Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

calling to order the planning commission meeting for July 17th. Um, may I please have a roll call. Commissioner Willers, here. Commissioner Nent, here. Commissioner Barnett, here. Commissioner Oorman Jenkins here. Commissioner Latimer here. Vice Chair Wyrick here. Chair Donach here. Thank you. I would like to point out that Youth Member Patterson and Commissioner O'Neal are absent from this evening's meeting. Um next we'll move on to the approval of the agenda. Does anyone have any changes to the agenda? And if not, uh may I get a motion to approve?

So moved. Second. Roll call. Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner Nent. I. Commissioner Barnett. I. Commissioner Aorman Jenkins. Hi. Commissioner Latimer. I. Vice Chair Wyrick. Hi. Chair Donbach. Yes. The motion passes unanimously.

Next we move on to the pledge of allegiance. And um may I ask Mr. Ross, would you like to lead us? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Well done. All right. At this time, we uh will open the floor to the public for comments that are not on the agenda tonight. And I would ask as usual that when you come up to please state your name for the record.

I was expecting a long line.

Uh hello. My name is Ken Stokes, a resident of Brazil Street. I stand before you this evening to re reiterate the same concerns and suggested alternatives that myself and neighbors of the Sebastiani Winery have been bringing to both the planning commission and the city council for several months. Uh I'll be brief because you've seen this in writing many times and in person as well. Uh first point, we don't believe the blanket change to all parcels related to the winery is the best way to ensure the protection of the vineyard and green space. Uh consideration of carving it up a little bit is what we would recommend. Um we are concerned about the allowable commercial uses and restrictions related to the newly defined or yet to be fully defined Sonoma mixed use. uh and want to make sure that the commercial uses that will ultimately be allowed which so far have been described as consumer serving are appropriately limited. Uh and finally, and most important to me and I think many of my neighbors, but I wouldn't speak for them, we object to the extreme increase in the allowable densities at both the minimum and maximum level. Uh the new minimum is higher than the current maximum of the surrounding neighborhood. We think that's an extreme move. uh and uh under certain circumstances in event of evacuation if you could imagine the densities being maximized it would be a disaster out there if it even at the current uh neighborhood density levels it's not easy to get out but at maximum allowed of 25 units per acre 30 units per acre uh it could be a disaster. Uh we'll continue to remain respectfully engaged in the process and bringing our concerns to both you and the and the council in hopes of influencing the outcome of the general plan land use updates and ultimately the zoning changes are yet to come. Thank you for your service and I thank you for listening.

Thank you. Any other comments from the public that are non-aggendaized?

All right, seeing no motion, I will close the public comment and move on to the consent calendar. The items on the consent calendar include receiving the minutes from the planning commission meeting from June 17th and also um a request for Sonoma Valley Venters and Growers Alliance to post Plaza Light Standard flags. Does anyone have any um comments or desire to um strike anything from the consent agenda? Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Barnett,

I. Commissioner Gorman Jenkins, I. Commissioner Latimer, I. Vice Chair Hyrick, hi. Chair Donbach, yes. The motion passes unanimously. All right, moving right along into the public hearing portion. Uh item 4.1 which is a discussion consideration and possible adoption of a resolution to approve a time extension request for the use permit variance and design review applications for 4,967 square foot addition and exterior modifications to the Sebastian theater. So we'll open it up to staff.

Thank you chair and commissioners. Good evening. Jennifer Gates, community involvement director. So on November 16th of 2023, the planning commission approved a use permit, parking variance, and design review for improvements to the Sebastiani theater. The 89year-old um theater requires American with Disabilities Act or ADA upgrades, repairs, fire and life safety improvements, building system improvements, and performing arts support spaces and audience guest enhancements. The proposed project includes the construction of approximately a 4,967 foot addition to the north and east sides of the building to accommodate a new screening room, accessible restroom, food prep kitchen, fire um exiting corridor, and other building support spaces. In June, a request for a two-year time extension of the approved project was received from the applicant. And since that approval will expire on um and the uh approval will expire on November 29th, 2025 and a building permit has not been submitted yet. In accordance with um SM SMC section 1956 040, the planning commission may renew the permit for only a one one-year extension if the permit has proceeded in good faith and has exercised due diligence in complying with the conditions in a timely manner. staff believes the permit is acting in good faith and has had multiple meetings with the applicant team um with staff on discussions on how best to proceed with a phased approach as well as continued um efforts occur for fundraising. Therefore, staff is recommending to adopt the resolution approving the time extension which would establish a new expiration date of November 30th, 2026. and Jocelyn Vic and Michael Ross are both here if you have any questions or if you have any questions for staff.

