I'm sorry LCI stands for what? Uh land use and climate innovation formerly OPR the um office of planning and research. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah that I think they changed two years ago now. So um you know and I made this comment last night at the council. Um when you read through the report it I know that it reads a bit factual and clunky. Um, but there is a guide book guidelines that we follow that uh LCI publishes. And so we're sort of checking the boxes to make sure that we're touching on all of the topics that they're um requiring us to include um in the report. So, examples of some of the information that's included in the the progress reports uh are such as the draft elements, one of which you uh review tonight since they began their release in 2025. Um we also include information uh or accomplishments like the tree inventory and urban canopy assessment. Um another one is the city receiving the silver designation for EV readiness. um continuation of homeless services. Um and then uh the planning divisions um responsibility and attendance uh for meetings before you such as this one sort of varying in multitudes of responsibility. So this slide is um a bit of a simplified version of the city's housing numbers. And I realized last night this the HCD has since added additional categories uh income categories. So um the numbers are all still represented and will be represented in the report but the very low uh and extremely low are uh one it's it's in extremely low and it will be counted as such. So um you know although al although these numbers are low we are seeing measurable improvement um and the number of final uh unit

developments that we're seeing in the last couple years um and we are seeing momentum into the larger developments such as the entitlements that were brought before you for Montalo and then we can touch on a few other projects that um planning staff has been working on um that we received applications. So these numbers reflect the entitlements, not what's been built. Am I correct? No, they reflect what's been built. Build I'm I'm sorry. Building permits that have been issued. So they've received entitlements. They've since applied for building permits. Uh yes, but they're not yet built. They are being built. Well, Montalo is not being built. It just has its entitlement.

We have it's so these are just in building permits issued. That's what these numbers are. That's it. So, Monto is an entitlement project. So, that's not included in here.

And then the ones that what what Diane was commenting on was that when you look at the spreadsheets that were attached as um which is exhibit A of our general plan, that's the housing element report that we have to put out. You'll see that while we only may have done seven new building permits, the number of um projects we actually finished that received occupancy last year was quite large by comparison. Um, and we've so we're seeing an increase that we're we're seeing that the ones that were issuing last year are getting built and finished within a year. So, we're seeing that kind of progress. Um, that's what we're talking about when we're talking about progress for us. And then what the numbers are at the very end um are going to be. So Reena's at the top. Your total units permitted um this year is the ones outside of the parenthesis in parenthesis were the ones from our previous years. So the two years combined. So altogether we have permitted 57 units in the last three years. Um and those are mostly going to be a combination of single family and ADUs. Um, and then we've had obviously hummingbird project and then also we have a 1211 Broadway that's under construction. And then the bottom tells us how much is remaining. So just keep that number in mind that 254 actually goes to the next slide and then we're going to talk about projects. I think it's the next. That's correct. Thank you. Uh, so we did include Montalo on here just because last year it was still going through the entitlement process. So we wanted to show that that was

approved and we are seeing um initial movement on that uh for some of the like lot merger. We're currently processing for that project. Um another project we have is 20540 Broadway. That's 12 unit development with a 5% affordability component. Um we are it's it's been determined incomplete at this time. Um so we're awaiting resubmitt. However, we're still moving concurrently in other areas um that we can. So we're just about nailed down with the squa pathway. Um so we're ironing that that one out. Um, we also have 20540 F5th Street, which is uh 51 units with a 25% affordability component and 254 First Street East, which is 41 units. Um, and both of those are incomplete. So, we're just awaiting resubmitt. Um, and I can go into if there's questions about incomplete versus

Well, the 20455 is that the Doyle property at Napa Road? Yes, you saw the study session. So, the two bullets in the middle, the Broadway project and the Fifth Street East, those are the two study session projects that you saw last year. And then the last one you I assume you saw before as well. Um and it but they had since they were they did have entitlements for a different project but they came back um with more units in a different uh development project. So some additional uh work that's been done in the year 2025 were uh zoning code updates such as the expansion of the ministerial process for multifamily development to make that a more streamlined process for development as well as as you know the modifications to uh the reviewing authorities for design review also with the intention of streamlining um development and and um providing some more uh administrative review as well to get people through the process faster. Um accommodating low barrier navigation centers, supportive and transitional housing, residential care facilities. Um and those were all in support of program 15, which is uh of the housing element. Um, another program implementation that was uh supported was uh for with the reszoning of the three sites that Jennifer uh discussed a bit earlier in the previous item. And these are just additional highlights to show some of the work that was going on. And I won't I won't read them all uh off, but I think some of the even highlights in in this these bullet

points are the allocation of the one-time funding of 75,000 to nonprofits for the uh helping support unsheltered populations. Also, the preservation of the 18 affordable units within the city that was done through a partnership. Um, we also processed the city's first SP9 lot split and got that through the planning entitlement phase. Um, and then also, as you know, the creation of parks and wreck and the hiring of its director. And I think that's really all I have for you today. And breie, where's the uh SB9 lot?

