Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

16th of the City of Sonoma Planning Commission. At this point, I'll convene and call to order this meeting. If I get a roll call, please.

Commissioner Willers?

Here.

Commissioner Barnett?

Present.

Commissioner Dombach? Here. Commissioner O'Neill? Here. And Chair Weyrich?

Here.

Thank you. I'd like to point out that Commissioner O'Gorman-Jenkins and Vice Chair Nugent are absent from tonight's meeting.

Great. Thank you, Hannah. Okay, if at this point I could have a motion to approve tonight's agenda, please.

Motion to approve. Second.

Second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Willers.

I'm going to abstain because I wasn't there.

Commissioner Barnett?

Aye.

Wait, this is for the agenda, right? Yeah, agenda for tonight.

Tonight's agenda. You're not here? Yes.

All right.

Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. Commissioner Barnett, I got you correct, I guess. And Chair Weyrich?

Yes.

Thank you. Motion passes unanimously.

All right, at this point, we will say the Pledge of Allegiance. And if Mr. Mackey, you can lead us in the pledge this evening, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Expertly done. Okay, at this time, members of the public in attendance may comment on any item not appearing on tonight's agenda. It's recommended that members of the public keep their comments to three minutes or less, although I've known to be flexible. 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. Are there any members of the public that wish to come forward? Good evening, how are you?

Good evening, commissioners and city staff. Good evening, is that better? Commissioners and city staff. My name is Robin Macaruk, M-A-K-A-R-U-K. I live at 314 Baldwin Way in a homeowners association known as Willows Wild. I'm here this evening to express concerns of my immediate and surrounding neighbors about Tidewater Capital LLC, the purchaser of former Mattson properties comprising seven branches, formerly ramekins, built by Suzanne Brangham, a rammed earth construction in the early 1980s. The General's Daughter. the farm area with the Canard Barn. Lot 15, which is vacant, of Willows Wild Homeowners Association. A preliminary plan was presented to Willows Wild homeowners and immediate neighbors last month, proposing...

Excuse me.

demolishing ramekins, relocating the General's daughter to Front Spain Street, demolishing the barn, and building 52 townhouses on the four parcels, including Lot 15 of Willows Wilde Homeowners Association. Although this plan is just a first pass, I probably just see what sticks. This kind of urban infill does not make sense here in the city of Sonoma, a worldwide tourist destination. While there are many more issues to be considered regarding these parcels, I ask the Planning Commission to seriously take into consideration the historical nature of our city and the impact of adding a greater traffic load onto an already crowded Spain Street impact on utilities demolition of some of sonoma's unique structures like the former ramekins and relocation of the historic general's daughter thank you thank you very much i appreciate your comments are there any other members of the public this evening who wish to address the commission on any matters not appearing on tonight's agenda

All right, thank you. All right, this, sure. If you could, yeah, just state your name and step up to the microphone.

Jim Okamoto. Thank you. O-K-U-M-O-T-O. When we first bought our property here in Willows Wild, it was really pristine, serene, with the dead end street on 4th. But... With the situation that's going to be coming up, I mean, how much of a crazy impact is that going to create, and especially like the 2017 fires? My wife has a horse, and what normally takes her to go to the Mets, Kunio Sebastiani property off of Bowness, it would take her eight minutes. But when we had the fire, it took her, or took me rather, I was driving almost three hours just to get to that point. So with another addition of all these homes, I mean, isn't that crazy? I mean, it's ridiculous how much they're going to do. And then what are they going to do, put another stop light right on West Spain and Fifth? And, of course, the people going down on Fourth, if that gets opened, it's going to be just a nightmare. I just can't believe we could actually, and then of course, you know, I mean, I have people sometimes, because I'm right there on 4th, I get these, I guess they must be tourists, come down and they'll ask where the general's daughter is. house is. And I would say, hey, you just passed it up. It's that white building right there on the corner. So I mean, these are tourists coming in. So you know what? It's a little, I think, premature to actually have it get moved. And of course, if that's not a historic building, from what I understand, because it wasn't registered, Does that mean that if the guy decides to move it and it kind of gets damaged, will they just tear the whole thing apart because now it's damaged? I mean, that's probably what I'm thinking they would do, which is just ludicrous. I mean, that would be a great historic significant thing in our Sonoma that would get lost all because of the greed of some developer. You know what? I can keep going on, but I guess I better. My neighbors know I can keep talking forever, so I just cut it at that. But anyway, I would love to have everybody here keep that in mind because it's really impactful for everybody, especially for us in Willow's Wild. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments tonight. Are there any other members of the public in attendance who wish to address the commission on items not appearing on tonight's agenda? Okay. Seeing none, I will close tonight's public comment portion and we'll move on to the consent calendar. And at this point I'll ask the commission if there are any edits or changes to be made to the minutes from the meeting of June 16th, 2026. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar tonight? So moved.

I'm abstaining.

I wasn't there. Okay. Second.

Okay.

So you don't have a quorum, but if you've read the minutes, you can vote on the minutes.

Even though I have no idea if they're accurate.

That's why we do basic minutes and not the verbatim kind. But it's up to you guys if you feel comfortable or if you want to continue to have stage. just for future reference as well, if you are absent from a meeting and you do read them and you don't have any questions, you are welcome to vote.

Okay, with that update from the director, is there any change to approve?

Okay.

So we have a quorum at that point. All right, wonderful. Can we get a roll call, please, Anna?

Commissioner Willers?

Yes.

Commissioner Barnett?

Aye.

Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. And Chair Weirich? Aye. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

Great. Thank you very much. OK. At this point, we'll close the consent calendar portion of tonight's agenda and move on to the public hearing. The first item is item 4.1. It is discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a modification to the conditions of approval Bajon development to allow the sale of the affordable unit to a moderate income household located at 1203 Broadway, originally 1211 Broadway. Staff report, please.

All right. Jennifer Gates, community development director, here tonight to present this item. So as previously stated, this is a request for a modification for a condition of approval a project so the project itself is 1211 Broadway and it was approved to be subdivided and so that's why that new address is 1203 which is the parcel in the very front which is the historic structure so it has a brand new APN it is still considered in the mixed-use zoning district it is on our overlay in the Broadway corridor Um, so it is a, um, 113 year old home and it's about 583 square feet, a single family residence with a shared driveway, um, with the parcels to the rear, as well as the parcel to the, um, South. So again, in 2019, the project was approved using the inclusionary ordinance. And at that time, the org, the, uh, rules were that the inclusionary units stated that a development containing five or more residential units shall provide at least 20% of the total parcels for units affordable to households in low and moderate income categories. The ordinance at that time did not state when low or moderate income category would apply. The condition number 54 required that the developer enter an affordable housing agreement and establish maximum rents. It did not state whether it was going to be low or moderate at that time. The agreement that was created for the property was a rental for a low income household. I was not able to find anything that said when a low or moderate would apply to a property. I found another project that did moderate and it was rental. So I don't know at that time if they were discussed, but it's not in the information that I looked at the staff report. I looked at the information again in the conditions of approval and nothing was evident to me about the why. So if this was to move forward today and we are going to modify that specific condition of approval, this project is complete. Um, the units in the back are starting to be rented out. Um, and the applicant owner has an interest to sell that front lot. They request is to allow it to be sold as a moderate income household. And so staff recommendation if approved is that we would modify that one condition and specifically state, instead of establishing maximum rent, we would say, allow the sale of the unit to a moderate income household. So it's very specific. Um, and then. Um, the only other change, um, I did take out a lot of the minutia part that really is specific to when we rent property. Um, and then obviously we don't have a planning director, so I just took that word out. Um, but that would be my recommendation, um, for that text change. And with that staff's recommendation would be to adopt a resolution, approving the modification to allow that sale as a moderate income. Staff is available to answer any questions that you have. I will try my best. And the applicant is online. They are not from wherever they are located. So if you have questions for them as well, they can talk through Zoom.

Thank you for your report, Director Gates. At this point, I'll ask any members of the commission if they've had any ex parte communication with any interested parties in this matter.

Okay.

Are there questions of Director Gates by the commission? Commissioner Burnett.

I have a few. And I remember when this project came before us. was the indication for this unit to be made available to a low income for low income use housing was that explicitly stated at that meeting as the desired outcome i did not see anything i i'll be honest i did not watch the meeting um so i don't know all i know is that the conditions of approval

were not modified to reflect that. I saw some additional modifications in the conditions of approval, but not that aspect.

Okay, and that being the case, if in fact there's an absence of specificity as to the conditions of approval, which I think is what you're saying, why is this even before us at all?

Because it specifically says to rent. And so they want to sell.

Oh, they want to sell it instead of rent it. So the real modification is the opportunity to sell it. And then the issue of to whom it is sold in the affordable categories only applies because it's changing from a rental to a sale.

Correct.

OK. My other question is, This is a complex of, I can't remember how many other units there are behind the house, but four or five. And so is this a condominium?

This is actually its own parcel.

Meaning each unit is conveyed as its own unit on its own parcel?

So there are two duplexes.

Yes.

And then there are two single units.

Yes.

So that's four and then six.

And are they intended to be rentals?

They right now are being rented, but they could be sold. But the requirement in the conditions of approval is that those duplexes have to stay together so they cannot be in the future split into condos.

Okay. And therefore conveyed separately in a sale. They have to be sold as a single unit.