Thank you. And um just out of procedure, has anyone on the commission had expporte communications recently? Um prior to being appointed to the commission probably 60 or 70 days ago, I attended a dinner uh held at the theater where the board and management kind of presented their plan to me. probably a group of 30 of us. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Well, we'll move along to questions, but um would the applicant like to say anything at this point in time?

Hello, I'm Jocelyn Vic, president of the Sebastian Theater Foundation. Thank you all for all the work you do for the city and for us. We really appreciate it. Um, we've been working very hard. Things have been going well and this extension will just give us a little peace of mind. I think we're we're at least 50% ready with uh working drawings and I think the second half of the drawings ought to go fairly well, but it'd be nice to have a little breathing room there. So, thank you. Thank you. Do the any commissioners have any comments? Commissioner Barnett, how are you doing on the fundraising side?

It's going well. It's um, you know, it's maybe not as fast as we'd like, but we have a lot of different uh, options that are on the verge and some really nice gifts that have come in and we're feeling very optimistic about it. Anyone else? Thank you. Thank you. I'll open it up now for public. Any comments regarding this agenda item? Seeing no movement, I will close the public comment um and then ask commissioners if they would like to make any comments with regard to this agenda item. Commissioner,

uh based on staff staff's representation, the applicant's representation, I have no no problems at all um making the findings to approve the extension. Anyone else? Uh I I feel the same way. Um that they've moved forward in clearly in good faith and they're making progress. So um at this time now I'll um request a motion. I'll make a motion. Second. Second. He's got a read. See how eager we are. And so roll call. I know. I know. That's

I know. U I will make a motion to uh adopt a resolution to approve ex a time extension request for the use permit variance and design review applications of the Sebastian theater proposed project and I will second that motion. All right, roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Gorman Jenkins, hi. Commissioner Latimer, I. Vice Chair Wyrick, hi. Chair Donop. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you very much.

All right. On to item 4.2, which is a discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a use permit for a wine bar, tap room, and sidewalk seating at 531 Broadway. Uh it's the Palm um uh establishment. I'll hand it over to staff.

I uh associate planner Jacob Dunn. Good evening. Uh this items for a wine tasting use permit and tap room permit with sidewalk seating at 531 Broadway. The property is located in the downtown district and plaza retail district within the historic overlay. The site is 14,450 ft in zone commercial and the lease space is only uh 929 ft. So the project is proposing or proposes a tap room and wine bar with outdoor seating. The b the business has 12 bar seats inside and seven tables inside with four seats at each. There's also two outdoor tables being proposed with two chairs at each and the applicant is requesting extended operating hours on Thursdays through Sundays or sorry Saturdays uh from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. Palm Cider offers cider, beer, wine, and food items including shakurerie, tapas, and hot dogs. The site plan here shows the spaces dedicated for seating inside and on the sidewalk. Uh to the right of the site plan there is where the outdoor seating would be. The sidewalk seating is protected by stansions with required spacing for pedestrians as well as customers and serving. The proposal doesn't include any alterations to the existing structure and therefore meets the standards of the development code. So two items have been identified for discussion with you all. Uh the first is regarding the number of wine tasting use permits in the plaza retail overlay district which will be exceeded with the approval of this use permit. Um although this b business was initially approved under the incorrect use type but would have required a wine tasting use permit when they uh got their approval. Staff is proposing allowing this wine tasting use permit to be added to the list with the expectation that it's going to replace another one that leaves eventually. The city is aware of one permit that may not be executed and so that may happen in August to replace. Sorry. And the second item for discussion is regarding the food that may be served.