That's um 111 Malay. Yeah. Any other commissioner comments? Just have one comment. I just really appreciate the work that you all did to get that preservation of those affordable units at the man and I think I think there's a lot of good work represented on here. I think we've made a lot of great progress and hit a lot of those um items that the planning commission believed. I'd ask Amy a question at this point.

Just your your impression. Do you think it would be possible for the League, California League of Cities, to lobby the state HCD to allow the preservation of affordable units to count toward reena numbers because if we hadn't done it, they would have reverted to market rate. And then if they'd been developed as affordable after they'd reverted to market rate through some device, then they would have counted as new units and been counted as arena. But we didn't have to go through that fandango to do it. We just preserved them and yet they don't count them to the numbers.

I I'll answer this a little bit differently. Um there are a number of um proposals that are being contemplated right now in the legislature that seek to um reform Reena in ways that would allow for affordable housing unit units to be counted um in perpetuity. There are there's also a reform task force that's be that's been developed within what's called the I think they call themselves the cordial caucus which Republicans and Democrats.

I know I that might it might have been changed, but there there are a number of of of conversations around Reena. There's also legislation that is moving. It's it's very early in the process right now. Legislation that's moving that would um contemplate certain tiny home structures provided that they have kind of permanent facilities even if it's if it's transitional housing. So, I think there's a lot of conversations underway that that may allow for um us to apply, you know, or to to meet our RENA allocation numbers um as you've suggested, but it's pretty early. A lot of these bills haven't gone through their first policy committee process, but a lot of conversation around RENA reform that's being initiated by the legislature. We'll see how HCD reacts. Um, that's where we've been seeing some push back.

Are all the Republican members on the cordial caucus? There's only three. There's there's a few more than that. Um, no, it's I it's interesting there there there are I think I think a lot of the different caucuses and even stakeholder groups are exploring different arena reform options that would provide more flexibility so cities can meet their their housing objectives and what And who's who's uh your prediction going to be our next governor? Oh, wow. I wouldn't Okay. Okay.

A very very smart uh legislative advocate would not opine on that just yet. Just know that I am doing my best to get to know all of the potential candidates in anticipation.

Okay. Oh, for sure. Yeah.

Um I'm curious what kind of um input you're getting from the developers of these various projects. Where are they getting stuck? Is it on construction costs? Is it on interest rates? Where where's the the point where they're getting stuck? And what options do we have to help clear some obstacles for them? Yeah, I think a general statement and and Jennifer might be able to delve into the the banking that she was touching on earlier, but it does boil down to money. They have multiple investors and like Larry's mentioned the ROI quite a bit. Um, and they they have to make it pencil out and it's tough. And I think as a general that would be the the overarching sort of general statement of where they're held up is just funding. And also, you know, um the city of Sonoma being where it is, we're not always um a lot of the the grants are focused around transportation and where your transportation is currently at. and because of our location and uh our current transportation systems, we're just not eligible for a lot of the funding. Um I'll let Jennifer add more to that.

Um that's in general those are major issues of why we're not getting a lot of interest I would say or especially around the affordable housing. Um but remember one of those they want asurances of a quick process because they're paying um even though they don't own it, they're they're paying for the rights to it. Um so they need to understand the timing and so that's been a little bit of like with the one with one project timing has been a a concern and an issue and we're trying to do it as fast as we can and work together. We're having agency conversation issues. Um, to be honest, Cow Trans has been non-communicative with us and trying to figure out what Broadway's going to look like and we just can't get an answer. And that, you know, has been affecting kind of that conversation. So, um, basically we're going to pull back and and just try to keep this project moving forward so that we can get it done. Um going back to the you know one of the other ones it's going to be more about um what it trying to fit it all on the site um all the requirements. It's just coming back down to that again of how do we how do we fit everything um that we're looking for density wise but then also again like I was talking about the storm water and the setbacks and the utilities and everything. How do you fit that all on there and get your return on your investment? And so that's what we're finding with some of the other ones too is just having those continual conversations around what how do we how do we do that? How do we fit that? We're not getting into the conversation around their return. We're getting more focused on what does what does this what does this look like on the ground and how do you how are you

going to fit everything? How are we going to make it still provide the sidewalks that we need and the storm water that we need? People are having amenities such as outdoor space. So, how do we how do we do that? And then you still make your return. So, and maybe even to add more context and a bit more detail, how Jennifer mentioned fitting everything on site and amenities, just with amenities alone, there's a checklist of the things that needed need to be provided and that's great. It's just makes it difficult to fit everything on site. I think there's like for an area for children under five, an area for you know this age to this age, an adult area, a you know cooking area. So it becomes difficult to to meet those type of standards which are great but then you they're combating with you know fire and parking and getting the units trees.