As a pair. As a pair. So one could be owned and the other could be rented.

Okay. And the house in front is not, well, since the whole complex is not a condo, the house in front isn't confined by any HOA or CCNR rules pertaining to its relationship to the other units?

There are, and there is an HOA for the subdivision itself, and there are CCNRs. for this project as a whole, but none of that explicitly states anything in regards to it being an affordable unit. In the map itself, it just identifies that that parcel is to be the affordable unit, but again, not at a specific level or any qualifier that it's supposed to be for sale or for rent.

And that front unit is part of that HOA?

Yes, it is.

And is the front unit

entirely independent structurally from the balance of the structure okay thank you thank you I sent my questions into you already so my questions are around the deed and in the language you have it's a minimum of 55 years the applicants narrative said that they would happily have it be permanent and so my question is around requesting a condition for approval that the deed be permanent into perpetuity as a moderate parcel for sale so that's one thing I'd like to ask and explore and along that way when the deed is written does the city have first right of refusal for that sale or first right to find another buyer

Typically, yes, we're going to build in that first right of refusal into the agreement that gets signed. And it allows us to then say, find an interested buyer nonprofit to represent us if we aren't interested ourselves or give them notice that we are not going to be purchasing it. As far as whether the applicant is willing to accept that condition for it to be in perpetuity, I would have them answer that question i just want to make sure because we're going to switch this off to show his face are there any other questions for me specifically before we have him a couple does any do anybody else have questions okay mine

dovetails in with Commissioner Dombach's in that I'm curious from a mechanical standpoint of our entitlements if that 55 years is from the date that it was initially entitled or if it restarts I mean I know we're just talking about it again it's usually based on

I was going to double check and I haven't had time to see what we've traditionally done, but typically a certificate of occupancy from that period on. So it wouldn't have been 2019. It's not, it's a proof.

It'd be much more recently, right? Yeah. Okay. And then if you can remind me how our inclusionary ordinance of 2019 differs, if, if at all from that, which is enforced today.

Oh, very different. So. Then it was just literally that text that I read you. Now today we have multiple categories, whether it's rental or if it's for sale, and then how those get applied to each unit. We also require it to be in perpetuity. We also state more aspects of where it needs to be on the property, how it should relate to the rest of the property.

okay so fair to say that the ordinance that was enforced at the time afforded much more discretion to developers and the Commission then what's enforcement now and or staff okay thank you we can one follow-up question from Commissioner Burnett

Having this fall into the MADA category still allows it to be counted in our RHNA number calculations, correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. I think in the interest of the applicant's time, we can move over to their comments.

Hi, Sean.

Hi, good evening. Hi, how are you? Thank you so much for your time.

So, did you hear the question from commissioner?

I did absolutely. So, yeah, I have no problem. Absolutely. The unit is permanently affordable to the end of the recorded agreement and I'm fully committed to that remaining. Permanently affordable as far as sale home, I'm not asking the city to give up that affordability. I'm just asking to change the form of it from rental to ownership.

okay so just so i'm clear um that you're you are okay if the deed reads into perpetuity for a moderate 100 thank you very much absolutely thank you that's very helpful of course sir did you have a presentation or any prepared comments tonight or were you simply present to answer any questions that the commission might have

Yeah, mostly just to answer questions. The only thing I would state is that the conditions of the project approval from December 2019 never specified the affordability level and neither did the staff report. So, the low income designation only appeared on the recorded agreement itself and beyond that. The low income for sale units are generally more difficult to make work because that's here, the maximum price is around 227,000 and a household that low income limits in Sonoma County often can't qualify for that mortgage once you account for like the down payment, closing costs and lending standards. So the moderate income is the standard tier for BMR ownership, precisely because it's the level of ownership is actually achievable. So it produces a home that sells to real qualified family rather than just sitting in limbo. And on top of that, I did also provide $80,000 that went into affordable housing fund for this specific unit as well at the time of the agreement. So I'm hoping to obviously set this at that level to get somebody that can utilize this situation as a moderate level.

Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Burnett. Good evening. Good evening. I remember when this project came before us. It was a very unique project.

I barely remember. It was a long time ago.

As you get older, these things get imprinted in your mind. My basic question is, are you happy with the way it's all turned out?

I'm really grateful that it's over. It was quite a challenge and it took almost eight years in total. I mean, it was, we went through the wringer, but we stuck with it and I'm really happy with the outcome and the way it turned out. And it's a really special project and I am grateful that we went through it and we didn't give up on it. But there was, it was, I mean, you know, to be quite honest, it was very, very challenging.

Well, I understand that. How's the relationship with the neighbor that you're now sharing access to the property with? They seemed enthusiastic about the idea of flipping the orientation of the project so that the egress could be shared. Are they still on board?

So now they are. I think obviously, again, we went through some challenges during the time because it just took so long and having to deal with construction right next to you is not the easiest thing. But now that it's done, I think they're happy with it. And, you know, obviously they have access now. So it's giving them more freedom and accessibility to their property as well.

Okay. It's just, you know, to me it's worthwhile sometimes to evaluate the, what I'll refer to as the completion or the after effects of the project. So often, you know, the planning commission gets involved at the very beginning of the approval process. Yeah. And we never have a closure on how everybody feels about what ended up getting built. Sure. And whether it works. So my questions are basically to try to get a sense of closure on this project because it really was an interesting project that came with challenges but you as an applicant and the architect were flexible and the neighbor was flexible and in its own way, our neighbor's here, in its own way it was, I hope we'll hear what the neighbor has to say, I hope it was something that has left everyone feeling positive. Thank you.

Yeah, I hope at the end they're happy with it. Like I said, there were some challenges in the process because the process took so long, but I tried to communicate with them throughout the process. And Bruce was really amazing and helpful. And I haven't talked to him since the project is finished, but I haven't heard from him. So I'm hoping he's okay with it.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant from the Commission?

Okay.

I'm the neighbor and I would like to talk and find some you wanted some closure yes sir I will absolutely hang on just hang on just a minute just procedurally we're gonna have to close this session section and then I'll open up public comment you absolutely get time to thank you yeah I'll let you know thank you I'd like to understand the motivation behind this change it feels a little bait and switch to me and I'd like to understand

what the nature is because once it's sold, it's no longer a rental property. So can you tell me what the motivation was and why you decided to make this change?

Sure. So two reasons. The first, I'm actually relocating overseas this fall to Madrid, and it's going to be very hard, obviously, as a rental. And I don't believe like a single deed restricted rental managed long distance is going to be suitable. And then having an owner occupied will be a far better long term steward for the home. And secondly, converting the for sale transit from an affordable rental to a permanent affordable homeownership opportunity. So It lets the moderate income family or whoever owns it, have a home in Sonoma and build equity, which is exactly what the city is being more ownership program is essentially designed to do.

But the remaining units will all still stay in the rental pool and you have a property manager for those.

Correct. Yes. All those are for rental.

Okay.

And we do have a property manager for those. Correct.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Sure.

OK, any other commission questions of the applicant? OK. And with that, we will open public comment. So any member of the public present wishing to address a commission on this matter can come forward. State your name, please, sir.

Hello, my name is Bruce Faust, F-A-U-S-S. I am the property manager of 1221 Broadway. I have three things I'm kind of concerned with that were passed by you guys. There's no place for the garbage to go in that front little place. If they use it as a rental, as a shared rental, I think in the very far back is a place for their garbage, but then they would be trespassing, I think, on the other residents or the other addresses. Yeah, I do share the driveway. Currently, apparently, when my tenants aren't looking, the tenants over there throw their garbage in my garbage, and they're not happy with that. I'm not happy with the project, the pavement that you approved, the plastic pro pavers that go down for a gravel driveway. gravel driveway there for 100 years, and it was fine. But now I have a gravel driveway with some plastic round things coming up through it. I just looked at it today, took some pictures, and not happy with that, and not happy with the lighting that you folks approved. The neighbors on Marcy Corridor, I'm surprised they're not here. My tenants have a zero light blind for their bedroom, and the light goes through their blinds. It's a gloss white paint, and then they have a bright LED light in the middle of the night, and tenants don't like it. The people on Marcy Court don't like it. So those are the three things that I have concern with that you folks approved.

Great. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments. Okay. Any additional questions of staff or the applicant from the commission? Okay. Let me see if I do director Gates. The conditions as written would require owner occupation. Am I correct? If this were to be approved as written. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Any commissioner comments? OK. Is there a motion?

I would make a motion to approve the use for it for the establishment. Well, I'm on the wrong one. approve the modification of the conditions for approval of the Bijon to allow sale of an affordable unit to a moderate household located on 2012-03 Broadway with added conditions of approval that it's deeded as moderate into perpetuity.

Second.

Can we address that garbage issue? You said it still remains part of the HOA. will their garbage still be behind the other units?

Yes, I can work with the property manager. So in the very back of the property was the identified location for all the trash bins when not pulled to the curb. So we can work on that, and we can go and see how that driveway is holding up.

now that there's a lot more usage. And is it possible to make sure that the lighting is within code? Yes. Okay, great. All right. Thank you. With those amendments, then, I'm good, too.

Okay. Can we have a roll call, please?

Yes. Commissioner Willers?

Yes.

Commissioner Barnett?

Aye.

Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. And Chair Weyrich? Aye. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

OK, great. Thank you, everyone. Item 4.1 is closed. Moving on to item 4.2, discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a use permit for the establishment of a formula business within the historic and plaza retail overlay districts at 452 First Street East. This is our staff report. Jacob.

Absolutely. Good evening, commissioners. Jacob Dunn, associate planner. So we will be discussing a use permit for the establishment of a new formula business that is located in the historic and plaza retail overlay districts. This project is located at 452 First Street East, Suite A in the complex that's known as the Mercado. The general plan land use and zoning for this property is commercial, and the site area for the suite itself is 2,000 square feet. So this project proposes the establishment of a new formal business for the company called Overland Sheepskin Co., Overland Sheepskin Company. The business is in addition to 22 other stores that they have located nationally. There will be no expansion of the actual building or the footprint or any exterior alterations to the building. The interior improvements will include new fixtures for the merchandise, some lighting updates, and then new ADA accessibility improvements. And this kind of is a floor plan showing a little bit of that upgrade for the merchandise and seating and things like that. Here's the front facade of the tenant space for Overland. In accordance with the use permit findings, the proposed project is going to be preserving the historic building and promoting ground floor retail and will generate pedestrian traffic. The use is consistent with the zoning district and it complies with the development standards given that there's no expansion of the building. And the proposed use is also compatible with the previous uses and the neighboring uses that are in the vicinity. The project involves only minor changes to the interior and isn't expected to impact the surrounding character of the plaza. So a couple other things is that the formula businesses require three additional findings to be made. And in accordance with those, the business project narrative has provided information about creating some diversity of commercial offerings that will complement the surrounding businesses and will add a mix of commercial uses that are located on the plaza. The project has been designed to remain compatible with the architectural character by not imposing stylistic changes that will impede on the current character. And the proposal is compatible with the existing uses surrounding it that will also provide additional opportunities for pedestrians and promote economic vitality of the plaza as a whole. So staff recommends planning commission approval of this use permit for the establishment of the formula business at 452 First Street East, Suite A, including the approval of the categorical exemption. The applicant is available to provide any further information about the application or just answer questions, whatever the commission would prefer. And staff is available to answer questions as well.

Excellent. Thank you, Associate Planner Dunn, for your Excellent presentation. With that, I will ask for the commission's disclosure of any ex parte communications with the applicant or any interested parties in this matter. Seeing none, Commissioner Willers.

I had very early communications with the applicant in a professional manner. They reached out to me from an architectural point of view.

okay excellent thank you before I invite the applicant to come forward are there any commissioners who have questions of staff what is our definition in our code we'll pull it up now

If you want to ask any other questions in the meantime, that may be. Thank you for that good suggestion.

Commissioner Barnett, ask your question.

In the material you presented, Jacob, I didn't see anything that indicates signage or identity treatment of the business on the front of the building can do we have any information about that yeah so I indicated that it will be done with an administrative use permit or administrative permit sign permit

There is a sign package that was provided, I believe it was in the project narrative, that indicates the change of signage to replace exactly like for like with the previous business, so which will only require administrative signage.

And what business has been in that location up until now?

Previously, it was an art gallery, that's correct.

Okay. I guess that part of the consideration of the formula store ordinance was preventing formula store corporate signage. That definitely is not in keeping with the historic character of the plaza. And so is it possible to pull up in the project narrative any indication of what the signage is? Because my only concern would be that there's, for lack of a better description, a sort of generic corporate look that gets imposed on the frontage of this building. And before I feel comfortable approving this change of use, I'd like to see what that looks like.

Yeah, I can show the project narrative just to pull up the sign. Okay, thank you. So to answer the question about formula businesses and what the definition of that is. So the way it's defined is that it includes all types of businesses. This includes auto parts sales, building material stores, furniture, and other general retail stores. But specifically for a store that has substantial, sorry, is substantially identical to 10 or more other businesses in the United States, regardless of ownership or location at the time of application.

Okay, so 10 is the number.

10 is the number. And then this business itself would qualify as a formula business small, which isn't super applicable to the code, but it's for a formula business that occupies less than 10,000 square feet. Okay. All right, thank you.

That's what I needed.

Okay.

Another question? I had it, but it was fleeting. I think at this point, are there any other questions from the commission? Okay. I would like to invite the applicant to come forward and introduce himself and make any comments that he wishes.

Good evening. My name is Cody Phipps.

Welcome, Cody. Thank you for coming.

P-H-I-P-P-S. Happy to be here. Answer any questions you have.

Commissioner Dallback.

Yeah, thank you for coming. One moment. Larry, do you want to look at this before?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, so here's the signed package that has been provided.

Can you scroll down?

Can you scroll down a little bit and enlarge that image or not?

Yep. There you go. Thank you.

That's perfect.

I assume the past door will go away and that won't be there anymore.

Yeah, that will be removed. Well, commissioner Barnett is consuming. I've consumed it. Thank you. I have a question.

I actually have a question. Yeah, I was waiting. I'm curious of your thought process in deciding to come to the town of Sonoma.

So we look at a lot of things. And if you look at our profile, tourism is a big part of it. And Sonoma's tourism is second to almost none. So when we looked at our owner's wishes, he has a wish list of cities that he loves, and Sonoma's one of them. came here with his family. He's come here often. And so when this opportunity came up, we jumped right on it. We didn't think we were going to get this far, being as it's such a competitive market here, especially on the plaza. But we worked with the right realtor who got us in front of an owner who loves our product. And that's what set us here today.

Thank you.

Commissioner O'Neill.

You have a store in Napa on First Street. We do. And that's so close. I mean, I can drive to both of yours really fast. Is there going to be any issue with cannibalism?

no i don't think so we don't see napa and sonoma as the same i was in napa today um don't you know how to speak to this commission neither do i they're not the same i i spent a lot of time on the plaza today a lot and the atmosphere of this plaza compared to napa is not even in the same ballpark The customers that come here likely aren't going to Napa, and likewise, and so we want to hit this demographic here of the customers that come to Sonoma.

That's the right man for the job. Commissioner Burnett.

I'm not familiar with your store. You will be. I understand. From what I gather, you sell sheepskin products.

So we are a luxury sheepskin and leather apparel company.

So coats, gloves, slippers, and hats.

We have shirts, we have hats, we have belts, we have wallets, we have handbags, we have boots, we have shoes.

So you're an apparel company, really not just sheepskin.

Correct.

I see. Okay. And you do realize it rarely drops below 32 degrees.

That's okay with us. We find that our customers, tourism especially, come from all over the world. And so when they come to Sonoma from different parts of the world, different parts of the country, they visit our store, they fall in love with something, and we ship it to their house.

Okay. Well, and I appreciate that fact. One of the other truths about Sonoma is that The loyalty of the locals forms an important base level of business income. In other words, I lived here 36 years. I can't tell you how many stores have come and gone because they did not get the loyalty of the locals because it was too far afield from their area of interest or consumption.

Our product's world class. It's second to none. And customers that live in Sonoma, locals, they don't spend their whole time here. They may go to Colorado. They may go to Alaska. And they're going to come to our store and shop our product when they want to go somewhere cold.

OK. Good luck. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Cody, if you might just indulge me for a moment and just describe your company, how many locations you have and maybe where other retail locations are located.

Sure, sure. So our company, I've been there almost five years. It's the best decision I ever made to work for this company. It's family owned. The owner of the company and his wife still run it every day. He runs across the floor. He rings a bell when we hit a sales goal. It's that kind of company. Great company to work for. The 22 locations we have are all tourist destinations, heavily concentrated in Colorado. That's kind of been our sweet spot. We started in Taos, New Mexico in 1973. It was the owner's brother, actually, hand-sewing sheepskin coats in Taos, New Mexico. The mother and father, he started to take off. He needed help. The mother and father came to help him. And then the brother and sister also came on as they started getting more and more business. They were making catalogs back when catalogs was a thing in the 80s, mailing catalogs. The running joke was they were putting pictures of coats in the catalog that they hadn't made yet, and they just knew they could make it. So taking phone orders, this is well before the internet, taking phone orders. And then in the 80s, they moved to a small town called Fairfield, Iowa. That's where we are today. We have this beautiful Amish-built building. It's a town of 10,000 people. Beautiful Amish-built building that's our headquarters. We're warehoused out of there, so we have a warehouse that ships e-comm product across the world. And that's kind of where we are. We will always be in Fairfield. We'll never leave. That's where our headquarters will stay forever. We love the town. We love the small town. We recently, in the past couple of years, have opened a couple of other stores. So we've hit markets like Saratoga Springs, New York, Lake Placid, New York. We just opened last year in Traverse City, Michigan. So tourism is really what drives us. We love that ever-changing customer base, the new people, but we also support the local communities. So our team here, if we establish a home base here, our team will be engaged locally. So they'll engage with the commerce, they will engage with... The local businesses around, they are locals themselves. So even though the business is in Iowa and that's the headquarters, the team here is local and they'll be here and they'll be supporting the local business.

Great, thank you. Just two quick follow-up questions. How many locations do you have and what are some of your other wish list cities?