Um sorry about that. Just flew past it. There we go. Um and so this is particular to uh basically limiting the food from cheese, crackers, shakureri, and similar items that are made strictly in conjunction to the wine tasting experience. And so these two definitions here uh distinguish between wine bars and wine tasting facilities and the ABC permit that's allowed. So for ABC permit type 42 uh it indicates that wine bars serving may serve food limited to cheese, crackers, shakuery and similar items whereas wine tasting facilities specify that food can be provided uh and must be prepackaged. So those are the two distinctions. So, in accordance with the use permit findings, the proposal is consistent with the commercial zone and reinforces Sonoma's distinctive qualities while generating pedestrian activity and pro promoting positive community interactions. Sorry, I'm skipping over words. The proposal is compatible with the style and character of the neighboring properties and doesn't alter the existing structure. And the wine bar and tap room is consistent with ongoing use since it was already approved and has been in use um and won't concentrate the number of establishments dispensing alcohol. The location of palm cider is not in proximity to any sensitive uses and doesn't increase the size. So also in accordance with the wine tasting use permit findings, the pro proposal is consistent with the general requirements for wine tasting use permits and made requests for extended time periods as required. The proposed use is compatible with the future use of the town downtown district as commercial and mixed use area and the total number of wine tasting use permits in the prod would not meet the standard 25 limit. Although due to the use type error, staff is aiming to allow this use up until the time that another one leaves its business. Uh Palm Cider is not located in any of

the block faces on the prod and is not subject to those limitations. And the use is consistent with the surrounding uses. And so staff is recommending approval of the use permit for the wine barn tap room with outdoor seating at 531 Broadway including approval of the categorical exemption pursuant to section section 15301 of state sequel guidelines and then I believe the applicant or owner is available for questions and staff will also be available for questions. Thank you. Um before we move on uh any commissioner had exparte communication with the applicant.

All right we'll move on. Um, if the applicant would like to come up and say anything or be available to answer questions, I'd appreciate it. Um, and I'll open it up to commissioners to ask any question. Wear my button down today. I just got a fork. No problem.

Um, no, we've been in business for three years now. Uh, doing awesome. We are the only cider tap room and bottle shop north of the Golden Gate Bridge, so it's kind of cool. There's only about 10 of us in the US. Um, we've had a lot of fun doing it. Cers made the same way wine is made. There's nothing else in this town besides wine. So, we've had a lot of fun uh exploring with wineries uh ceries and bringing that to Sonoma. We're a destination uh business. Uh we bring a lot of people in from the Bay Area uh that come up seeking cider. Um so, for three years, it's been going very well. Uh we started serving hot dogs a couple years ago. Uh we've been approved from the health department. Uh we do hot dogs. We don't do tapas. Um and we source locally from uh Cheesemongers uh Solia Oll to do our shakuderie as well. So we try to keep it local, have fun. I live four blocks away and it's been a it's been a pleasure. So we just kind of got to get this ironed out. That's all.

Thank you. Commissioner. Hi. Couple questions. Yeah. Um, the application would allow you to be open till 2 am. Are you currently open till 2 am? We're not. ABC allows us to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 2 a.m. Our current hours, we close during the week at 6:00. We do a vibe check typically 7 or 8. Um, it I think it's just a formality that um we have the opportunity to. My bedtime's 10:00, so it's not going to happen. Um we typically on on any given late night it's 10 or 11. Yeah.

Um we do host uh private dinners or ticketed dinners if you will. Um that sometimes will run into the 11:00 hour, but I haven't seen after midnight at my shop yet. Okay. And um I just want to understand your business a little more. Are you actually uh brewing the the cers or are you just serving a product you're bringing in? So, great question. Um, we don't brew anything. Uh, but I want to clarify, cider is actually made the same way wine is made. So, it's actually fermented. Um, so it's not a brew process. So, we fall under a wine category, if you will.