Yeah. And not out all the trees. Just one more. Commissioner Nova, one thing um I didn't see on on the list of wonderful accomplishments and it might be a sore point is just curious how are we doing with the proousing designation pro-ousing designation. I know it's been a very difficult process. Um it's on the list.

It is on the list like the top top three. Yes. So, it's on it's on Dian's list. Um, it's one of things. Um, so the pro housing, it's it's a lot of paperwork to be honest. Um, but yes, it does allow the city to access funding. So, if you don't know, if you don't have the pro housing designation, you don't get housing funds anymore from HCV. Um, so we need to work on it, but we also have ordinances that have got to get done per housing element to be compliant with that. So, it's kind of one of those like trying to pull priority and and get things done. But our goal is this year to to get it done. We're we're at a point um that it's back in our hands and we just need to get it over the finish line.

Would you refresh my memory as to what proousing specifically designates? I'll give it to staff as have deeper details. Well, I I think that that's part of what is on our task list also is really getting a deeper understanding of what that can get us and what that can qualify us for and if like we've talked about as far as qualifying for things, it can be difficult due just to logistics and Yeah. So, there's a it's a point system. So you have to have all these things either doing them or have done them that make you make it shown that your community is for housing.

So like and what is what is the PR O stand for? No pro as in pro let's go. So it's not an acronym. No. So it's things like higher densities. It's things like uh streamlining housing overlays. Yes. things that we are doing opportunity sites,

but we are also not again on the transit lines like we have limited things that we can qualify or get points for. And so how do we So right now what we've done is we've gotten the draft that from a consultant that we didn't we didn't need to pay for this. We didn't pay for the consultant. Um so we got what we got. Let's just say that. Um so now we

got what you paid for. Yes, we did. Um, so we have it in hand, but some of it is like, okay, that doesn't apply to us or like that's not correct. And so it's it is going to take a lot more than we had initially thought because we thought we were ready in January and then we're like, oh, wait, no, we're not. And then another thing issue that we kept running into that we we kind of had to we were like fighting for for more points because if if there was a point factor that was established but we have already sort of fulfilled that previously out of um you know an intention to promote housing. We we didn't we don't get credit for it. So we kind of went back and forth with them. For instance, parking. we've significantly reduced parking standards and one of the po one of the points was for um reducing parking standards in it and it was in response to something and because we had but and Jennifer's like well we already did that though and so we're having to kind of do this tugof-war with them and a back and forth to try to earn more points so that it makes it worth it for us to keep going through the process.

So do they do they give us points for our housing trust fund? I don't know. Oh, I would have to look back at the the point system sheet. It's long. It's not it's not it's a very long set of sheets of to get your points because you get like a one point here maybe two points and and then you can get specific then there's like a multiplier. Yeah. Like on another set if you did Yeah. It's it's not easy. Mhm.

Why the consultants were doing it and then for these other jurisdictions that do have it and at the time we uh the city was not participating with that. They there was a grant that was given to a bag in for Napa and Sonoma counties and so the city of Sonoma was not participating and so we got behind them. So we're trying to play catchup at this point. Thank you for that. Thank you and thank you for your continued persistence. Anybody else have anything to say on this topic?

I I don't have any questions. Just to just a comment to echo what some of my colleagues said. Appreciate all of the great work on the part of of all of you. Um there were a lot of really good there's a lot of really good work that was done. Um certainly I know I imagine Commissioner Barnett will will say this but obviously you know our biggest objective is is ensuring that housing is built and we've done a lot of due diligence but clearly we need we need to to do more but that's not on you that's on that's on the collective but appreciate all the work and I enjoyed reading the report.