We have 22 today. Wish list cities, Vail, Colorado is one of them. And if I'm honest, it opens tomorrow. We landed that one after a decade of trying to get into Vail. We have finally made it. Some of the other cities we have on our list that we're looking to is Greenwich, Connecticut. We're looking at, what's the other one? There's a list of about 25 cities. And they're all over, all cold weather. This one's unique. It is unique in a sense. But we've proven that with other California stores. We have a store in Truckee. We have a store in obviously Napa. But this market fits different for us.

How is the Napa store doing?

It's doing very well. Very well. We expect this one to do better. The numbers say that this one should do better.

Great. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions of the applicant before we allow him to step down?

No, thank you, guys. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much. At this point, we will open public comment. If any members of the public in attendance tonight wish to address the commission on this item, now would be the time. Seeing none, I will close public comment and bring it back to the commission for commissioner comments.

Thank you. Well, I know your product. And I really appreciate that it's still family run. And I went through and I researched the history of your product. And for this town, given our small population of 10,000 people, our economic base is important. And we do want to support small businesses. the mixture of having a family-run business that's maybe medium-sized but has the economic sustainability of your business model, I think if you do become a component of this community, which we would love, I think that it would be a great addition.

Great. Thank you. Any other commissioner comments? Commissioner O'Neill.

I might admit to owning a few pieces, and sheepskin can be worn in Sonoma in the winter, believe me, and I'm excited. I think that this is going to be a really cool opportunity. Yeah, it's for tourists, but I go on the one in Napa all the time, and I'm not a tourist, so I think it will get some local attention as well.

Anybody else?

Nice to meet you, Cody, face to face.

And for Commissioner Barnett, if you were to have researched the other locations of this company, while the branding is similar, the method for each building and the way they apply that branding is individual to the community. That was one of the elements that was appealing during the process of discussing their future store.

okay I will just say that Cody I've appreciated what you've had to say tonight and it's evident that you stand behind your employer our mission and we look forward to your engagement in the community and wish you luck and that's all I have to say what's the expected opening day

Can I answer again? Can we shop for Christmas?

So if everything goes through, we do have a lease. It is a lease, not a purchase. So we will be leasing the space. And we take possession effectively on September 1. And then my job is to help transition that into one of our beautiful stores, which takes about six to eight weeks. So we're looking mid-November we could be open.

Excellent.

Definitely before Thanksgiving.

Thank you very much. With those comments, I would ask for a motion. Do we have a motion?

All right. I'll go again. Motion to approve a use permit for the establishment of a formula business within the historic and plaza retail overlay districts at 452 First Street, East Suite A.

Second. All right. Can we get a roll call, please?

Yes. Commissioner Willers?

Yes.

Commissioner Barnett?

Aye.

Commissioner Dombach?

Yes.

Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. Chair Weyrich?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

Great. Congratulations. Thank you very much.

You guys are a lot more intimidating on the videos I've watched. I watched a lot of them.

Which meeting did you watch?

A lot of them.

OK. Well, I appreciate you having done your research. And you're welcome to stay for the rest of tonight's calendar, but it's not incumbent upon you to do so. Who is the most intimidating at the meetings?

You don't have to answer.

If I'm honest, I was most nervous about you, Mr. Biden.

All right. Well, thank you, guys. I appreciate it. Thank you. Have a good evening.

Your reputation precedes you.

All right. With that, we will close item 4.2 of tonight's public hearing and move on to item 4.3, discussion, consideration, and possible adoption of a resolution recommending City Council adopt two ordinances amending the Sonoma Municipal Code to allow for the payment of in lieu fees for trees and public art. If I could get a staff report, please.

All right. Last item of the night. So as part of our recent comprehensive fee study update, the city had requested information on potential in lieu fees. And in lieu fee is what provides the developer or the applicant the option to mitigate the impact themselves by doing something on site or pay the city an in lieu fee for that impact. The city of Sonoma, based on its municipal code, has the authority to charge in lieu fees for parking, trees, and public art for public projects. At the June 3rd council meeting, the impact fees and the in lieu fees were, sorry, in lieu fees were adopted for parking, trees, and public art, which triggered our need to amend the municipal code. So just to kick it off, we're gonna start with trees. So currently, we have a section of the code in Title 12 that addresses for construction projects or development projects. It'll specify that we have a replacement ratio and how that gets measured. Currently, in that municipal code, it specifically states $100. We adopted an in lieu fee of $700. So our proposed modification, is going to allow the application of an in lieu fee for all tree replacements not just within a development project because we're finding that when somebody is asking for a tree removal permit based on like sidewalk issues or maybe it's too close to their home and it's impacting their foundation there's not always a good place to plant that tree on their site And so this would provide them that opportunity. They already know what that fee would be. That would pay the $700. And that cost was determined by what the cost would be to install a new tree. The actual replacement ratio was also only located in the development section. So now we've pulled that whole section out, put it within the general overall trees chapter. so that it would again apply to all tree removals. And then we completely removed any reference to an exact dollar amount so that we don't have to change the ordinance every time we change the number. So those are the summary of the changes that we made to the trees. All right, next one is art. So we currently in Title 19 have a section in regards to It's called the Public Art Fund. We are requiring that all public projects with a total valuation of $250,000 dedicate 1% to public art with no cap. Only portions of the cost paid from the general fund would apply. So if the city had public funds or had a public project that was federally funded, any of that money would count towards that contribution. determination for public art It also identified other means for the City Council to fund the art fund We recently in that June meeting adopted in lieu for a hundred for the one percent of the project valuation to also include commercial and or multifamily development of five units or more and Again, projects valued over $250,000 with no cap. So very similar to the public projects, but in this case it would apply to commercial projects as well as the larger multifamily developments. The value of that art can be spent on the art installed on site. It just needs to be visible from the public right of way. It would not give a means by which the public would have access to private property. So with that adoption, we needed to make the code allow for it. So when staff reviewed this section, I understood why, in a sense, it was in our Title 19. I call it ours because that's technically our development code or zoning code. Um, but it was related to public, um, public projects really only didn't really talk about development as a whole. Um, and it also identified other funding aspects, which seemed out of place, um, in title 19. So staff is recommending that we repeal the entire chapter 19.51 and replace it with a new one where it's very specific to requiring public art for the new construction, remodeling, repair of commercial and or multifamily buildings. Again, $250,000 project valuation, and it would be 1% of that value. Or they pay the fee. In that review of that ordinance, I also looked at other ordinances and the The city of Napa had a good list of proposed exemptions from that. When it was first discussed with city council, when it was adopted, when we brought it forward, it was mostly about nonprofits that may own it or build something. They don't typically have a lot of extra funds to pay for something like that. also 100 affordable units we want to not disincentivize the production of affordable units but in looking at that other list from napa we also don't want to disincentivize people from repairing their buildings a good example of that there was a fee that was going to be imposed on the burn building the for the napa auto parts after that fire that that was the delay in being able to repair that building quickly was these additional costs that were about to be applied to that repair work by the city and so wanted to provide some other exemptions in which we weren't imposing an additional impact these are all for consideration tonight city council has not looked at any of these except for the nonprofit and the affordable unit. So your recommendation would be what would be presented to city council, um, for any exemptions. Again, what was presented originally was a hundred percent affordable project, but, um, there could be an application where you apply it to any affordable units. So let's say 10% of the project square footage was for affordable. That can be deducted from that total project valuation. And so you're basically deducting any kind of affordable units from the total. And maybe that would incentivize more affordable.

I don't know.

So that is also part of that consideration before you tonight. The other is the art in lieu fee section that we originally had, moving it over to a new chapter called the Public Art Fund, and it will be in Title III, which is actually specific to revenue and finance. This felt more appropriate to me, but For you guys, that's up to you. We can keep it in Title 19, we can keep them separate, or we can join them together. I did see examples of where it was together, but in a different section, like in the building and construction titles, that's an option. Um, we don't have a very general title. So what I mean is we'll go, we have titles and then chapters and sections. So we don't have a title that is more in general or are encompassing a lot of different contexts. Um, so these were the two sections that I had alternatively are going to suggest. So title 14 is our construction title. So we could combine it, put it there or keep it as we. proposed it to you tonight, which is two separate titles. Title 19 focused on having to provide art with development, and then Title 3 with just in relation to the art fund and how that fund is actually funded. So for amendments to Title 19, the Planning Commission does need to make findings. So the proposed amendment would be consistent with both policy 5.9 to promote public art and specifically policy 5.9.1, which establishes a public art ordinance. And that is within our community development element of our general plan. And it's also consistent with other goals and policies and actions that have been adopted for public art within the city. The proposed amendments further the promotion of public art, which is a public interest. and contributes to our public welfare. The ordinance does comply with CEQA and it is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this development code and components of the municipal code. The other component of this will be a policy document that David Janz is working with the Fine Arts Commission to develop and that would be for the actual implementation. So the Cultural Fine Arts Commission is commission that will be responsible for the actual art, where it's placed, as well as if that in lieu fee is paid, how those funds would be allocated for public art in the future. So that policy is being developed and will be presented to the Cultural and Foreign Arts Commission before being presented to city council. So the recommendation is to adopt two different ordinances. There is a resolution, one resolution, two ordinance exhibits, and that both of these ordinances are exempt from CEQA. So that concludes staff's presentation and I'm available to answer your questions.

Thank you, Director Gates. Commissioner Burnett has signaled that he has a question.