Uh, and we are not making it and we do not plan to make it. Uh, we import everything from around the world. Uh, as well as a number of local Sonoma County cers. I uh discovered a non-alcoholic cider in one of the markets the other day. Yeah. And was tempted to buy it having never really uh had a cider and not drinking alcohol. Um so you they serving any of that there? Yep. Absolutely. I have a a very large selection of non-alcoholic cers uh both from local and from very far uh Champagne uh area. Um, so yeah, we have I think we have about 17 different non-alcoholic citers. Oh, yeah. That's great. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, Commissioner Wyrick. All right. How are you? Great. Thanks. Good. Can you describe your food offerings and how that all works? You know, it's a very limited menu. Um, cheese shakurerie. Uh, we have pate from Alkai, uh, that she makes specifically for us. uh that actually has cider in it. Um and then small snacks and hot dogs. Um how is it prepared or how is it?

So everything's all prepared uh before it comes onto our site. Uh the hot dog thing, I think, is what probably the bigger question is. That's just reheating uh pre-cooked hot dogs um and then assembling them. Um, so we've been inspected now uh three times by the health department. Um, they've approved it. There was a question a couple months ago. We actually upped our uh health department permit from uh minimal to moderate preparation. So that fell under the hot dog rule, if you will. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Um, thank you. I I actually have a question for staff. So when you flip when you flip back to the ABC permits I technically um this would be a type 42. Is that correct? Yes. Um do we understand the rationale between being super specific for 42 and a little bit more general for type two? I know you we didn't do it but I don't know if we you've had a conversation with ABC. We've discussed it together, but we don't know particularly what

the only thing I could figure out today in the uh trying to figure out from the health department. If you're a wine tasting room, they have an exemption, but it it's only if it's prepare. it's already prepackaged like you're selling an actual thing of crackers diet like soda and tea I think is what they specifically list in their exemption so that may be connected to the prepackaged aspect um so that they could get that exemption from the health department along with their wine tasting but that is the only connection I could find we didn't see any definitions for what a minimal moderate um or excessive food handling stations were.

So technically, if a hot dog fit on a shakuderie board, it could be a shakuderie. Define shakurerie. I tried to think about it the same way. So here's my other question. And and so then we were like, is it heated? The only the difference being heated, not heated. I don't know. So that's where I don't but then we are thinking tracery depends on how people think of it. In our wine world, we think cheese, meat, and crackers, but I don't or level of preparation. Is hot dog a meat? Hot dog is a sausage,

just like a salami. Um I the only other other question I'd just like to bring up for discussion is um you know if we were given that they're the these ABC licenses if we were to um create a situation where we said that uh we kind of blended these and made the shuder and eg like as in uh as a suggestion. Is that something that we could do um as a city and still be aligned with the ABC licenses? So ABC itself does not define what food is allowed. This is the city's code. I see.

So this is our our city code where in our definitions of wine bar and tap room which are type 42, we have defined food service as this. And then under type two, we have defined it as what you see there with the prepackage. This this is a city code description. So the city does have the ability to modify what they've determined what we as the commission wants to determine similar items um to be. And that's really what we're asking you because there is a little gray in this one. um if there's more description then we can come back modify the code um and be a little bit more specific on what you're looking for.

Thank you. Any any other question? I got one other question for you John Jennifer or Jacob. Um is there a reason that we need to approve a 2 a.m. closing time relative to the ABC license? I was just kind of a little confused as to why the why that time frame. And the second question that I have is do we have other operations in the city that have a closing time of 2 a.m.?

There are um other bars in town that close at 2 am. It is an option. So automatically in our code we have identified as 1000 p.m. for wine bars and wine tasting. I think tap rooms as well automat it's in there but they can ask you all as planning commissioners can um allow for something other than that then they also have the state law from ABC that says this is the absolute max time. So let's say you said oh you can be open to three ABC says yeah but you can't serve past. Does that make sense? Any other questions? All right. Um, thank you. We'll open it up to the public for any comments on this agenda item. Seeing no movement, I will close uh to the public. Uh, and now I'll move on to ask commissioners for any comments on this agenda item. I have a couple, but

um I I would just say and I appreciate some of the clarification provided by staff. I was a little bit concerned that we might be stretching or violating ABC rules and and appreciate that clarification. So, thank you uh Madame Chair for the clarifying question. That was something I was concerned about. I I think more broadly, I would just say, um I do support the 2 am um closure time. it it the the plaza and the downtown area needs a little more nightife. Um I really also appreciate the creativity in the model. Um so I'm prepared to support this and I think I'm I'm prepared um I thank the applicant for bringing this forward and um yeah I'll be prepared to move the item at the appropriate time.