Okay. Are there any members of the public I'll open public comment at this point for item 5.2 to if any members of the public wish to speak to the commission on this item, welcome to come forward. Seeing no movement, I will close public comment on item 5.2. And to reiterate, item 5.3 has been continued to the April meeting of the planning commission. Director comments and announcements, please. Um the um uh just in case you're following along um the mobile home ordinance is um for the conversion is a draft was released um today. It's on our website. Um so if you're following along with council and that um so that was done today. Um, I am finishing up all the drafts of the elements um right now and we'll get a new schedule out once they get them and they can look at them and figure out what needs to get done and then um um and then I will get the ad hoc back together again shortly um to continue conversations around the code amendments that need to be done. And then um when we talk about the work plan um in April, we'll look at um keeping the other ad hocs as well. So

great. Thank you, Commissioner. Just one question. Um based on the council meeting um that you had on the 4th, does the EIR move forward now with the decision that they made for that parcel? So yeah, the studies will be based off of the changes that were made and so we um I need to get them that land use map change as well as these descriptions um and then get that out. So you'll you'll see another land use description added for agricultural residential. Okay. Does that conclude your

Yes. Unless you can think of something. I forgot. Any other questions? Uh, commissioner reports and comments.

Well, this is a comment. Um, I'm wondering whether when a recommendation of the planning commission comes before the council as it did on the Sebastian property. Um what is the view of staff um on members or the chair of the planning commission attending that meeting and reporting face-toface with a council with his or in the case of an alternative his or her um comments related to the decision or the vote or the decision of the of the commission on a particular recommendation and is that something that shouldn't happen could happen uh should happen. What's what's the general philosophy on that? So, I I can talk to the attorney if there's any legal things, but in general, I have seen like when I present the work plan, if you want to come to support that or or things like the the planning efforts that we do, um I've seen that um here in the city. Um I do and any recommendation that you make when I pres that is presented it's in the staff report that this is the planning commission recommendation. Um so like ordinances or or that item since

that item was still in not as a public hearing I think it's fine because it's not you're not discussing a your specific recommendation as a vote. um in a hearing process in a public hearing process. So, um, if I remember correctly, um, I don't know if I could have sworn that, um, maybe Commissioner Willers back in 2024 when we did present those initial thoughts to city council, um, you and Commissioner Willers were at the meeting and I I thought one of you spoke um, and and maybe as an individual and not as representative of the commission because that's the other thing is like when you're there and you speak as an individual you it is hard to separate and it is what it is but when you represent the commission it needs to be a vote of that commission that that's your position as a commission um that's the hard part about it is if you're saying the commission said this well I can put it in there this is the the recommendation or something like that

in the case of our meeting we had a unanimous point of view. We didn't take a vote, but we had a unanimous point of view of all commission members. So, I don't think there would be much ambiguity in presenting that. And um I I guess part of the reason I asked the question is because the point of view of the planning commission when it's presented in a staff report is basically a recommendation without a face. It's your face making the presentation, but the actual people and the and the the sense of the personalities and the work that goes into this kind of discussion and decision making ends up not being part of the formula. And there is something different when you're sitting or standing face tof face with decision makers and and you have participated actively in a discussion. I would warrant that the members of the um city council probably did not all of them watch the entirety of the planning commission discussion on that matter. I just I just don't believe they would have spent the hours to do that. Um and so what you lose when there is no representation of the commission at these meetings is you lose the face of the decision and it just becomes something on a piece of paper or a report and the human quality that it represents. you know, the uh the six or seven people who

spend hours of their time, not just an hour, but many hours of their time looking at a subject and analyzing the information and talking with each other back and forth to explore the nuances and implications of of a decision that's getting made. That doesn't get captured in a two or three sentence summary of what the planning commission did. as much as I respect, you know, you're taking the time to do that. So, I I'm just trying to see whether the introduction of the human element again because we're as much a part of this community as the members of the city council. They just happen to have been the ones who are elected. um uh is something that I think has value that that human part of it and but I don't know what the customary view is and so I I would welcome the city attorney's decision on that. I I think there's there's something lost when what turned out to be probably two or three hours or more of conversation about a topic gets reduced to and the opinion of the planning commission was X Y and Z. And always remember that you well five of you have a you directly appointed by a council member and so you always have that connection or that appointment connection to talk to that council member specifically. Well, I appreciate that and and I did and and I frankly can pick up the phone and talk to all five of them because I've known many of them for a long time. Um but but there's something magical about

a p about a a meeting that's conducted in public. There's something um almost alchemical when someone comes up to that lectern and addresses other human beings face to face and you're really talking to each other as human beings and that's what I'm looking at. Commissioner N

to follow up on that. I I had an open house last week and a woman came in and um said, "Oh, I I saw your name on the sign and I want I want to tell you first of all um the whole it was about the Sebastiani um planning commission decision." And she she was so disappointed that when she then um attended the city council meeting, it was if they did they not there was no connection between uh our meeting and then the meeting with the city council. just anyway it was just an interesting uh that was her her uh perspective on the work we were doing and how the city council um how that all played out with them and she was it was her it was her opinion that um wow what a disconnect I mean how did that happen comments on that note Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.