I guess it may be. This will be resolved in the discussions that happen between the Arts Commission and staff. But I'm concerned about what I will put under the category of valuation. The value of a piece of art is subjective. I mean, a price can be set by the artist or a price can be set by the market. Obviously, if you're talking about a Picasso, you're talking about a price set by the market. If you're talking about an original piece of art, for example, the city really recently was given a gift by Peter Hasson of a sculpture. The value of that sculpture was established by Peter Hasson. I don't think he is an artist of such renown that there is a market established price for him, but I may be wrong. He may have achieved that level of recognition. so am I correct in assuming that this question of valuation what is the right price or value associated with a piece of art is going to be part of the discussion that takes place with the Commission and staff so yes the policy is going to identify how that value would be confirmed okay and so it may be receipts of sale

things like that that would confirm that that amount that they are required to expend was expended on that art.

Okay. My second question has to do with the reality of, when it comes to the public art portion, actually referring to it as an enloufee. Is there an example in the city of a project in which the developer actually installed public art?

their expense I it has not been a requirement so I'm not sure everybody's looking at me but I off the top of my head no my one of the jurisdictions that I worked in this was a requirement in our jurisdiction the commercial property properties did put install art in some cases it may have been a fountain with a piece of art like a bronze statue it Most of the time it ended up being an actual payment of fee, and then the city itself procured art, whether that was a temporary art show or a new mural, those types of things.

But if I understand the language that's being proposed, we are going to require either the installation of art or the payment of the in lieu fee. I'm just wondering, I mean, I guess that's okay. I am, once again, it raises this issue of valuation if the developer decides to install the art themselves because they could say, oh, you know, this is worth $25,000 and how do we, How do we validate these valuations, to me, is a question that has to be resolved. Or I can see a lot of games being played. And so those are my two concerns. Thank you. Any other questions?

Commissioner Dalbeck. Of course I have questions. My questions are related to the tree ordinance. So first of all, Just for clarification, the $700 new fee, is that per tree? Or is that one fee for X number of trees? Per tree. Okay. The second question is, does this apply to backyards or just front yards public facing?

Currently, when we are discussing tree replacement permits, it's going to be in your front yard setback.

Mm-hmm.

and or the public right-of-way require a tree replacement or a tree permit tree removal permit or if you're doing a new development project we require you to provide an arborist report and with that arborist report identify all the trees that are going to be removed and this is the section that we have currently a hundred dollar payment so if they aren't able to produce So some of our trees are going to be larger, right? And so the replacement factor is going to be more than a one-to-one. And so in those cases, with the development itself, it's potentially not possible to provide all the trees on site. So right now, we're just getting $100 a tree. And I don't know if you've tried to buy a tree for $100 and water it and plant it and So that's why the fee went up.

Okay. I just would suggest that it's made clear in the actual language.

It is in the entirety of the ordinance. There's definitions of what basically a protected tree would be.

Not the protected tree, that it's $700 per tree. Because it says $100 per one-to-one and things like that.

Yeah, so the $100 is gone. The $700 per tree is in the actual fee.

Okay. And then my third question is, where do the tree in lieu fees go? Do they go to a special tree fund? They go to a tree fund. Okay. That's not apparent in the language. So is that in the language of the revised ordinance?

I'll double check, and we can add that kind of like what we have in the arts one.

Yeah. I mean, that was missing in the packet that we had, so.

Okay.

Yep.

And there are significant trees.

Commissioner O'Neill so I need some guidance on the tree in Luffy and I'm thinking specifically of the hillside and do you remember when those hillside houses were proposed that build Jasper houses up on Chalkin Hill and they were looking at taking all these trees out I'm wondering now first of all those trees that they were talking about taking out were significantly large trees Who gets to decide about the in lieu? Does the Planning Commission still get to decide whether or not that's even an option? Or is that something that a developer can say, I'm just going to pay the in lieu fees?

So it is a developer choice about payment versus on-site. Okay. There, I mean... Because we really, Planning Commission doesn't really have purview over the landscaping. And so it kind of comes into play in that way. The tree removal itself is just one of the things that you look at as part of it, but it's not actually a permit when I was looking at it specifically. In this case, it is for if you're removing your front one. The trying to think on that most we want trees and we are trying to promote planting the right tree right on these projects we've talked about and we've added some requirements around shade being added to parking lots so we're adding trees in that way um But we do want to make sure that there is an option that allows us to plant where more appropriate in some cases there may be. And this feeds a fund to do that.

My biggest concern is really the hillside houses. And the reason I'm thinking about those is because they're very visible from everywhere in Sonoma. And the developer's going to want to enhance their view by having all the trees eliminated. I mean, originally their proposal was like ripping out every tree that they could get off the hillside. What kind of protection do we have to make sure that our hillside is not blighted by the fact that they can just remove all these trees and pay a really nominal and low fee?

so in the review of a project you are looking at the project we don't get to look at that one because you don't get to look at that one but you but when you look at development projects yeah um So in general, cause we're not making special considerations for different places in general, you are looking at the project as a whole what's being proposed. You're looking, we are requiring the landscape for these new development projects. You are looking at every, every aspect of it. You do have the ability to provide conditions on your, on these projects, conditions of approval and what they need to do. Um, in the conditions of approval for that project specifically, it's quoted. I quoted the entire section. You're correct right now. It's a hundred dollars per tree at that replacement ratio. It's not a one-to-one because some of the trees are bigger, right? So a final arborist report would need to be provided to determine what those sizes are. The other aspect of some of the areas, half of our town is now in a very high fire zone. So we are going to end up seeing this kind of competing aspect of wanting trees and fire hazard, uh, and requirements from the fire department that are going to be, um, basically it's canopy reach, um, and placement of trees cannot be a certain within a certain distance from a home because of fire. So that's a new component that was added to things that we have to think about now as of last year with these trees. And so that's the other reason why we wanted to make sure at least that we were getting funds to make more trees and put them in our parks or other places that we know that we can increase canopy in those areas without fear of fire.

requirements thank you I actually had a one follow-up listen to this so is is it possible to to provide it especially in situations where it's going to be ministerial so is it possible to provide some guidance for staff on examples of conditions that would allow an in-loot, for example. Because I can imagine, I hear what you're saying and it sounds reasonable, but I can imagine some people coming in and just, again, akin to just not wanting to plant any trees. around a property Versus someone coming in and saying as you did in the beginning, you know, it's too close to my foundation There's not enough place to walk. So I'm just curious if there is an opportunity to provide Guidance to make those decisions even if it comes in front of the Planning Commission. I mean, I know they'll get conversation about it So

couple years ago when we had all of our lovely tree discussions and we did the canopy studying tree now that that's done really hoping that parks would take up the flag and get started on their urban forestry but that kind of got diverted to the parks master plan right now all that energy with the urban forestry management plan and creating those priorities and goals for how we wanted to do that so that we could really focus on updating this ordinance. I mean, there could be a policy, but it needs to be objective, right? So everything that we do from here on out needs to have objective standards by which those are done. I am not an arborist by any means, and I don't understand roots for each tree, but I do know there's a difference. But that is a possibility, and I have seen it in an urban forestry management plan. What is that root boundary that you need, distance from homes and things like that? What's that canopy size that's gonna be at the end of, in its maturity? Because as we know, when we see these trees planted, Is that going to be anything? And how long is that going to take to be something? And I've seen standards around that aspect of it. I don't know if that's belonged in the ordinance itself. but it could be in a policy.

So if it's not in the ordinance, even in the art, can there be a reference to the tree policy or to the art policy in the code for direction, which doesn't?

So the art policy reference is in there because they already have one. They're going to be modifying an update with this information. The tree policy doesn't exist. This is the first time we're talking about it. It's something that we could bring back. The goal of this ordinance was really just to clean up those two aspects of it. I understand where that concern comes in as far as the determination of when something would apply. But, I mean, that's something that we could

create into a policy or if we can find a good example of one I mean I would just advocate for us at some point coming back whether it's the urban tree plan or a policy when that does exist or to advocate for that that we could then update them Commissioner

How was the $700 in lieu fee established?

So they took into consideration the time of a maintenance person here at the city to plant it, the cost of the tree, the 15-gallon box tree. And I can't remember, there was one other factor in there to determine that fee.