Anyone else?

Sure. I don't have a problem with the 2 am closure time either. I think that seems um reasonable to me. The one thing I am wrestling with is the definition uh it seems kind of like a fairly narrow definition of um food service and food items that are made off premises. I guess it depends on what your definition of made off premises is. I'd like to hear the rationale um or at least the analysis of my fellow commissioners around that. um you know they're fairly specific in listing food items that are made available and they use the word strictly in conjunction with an ancillary to the wine tasting experience. I I I would say philosophically I'm supportive of giving our especially our business community some latitude uh in light of you know declined tourism and and uh the other uphill battles that they face. But I just want to make sure uh the findings that we make tonight are can can comport with the interpretations that we've uh made in the past and that other facilities who are are um operating under uh the same use um you know that they'd be able to be uh enjoy the same the same interpretation. Uh chair I'm per professor commissioner Barnett

is professor all right in his day job.

Yeah. Okay. Um addressing your your latter point. Um it is interesting um that and and what we didn't hear about is whether or not the food items that are provided are sold or whether they are simply snack items that people can have. If they are sold then the question it raises for me and I don't I don't know if city staff has explored this but it says here the esta establishment is not a restaurant but if you are serving and charging for food what's how are you not a restaurant? Uh so that's a question that needs to be looked at and the other the question that comes up as is what is the definition of a restaurant? Uh we seem to be excluding this as a restaurant but maybe we need to look at the definition of a restaurant to decide if in fact this is excluded. Um, so that addresses your second point as to the 2 a.m. closing. I appreciate that the owner and operator has said they'd never open till 2:00. And I will tell you that as someone who lived on West Spain Street, a half a block from the plaza for 13 years, the 2:00 closing of the bars is a real pain in the butt. Um, not because it any inconvenience to me about going to a bar. Um, it's a pain in the butt because the pedestrians and the people who leave that bar at 2 a.m. think it's 2 a 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon and they are inebriated and they're talking to each other in in a a loudness of voice that be appropriate for the middle of the day. And so basically on the weekends, particularly Fridays and

Saturday nights, we got used to closing the windows because we knew that come 2 a.m. there was going to be a parade of people walking by the house laughing and having a good time. Um because they uh had been drinking and didn't really think about or care about the fact that everybody else is asleep. So, I'm sorry that the ABC, if it is the ABC, who has designated the 2:00 a.m. time. Obviously, nobody on the ABC has lived next a half a block from a couple of bars. Uh otherwise, they may have come to a different conclusion.

I I suppose that the service of food would help to overcome your concerns with its hours of operation. Um in fact, there are some states that still require this. I don't have any problem with the approval as proposed. Um I'm really just raising the question that uh it would be prudent for the city to look at its definitions and what meets the definitions if we're going to make exclusions based on a a word that has a meaning. And we need to be pretty clear about what the implications of that are. So, uh, if in fact, um, if in fact the food service is something that people pay for, I don't know what the implications of it are and that's something we have to look at. I wouldn't hold up this application for it, but it is does raise an interesting point for us in terms of clarification of our existing code.

We have one more uh question from Commissioner Wyrick. Just yeah just uh with respect to um the the health inspection designations of 3R 05 minimal and as opposed to moderate 3R1. We were we haven't gotten any more clarity on that. Maybe the applicant is more familiar with what the distinction is between the two designations of the um health permit. I'll be honest, I didn't dig too far into it because we only go as far as hot dogs. I don't want to do any more than that. So, when I did clarify it, um when we were inspected over the last two years, uh the inspector said, "Yeah, it's kind of a gray area because you're just reheating something, preparing it, it's done." Um as Jennifer and I have kind of gotten into this more and more, I I looked into it, called my health inspector and said, "Hey, okay, so here's what we're up against." and he said it is a gray area, but it does fall under the moderate use. It's right on the bottom line of it. Um because you're steaming, if you will. Um so that's where the that's where that came into play. So I don't want to be a restaurant. I've been operating under a delirest use permit supposedly for the last three years. Um, but we did find that little niche that we could do hot dogs. Um, I mean, you're going to call them shakuderie. That's great. I'll slice the hot dog. Okay. Um, anyway, um, but yeah, the the hot dog falls under the moderate um, use permit per the health department, um, which we upgraded. Uh, but that's as far as, you know, we don't have a kitchen. So, the def definition of a restaurant is a really good question. um I would think is a super preparation. We're cooking food. We're