And in order to charge this fee, you have to have that study done? Yes. Yeah. So I think that's fine for new development in terms of there's no trees growing. There's nothing established. There's no value to the community of a tree. I think it's not right in the category of replacement of a tree of mature stature. The idea that a 36 inch, and the way that we establish that is 48 inches off the ground, breast height off the ground, how wide is the diameter of the tree, a 36 inch diameter mature tree value by this standard would be $4,300. And that tree obviously has way more value than $4,300. And six five gallon or 15 gallon trees, in my opinion, aren't equal in that value. So I think it's a different standard in terms of when a tree is removed. Obviously there's all kinds of reasons to remove, hazard, illness, infrastructure, there's all those reasons to do it, but my fear is that it becomes, in-lieu fees become an easy way out, and they're adopted by those who want, adopted in other words, utilized by those who don't want to do what in my opinion is the right thing. In the development, trees have value to the people who live there over time. It's easy to get rid of it and fill it up with concrete and live and maximize the number of units that you can get on a property by eliminating the need for area for trees to grow. And so to me, it's a really, I'm in support of the changes to the ordinance, but I think they need some more careful thought to them as well. The public art side, to me, The permit value, you know, $250,000, I'm sorry, but $250,000 is a kitchen, a bathroom, and your fire sprinklers. And so if we exclude the fire sprinklers, you've got a kitchen, a bathroom, and a little bit of paint, basically. And you've spent $250,000. And so $2,500, and I'm talking about multifamily housing, you know, not custom homes. You're quickly going to raise, let's use an example, a 25-unit multi-family house, multi-family project is going to come in with a cost of, I don't know how the permit valuation is achieved, but with a construction cost of probably in the neighborhood of about $20,000. $20 million, 18 to $20 million for those 25 units. And so that's 200 and let's just try to keep it simple, $250,000 for an art project that's going to be spread over the cost of each of those units in terms of their sale or rent. And so it's counterproductive to me to increase the cost of housing if we're trying to produce housing also. So affordable housing 100% definitely needs to be excluded. Affordable housing that's being paid for as inclusionary housing definitely needs to be excluded from the cost. And then all of those other little items that you mentioned that are in the exemptions, I completely support because it's just so simple to get to that $250 threshold or $250,000 threshold. With the idea that the incentive is that we want housing to be achievable here that's affordable just because we haven't added fees to it that, in my opinion, less expensive, you know, and I'm gonna take a lot of flack for this comment. In my opinion, the ability to build a housing unit that is less costly in our community has significant value, maybe even more than a public art installation because of what it means to our community over time. And I support the idea of public art. I value public art. But at the same time, fees, especially in the housing and residential, have direct impact on the cost of every single unit that comes into our community. And even the market rate units, they end up bearing the cost of the affordable units and inclusionary. So there's no way out of the game. We mandate affordability. It raises the price of the market rate units to the point where that cost just gets passed along, and then the median price of a house in our community goes up, and the cycle just continues. And so we just have to be careful. I guess that's my bottom line. We have to be careful about how we apply fees, how we reach, you know, how did $250,000, it's like our fire sprinkler ordinance. You know, our fire sprinkler ordinance, I get the idea behind it, is we try to create safe buildings, but you trigger having to put fire sprinklers in your house if you spend $150,000. Remodel your kitchen and your bathroom and you're sprinklering your house. Well, you know, at this point, There's a public benefit for it because the house is protected because we've defunded fire services through not taxing because of Prop 13, so the fees come into play because of that. Anyway, I just think we have to be careful. And the valuations, again, in the tree world, the value of a mature tree is not the value of multiple 15 gallon trees.

and um and permit valuation i don't know if that's different than construction valuation is it significantly or are we changing that too so we um with the adopted new fee schedule um permit valuation is associated with square footage and use type versus the actual cost associated so if you spend more you pay more kind of mentality so we're getting rid of that aspect where like the code requires you to maintain but it's the book value so so it's based on 175 dollars per square foot yeah it's based on the number of reviews and inspections on a project now okay

want to make sure that I don't want to stop the momentum of the great conversation but let's if we could finish our questions so that I can open public comment and then bring it back for discussion yes ma'am the question I have based on this discussion is if if a developer decided to bring in SP 330 could they have these in lieu fees waived if they do an SP 330 project right now before the ordinance is adopted then yes but once the ordinance is adopted this is a particular kind of fee this is an ordinance that would be in effect at the time that they would submit okay thank you okay does anybody have any questions before i open public comment so we can bring it back for discussion any other questions okay i'll open public comment at this point mr mackie if you'd like to come forward and address the commission on this item

I'm gratified I stayed for this portion. And I just wanted to add that regarding specifically the art in Luffy, I do think it makes a lot of sense to exempt 100% affordable housing projects. which isn't to say that residents in those properties don't deserve the benefits of public art. I just think that the cost is then borne by essentially the subsidy that's paying for that housing, so it doesn't quite make sense. I will point out, and I think I sympathize with some of the things that Commissioner Willer said, that the cost is born into these other projects. In San Francisco, for instance, the threshold for these types of programs is something like 25,000 square foot projects and up. And so $250,000 is a quite low threshold. I know it's similar in places like Napa. But one thing the commission might consider is raising that threshold to something like, let's say, $2 million in new construction. So we would target either luxury developments or commercial developments, which includes multifamily homes. So I think that might be something you would consider. The other exemptions make sense. add the caveat that Removing the inclusionary housing units from a multifamily property does essentially remove 20% to 25% of the fee collected across most of these larger multifamily apartments. And so I think I would be in favor of maintaining the exclusion for 100% affordable housing units, but not having an exclusion for just the percent of affordable housing units in a larger project. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no other members of the public wishing to address the commission, I will close public comment and bring it back to the commission for commissioner comments. Commissioner Barnett.

Okay. Yeah, this has been very interesting, and as usual, Commissioner Willers has brought up some provocative and thought-provoking ideas. I'll just... As an aside, mention that the installation of fire sprinklers is not to save a house. It's to save lives. That's all. The sprinkler systems do not douse fires. I know what they do. Yeah, so I think the issue on trees pertaining to what's the practical reality of one-to-one replacement of a significant tree of a large diameter needs more scrutiny. $700 is a pittance compared to the value of a tree with an 18 or 24 inch diameter. And I don't even think, I think the bigger issue is it's not possible to even bring in a tree of comparable diameter because they don't grow trees in boxes that big. I mean, the only tree category that comes in in that size remotely are palms, various types of palms. A Phoenix canariensis can come in in a very large box and be of that diameter. But oak trees or trees that are 100 years old or 200 years old that have grown to that size, they're not replaceable and so I think it's an impractical at this point value and we have to put more thought into what the appropriate value is of a significant tree and we're gonna have to define significant tree in order to appropriately compensate a neighborhood or the community as a whole for the removal of a significant tree for no good reason other than I don't want it here anymore. It makes me worry. I mean there's a lot of people who are anxious about living with big trees. And I understand that anxiety and the insurance companies aren't making it any easier. They're really forcing the removal of trees, so big trees. And proximity to structures and distance from structures and all of that have become big issues. But I do think the price of $700 is completely impractical when it comes to a really significant tree. As to the public art issues, I've already raised the couple of concerns I had. I think that the point that Commissioner Willers makes about the impact on housing in general of additional fees have to be looked at in light of all the other fees that now apply to home construction. And I think taking this single fee and treating it in isolation probably does a disservice to consideration of the issue. I think it would be worthwhile, and I can't recall this information coming specifically before this commission, but I would be curious to know what the fee portion of the cost of a new home of call it 2,000 square feet actually turns out to be as a percentage of the cost. I have no idea. I mean, when I talk about the fees, I'm not just talking about the fees that the city charges as part of its development fee structure, but also the property tax increments that get triggered, the school component of the property tax, sanitation district, hospital, all these things that get treated in isolation. end up just aggregating into a bigger number for whoever it is who wants to build a home. And I would be curious as to see what the actual percentage of the total fee-related type of expenses are for building a home. Maybe it's a higher or a lower percentage than I imagine. I just don't know what it is. That would be helpful to me just in general, and I think helpful to the community to understand the housing dynamic. I have been trying to explain to people recently, because there's a number of housing projects that are being talked about in town. We heard some neighbors come today to talk about one briefly. There's a lot of assumptions that are made about what the effect of housing is. And some of them, from my point of view, may be germane, and others of them are not. And the state, as I've said many times before, has removed so much discretionary power from us as a jurisdiction in terms of what we can and can't approve, depending on the nature of the application and what it's applied under, that a lot of the decision making we used to have, we don't have at all anymore. I think that's unfortunate, but I think to whatever extent we can clarify the reality of, for example, what is the effect of X number of houses on traffic? There's a lot of people here tonight, we build more houses, just think of all the new traffic. Well, I don't know if that's just anecdotal inference on people's part. I don't know if building 50 houses makes a material contribution to street traffic. It makes some contribution, but it may not be material. And I think we need a broader discussion about some of the issues in terms of housing that have a material impact. And the fees that we're talking about tonight may or may not have a material impact. But I would like to see a fuller discussion of that to just get a sense of getting my arms around the topic. Because I get asked a lot of questions, and I don't have a lot of answers.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Commissioner Dalbert. Yeah, thank you. A few comments. First, the tree ordinance. love trees and I would like to see as many trees as possible just for a lot of the environmental and health benefits but I understand the quandary of how do you put value on an older tree and I also understand we have to be objective in how we designate the value so in thinking out of the box I know we're not going to do it for this ordinance but there can be value ascribed to size terms of shade cover in terms of carbon you know carbon dioxide or oxygen you know production I think the thing that's unfortunately subjective is just the value of an old creature and and and removing that so I just want to echo that I Dave Kuntz, would ask that, in addition to just trunk diameter, there may be other ways that we can value a significant tree and maybe there's an opportunity, I would advocate for a tree policy or even if it's in the urban. Tree plan forestry plan that we take that into consideration can reference back to it So there an underground there are fungal networks that are actually very important So there's a lot of science around value that we can attribute objectively to the value of significant trees So that's the comment on trees With regard to the fees, as you know, of course, this is always the tension that we have as a small community. The only way we can really raise income is through taxation or fees, unless we can figure out how to create, you know, an economy that the government can take part in, like venues and things like that. So I do think we have to find a balance. to consider how we might be competitive with the fees with other municipalities and on par with those, as well as being able to fund things that we need for the city. And yes, it's expensive to build commercial units, but one of the things that towns suffer from is they can't generate enough money to sustain their infrastructure. So we have to do it somehow. And so I think this fee structure is reasonable. I support no fees on 100% affordable housing to incentivize affordable housing. I like the comment that if we want to try to mitigate some fees, we maybe put a baseline on the permit size. I think that's a reasonable idea. So, again, just trying to find that balance between certainly incentivizing affordable housing, but also balancing revenue versus home building.

Mr. O'Neill? I am not in favor of in lieu fees for art. I think that art is so subjective that it's not a good idea for us to force art. We might end up with art we don't like. So I don't like the idea of us forcing art on a project, that it has to be 1%. I see that that's the recommendation in there, but I'm just not in favor of that on any level. Definitely not on the affordable housing. I don't think we should do it on any commercial project. Let them make their own decisions as a developer of a commercial building. what's going to attract their tenants or work for them. So I don't like that at all. I think it's unnecessary for us to force art to be included. On the trees, I have a very different perspective. And for me, it's a lot about the replacement of trees. Probably about 8 or 10 years ago, I wheeled a 15-gallon tree into this room. Do you remember that, Commissioner Wellers? And that was with regards to the hillside projects. The fact that you can fill a 15-gallon tree is quite small. I was able to bring it in here. I bought it down the street. I planted it in my house. And now it grows apricots. And it's not very big. So the fact that we can replace 6-inch diameter with a 15-gallon tree And it takes years and years for those to grow to be even block any kind of vision. So I think we need to be even more restrictive actually on the tree replacement. I think the $700 is so much better than the $100. That's a seven times improvement. So that's really good. But I'd like us to keep looking at that and seeing what we can do to make it less about a convenience for somebody to not want trees so that we can't make sure that we have trees on the property. I think that this isn't going to stop what we're doing today, but it's something I think we need to continue, particularly in visible properties. Hillside is a big area, but any other visible properties, I think we want to really encourage that the trees get replaced with something that's going to provide the same eventual level of tree coverage. And so there's my dichotomy. I'm not in favor of forcing art, but I'm definitely in favor of keeping trees and keeping the expense as high as possible.

Okay, thank you. I feel a lot of thoughts. I think my 30,000 foot observation is that we have, in our effort to do a good job and to have a great sense of place in our city, we have all these policies that end up competing with one another. And this is not the least of which that is evident. I'll start with trees. I'm a tree guy. I very much join Commissioners Dombach and O'Neill in their comments. I'm comfortable with approving this new ordinance as it reads. I think it's a starting point, but I think there's a larger conversation to be had. I think I'm going to focus most of my comments on the in lieu art component. I think I'll join Commissioner O'Neill in saying that I don't know that While I understand that there's a general value in art and in public art, I don't know if there's a value in compelling the placement of what I would call token art. And I think, in fact, it stifles or it gets in the way of a larger policy direction that we've established that we have in this community, and that's creating housing. It's creating housing that's affordable. If there is an appetite for compelling art through this ordinance, I would most definitely be in favor of a 100% exemption. For affordable development, I would be in favor of exempting affordable units from a valuation perspective, in addition to all the other existing exemptions that have been proposed here. I think the most compelling argument is that every dollar not spent on public art can instead support the production of the housing that we need. As we know, affordable housing projects operate within narrow financial margins anyway, and requiring a public art contribution on an affordable unit effectively decreases excuse me, increases development costs and reduce the number of affordable units actually built, can increase the subsidy required from public sources. They can make projects less financially feasible. And I think an exemption recognizes that affordable housing in itself is a significant public benefit that maybe outweighs ARC. My other thoughts. As far as exempting individual affordable units from valuation, I think it avoids penalizing mixed income development. So a mixed income development that voluntarily exceeds the city's affordability requirements could otherwise pay public fees on both market rate and affordable units. And so I think exempting affordable units rewards developers who include additional affordability rather than treating those units the same as market rate housing. And in my mind, that creates a more proportional system for recognizing that only the market rate portion generates that fee. I think those are my thoughts. Any other comments?

I have a closing, hopefully, cleanup here. So for me, as with Commissioner O'Neill and Dombach, I do think there is an appraisal system for mature trees. It exists in the world. Appraisals for mature trees are done all the time in terms of value to property, in terms of You tore it down off my property. You owe me in the lawsuit. So appraisals of mature trees are done. It's an objective standard. It's an objective just as it is in the real estate industry. And I do think that those tree values of mature trees need to be taken into consideration in our ordinance. I agree with the $700 raising of the development fee for new projects. if I would rather have the developers put the trees in. I think that the public art in lieu of fees should be taken out of any housing development period. I think there's a different argument to be made for commercial development. Primarily in our community, commercial development is tourist-based. tourism benefits from some draw from public art. But I do think that our overriding goals in the general plan currently are the production of more capital A, small a housing units. And anything we can do to keep those costs down is beneficial. Then I have another so you know as an example a five unit housing development is a shoestring development in sonoma it's operating on a very very small margin of return on income or return on investment and and one percent is a big deal It's the difference between 11% and 10% on a small project. It's a big deal. So I think, and this is a comment to take to the city council, I think that if they want to get public art fees out of multi-family housing it needs to have a threshold size i think we want to incentivize small unit development to just as the cinema collaborative is putting forward as a way of solving our housing issues at a scale relative to our community so we should be incentivizing smaller projects than larger ones and maybe that's one way to incentivize it But I think there needs to be a threshold at 20 units. That's a number I just pulled out of the air. But it shouldn't be five units or more. That's counterproductive to what we're trying to do. And then I do have a question. Commissioner Weirich, I believe, asked the SB 330 question. How about housing density bonus projects, where they get to take any exception that they want to our development code?

So in a density bonus project, you're correct. Anything that doesn't meet their doesn't meet their ability to provide that housing or that impacts the cost, they have the ability to remove that standard or that requirement. So let's say we said, you have to provide 100 trees on site, period. Yes, they could say, we're not going to do that. This fee structure is different. That's why when we do, they don't get out of a fee. They get out of standard or a development yeah so the fee itself now does anybody yes can go and request exceptions from City Council City Council always will have the ability to say no you don't have to pay that fee yes you can reduce that fee you don't have to pay building permit those are all options to any project that comes forward so even if we said you are required to do that art project and you owe us $25,000 for that art, yes, they can go to city council and say, can I not pay that? And that's a city council decision. So city council at this point has said, we want to do public art and we want to charge 1% at the $250,000. And they've also said the fee for the tree is $700 right now. Those are moving forward. What I'm trying to do is say, hey, I recognize that that can have an impact. Maybe these are some exceptions for their consideration. If that's no housing, that's the way NAPA was written. It doesn't have anything about housing. They actually said in the mixed use, only the commercial square footage would apply. so that is a possibility is that that is presented to them if that is what planning commission's recommendation is what i would present is both i would say planning commission's recommendation is this is the you know housing is not included if that's what the vote is and then if you did want to include housing this is what that would look like so and making sure that we put in the affordable units the cost of the, well, sorry, the square footage of those affordable units aren't being applied in that.

Commissioner Burnett.

Are we under any time constraints?

The fees go into effect on August 2nd.

Oh, so the answer to that question is yes.

It's a yes. So the fees are going to go into place. Right now, obviously, the ordinance itself does not state that we are charging fees for a development project. So that's the intent of that ordinance. The $700 is going to apply for only the development project. So if we want any opportunity, to charge a fee that's what was the goal of the ordinance the broadening of the ordinance okay so separate the two as well in the resolution we can have one resolution for just the tree ordinance make that separate and then have a separate or okay so if we we have to come to some closure on this question tonight

I was hoping we could put this off for further consideration but that's obviously not an option what I've heard in general is that there are concerns about valuation on the trees and significant trees and so forth but I haven't heard anyone say that the change from 100 to 700 is a bad thing So I would expect we would be able to approve that since that's in the fee schedule that's been proposed to go into effect on August 2. So OK, that's some clarity on that. What about the opportunity for the? specifically speaking about trees what about the opportunity for modification or alteration of the structure of that ordinance and the fees associated with it that can happen at any time as well in the future right that's correct and we you know as part of that recommendation could be the development of a policy as we were discussing earlier

and a consideration of that one-to-one ratio with the six inch diameter or other types of regulation around that so remember the between you and the pros commission your two commissions would have the say on the recommendation for those and then city council would have that final say okay So we would need to go between the two of you for a vote. MR. Right.

But an action tonight could be to essentially approve the changes in the tree in lieu fi, but also communicate to the council that further research and discussion about modification or alterations of these things to deal with a very specific sort of situation. is also one of our recommendations. And we could take that up as a commission. OK?

And then- TODD BANDUCCI- Do we want to take that as a separate issue first and make sure that there's consensus? TODD BANDUCCI- Yes. I think we ought to do this as two motions. TODD BANDUCCI- I think so, too.

TODD BANDUCCI- It'll make it simpler. So I would move, if it's the time. TODD BANDUCCI- Do we? OK. Go ahead. TODD BANDUCCI- I would move that we approve the We approve an ordinance specifically relating to in lieu fees for trees, approving the increase in the in lieu fee to $700 and adopting the language that's been suggested by staff. with the provision that the Commission will look at further refinements and be making recommendations in the future about further modifications of this ordinance I will second it with one question because that's

that motion does not have a lot of details so will the staff record the details of the suggestions that we've had around which are significant trees a tree policy yes so I'll bring it forward there'll be a component of this where we'll bring it forward as an ordinance itself but then part of that discussion would be that the Planning Commission didn't recommend with its recommendation that basically how how to implement that replacement factor and and to create a new replacement factor and to relook at the ability to Have that valuation instead of an in lieu fee applied but actual valuation we have the tree inventory that was done did include valuation tree valuations for that invent for those trees in the public right-of-way and So we can look at what that is and how other cities apply that specific thing.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT- I'll second the motion then.

COMMISSIONER BRYANT, DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE AMENDMENTS INTO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT- YES. COMMISSIONER BRYANT, DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE AMENDMENTS INTO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT- YES.

COMMISSIONER BRYANT, DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE AMENDMENTS INTO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER BRYANT, DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE AMENDMENTS INTO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER BRYANT, DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE AMENDMENTS INTO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER BRYANT, DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE AMENDM

okay so moving on to the topic of public art are there any comments as to any further comments regarding how commissioners believe that the public art for simplicity I like Commissioner Willer's suggestion that we remove all housing

from the art requirement and just keep it specifically at commercial properties, and there should be some kind of limit, minimal expense on the commercial properties so that they're not getting triggered, I think, at the $250,000 point, but I don't know what that limit should be.

$250,000 could be an HVAC system for certain size commercial buildings, am I right? Okay.

and then the only addition was to make sure that we have policy around valuation of art which I heard is coming from the policy generation of the group that will come from the Arts Commission can we back up though to what you were talking about as far as the commercial aspect where you were saying

far as the threshold is concerned the trigger point yes so changing your hvac things like that wouldn't apply in this case it's going to be a basically a remodel tenant improvement interior work of a commercial project the way that it would be written in the sense of like removing the housing part um sorry i'm going to go to my other one So this is the definition of a private development project. So this would mean that we would strike the all new multifamily with five years or more. as well as remodeling, repair, construction, la la la. So all new construction and mixed use commercial portion only. And we would get rid of the comment about residential. And then all remodeling, repair, or reconstruction of that commercial exceeding $250,000 in costs within the city of Sonoma. So then the exclusions we talked about down here. So my question is, what was the minimum? What do you envision in that?

I mean, we could get out the word. Jennifer, can you scroll down a little bit, please? That's a good list of exclusions. Thank you.

What the commercial book value is for building permits?

Off my brain, no.

Close. How about that? Is it $200 a square foot, is it?

Oh, Google. Oh, wait, this isn't Google. All right.

just just for my interest sake so if you've got a hotel development proposal

for a, call it a 60-room hotel, which is going to cost $50 to $60 million. That computes to $500,000 to $600,000 for public art?

No, because the building permit cost, construction cost, which is different. In other words, the building code says you have to establish a book value per square foot of construction. So you may be building a million-dollar house, but for custom residential in Sonoma, Sonoma may only charge based on $500 a square foot.

I see. But in any event, we're talking about... you know, the potential for big numbers with huge commercial projects or for what this town would consider a huge commercial project.

So think of it as for every $25 million, it's $25,000. Okay.

And the number of $25 million projects that we have in Sonoma is what, once every 20 years?

If that.

If that. So how... You know, I...

It's actually $250,000.

Sorry, $250,000. $25 million. $250,000.

Sorry, I was thinking of my... Whatever the number is. The fact is that... You know, this is something that cities like New York and Chicago and Los Angeles undertake because they are generating huge projects of huge amounts of money with vast public spaces. City of Sonoma does not have vast public spaces. I don't even know, you know, where this Peter Hassan sculpture is going to end up. And it's a big piece. I appreciate art and I support artists and I like the idea of supporting artists. By the same token, there's a part of me that feels like of all the issues that this little town is facing, economic issues, this is not at the top of the list. I don't even know how we're gonna balance the city's budget over the next two years. And frankly, I don't know anybody who does. So I don't want to be seen as not a supporter of the arts. I am a supporter of the arts. But if there's an opportunity for money to be raised for the health and benefit of the city of Sonoma. I'm just not sure that the time and effort we're putting into this particular segment is going to pay off for anybody because the big dollars don't happen here very often. And unless the complexion of the city of Sonoma changes, and we decide to become a major urban center, it's never going to happen. That's where the big money is, and that's where the big money for a program like this will come from. My mother ran a program in New York, in Manhattan, called the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council. And she raised millions of dollars to put public art on the streets in Lower Manhattan. And it still exists today, much to my pleasure. is that she died and the organization went on. But that's New York City. They have a budget of, I don't know what, a trillion dollars? And we're sitting around talking about a 1% budget on big projects that may happen once every 20 or 25 years? I don't know. I think it's sort of, of place and out of time at the moment I think I'm not I'm not trying to squelch the whole idea and I know there's a lot of people in the arts community who would love to see this happen but but removing housing projects from it is important I think that it's something that unnecessary at this point and counterproductive to the production of housing and the other projects that happen happen few and far between so we're basically putting a lot of talk and time into something that's not going to be very material thank you that any other commissioners want to focus their comments around

the triggers of the public art requirement as it pertains to commercial development.

I think we ought to at least double the number.

Any other thoughts about that?

That's a great starting point. So 500,000? Yeah.

Just pulling numbers out of the air.

Well, I think that's reasonable. Because let's think about a small business person wanting to come in and renovate an interior. area, they can probably burn through $250,000 very quickly. And as you said before, they don't really have a lot of overhead to be able to deal with that. So I'd rather increase it with the idea that folks that come in that can afford to do that probably have a bigger buffer to fall back on. So I'm comfortable elevating it to $500,000 or $750,000 even.

Yeah, I would be in favor of a million. I think that for the points very well articulated by Commissioner Dombach, if someone is undertaking a project with Those type of margins, there's much more of a comfortable fallback in the margin to be able to not make this an impediment. Commissioner Barnett.

Well, and just a real-world example, the abandoned bank building on 5th Street West that's had a for lease sign up on that for two years. I've been told that a conversion of that building for other than bank use with public access is going to require half a million dollars just to retrofit it for the ADA compliance. Bathrooms, doors, ramps, everything else. And that thing's going to be a white elephant into the foreseeable future just because of that set of conditions. Now we want to add on a public art condition?

we're just we're just throwing impediments in front of a community that doesn't have unlimited resources so obviously the final say does not rest with this body it's a recommendation to the council but uh with a value so i am comfortable talking about values because it's a recommendation and it's a starting point for a higher body to make make that decision make that that policy judgment call. So if there's an appetite for a million dollars, my recommendation would be that Hoover very craftfully words this motion to include the threshold as a million dollars for the trigger point for the art requirement to apply in commercial development. OK, I'll try.

So I'll make a motion to revise this ordinance for public art or is it, I guess it is an ordinance, this ordinance for public art to remove all residential construction and limit it to projects exceeding $1 million in cost for new commercial and the commercial portion only

mixed-use projects I think that's all I really need to change because I get rid of everything else right I second yes okay we have a motion and a second is there can we take a roll call please Hannah

Yes, Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner Barnett.

Aye.

Commissioner Dombach. Yes. Commissioner O'Neill. Yes. Chair Weirich. Aye. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

If they decide they want to put housing back, then we can just use straw. Per the discussion, what I'm hearing is that all affordable units would be removed from that calculation.

as a percentage and and that the that this would be in effect in greater than 20 units not higher than five so the incentive is to incentivize infill there's been a request for a very brief intermission before we continue on to the next agenda

Go back on the record in the Planning Commission meeting. And we have just closed out item 4.3. We will close tonight's public hearing. And we will move on to items for discussion. And we don't have any tonight. So we'll move past that onto director comments and announcements.

So I just want to remind everybody the August meeting is on a Tuesday, so it's going to be the 18th because transcendence is going to be playing. Um, we have a pretty full agenda on that meeting. So if you're not going to be here, let me know as soon as possible please. Um, and, um, I am going to be out of the country for the week and a half before that meeting. So if you need me, get me by August 5th. Otherwise, I'll talk to you after I get back. Where are you going? I am going to Croatia. So I'm going to spend eight days in Dubrovnik and two in Kovac.

She has been to Croatia many times. History goes back to that. If you want tips and tricks about Croatia, call, I'll get you George's number. She can give you the whole story.

I've been there before, but thank you very much. And I actually know somebody else that lives there every summer. think that is all I have for comments and announcements at this second I'm trying to remember what is coming forward okay so I do have one more so August 17th is sorry I said 18th here so 19th is the City Council meeting where we'll be having another study session on the mobile home ordinance so that is coming forward and That's kind of the biggest item I think that would, that you won't see it, but it just has having to do with housing in general and if there's thoughts on that. And yeah, so we'll see what comes forward soon for projects.

What else might we expect for the August meeting?

ordinances, hopefully. So they signed ADU ordinance update and then another one on horticulture and the sales areas in front of residents. And then a few small projects.

Okay. Great. Any commissioner reports or comments? Sheila.

Um, is there anything on the radar that is actually going to the Planning Commission about the, uh, Romakin's general's daughter?

There, there is not a project submittal at this time.

Not a study session, I think.

So we haven't received any of the information that would be required to go to a study session. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks. And with that, um, we will adjourn.

Thank you, Chair.