cooking meat. We're you know that's something that even the health department brought up. You know that that's something we're not allowed to do is cook unprocess or um raw meats if you will. So um if that helps clarify it. I thank you. Yes. I'll ask one more other question. Are you selling this food? That was the question from commissioner. Yes. Uh we are. Um it's not a huge profit for us. Uh, but we do sell a number of hot dogs, um, which, you know, keep people there and have another drink, if you will. Um, so yeah, it's a $10 hot dog. Come on in, have one. Thank you. No worries. I have an additional question. Yeah. Um, would you be opposed to midnight rather than two? I'm fine with midnight. Yeah,

midnight's fine. I I'll be honest. I just I went for 2 a.m. because the ABC allows us to. Right. Of course. My bedtime honestly is early. Um, but we do ticketed dinners about once a month and it's the third Thursday of the month and they typically go until about 10 11 o'clock at night. I honestly this year alone I can tell you I closed at midnight one time. That's why I'm trying to pull back a little bit. Yeah. um put some clarity in it and and um limit the use permit because it does kind of continue if it if someone bought your business.

Yeah. No, midnight is completely acceptable. Um I don't plan to stay up until mid uh 2 a.m. We're you know what's crazy is we're a drinking town. Drinking starts early and these people come from all over the world and come and drink in our town and by six o'clock they're out eating dinner. they're gone by 8, nine o'clock at night. So, we typically um very rarely are we open past 10. Um you'll see it occasionally, but man, you look out my door at 8:00 at night and it's crickets. It's wild. So, but yeah, I I mean, midnight's completely acceptable.

May May I ask one other um concession that you might want to consider is that um there's no outside seating from 10 to midnight. That the outside seating that the seating would be indoors. Is that possible as well? I don't have a problem with that. Um my my thing is as long as it's consistent across the board with the entire city and the other businesses, I'm okay with it. And and that's I think where I just look at it and go, okay, I I don't mind doing it. 10:00 is completely acceptable noise levels, uh the noise ordinance at 10:00, but then it should be that way across the board for the other businesses.

Thank you. And I'll I'll take this back to staff and ask a couple of questions that have come up. I don't know if you had time to look up the definition of restaurant. And then the um the question of I I mean I know the bars I think the bars that we have in town don't have outdoor seating. Um but some of the wine tasting rooms do. So if you could address that for consistency, I'd appreciate it. Um, for outdoor seating, we have mostly restaurants that have serve alcohol. Um, that have the outdoor seating. Um, Murphy's, um, Mosaic, uh, Girl in the Fig. Where else am I going? Um, EDK,

Eastro.

Yep. Everybody pretty much. Um, I don't know what time they stop serving. Um, most restaurants in town pretty much have closed up by 9:00. Um, except for I would say Murphy's. Um, but um, so I don't I don't have a ruling on that. So, we would have to look that up. As far as a definition of restaurant, it's a retail business selling food and beverages prepared on the site for on or off premise consumption. These include eating establishments where customers are served from walkup ordering counters for either on or off premises consumption and establishments where most customers are served food at tables for on premises consumption, but may include providing food for takeout. also includes coffee houses.

So it has no definition for food preparation. No. So I would say the the words that in the future we may want to define are prepared, served and provide because those are the three word differences between these definitions for when it comes to food. But it did include the fact that a restaurant is preparing food on site. In other words, it's cooking. It's it's so um that clearly is a signifier.

Yes. And I will say that when you're a restaurant, there is a different type of ABC license as well. So maybe the maybe moving forward, I mean I would I will suggest that we bring this back and revise the language and maybe we can um look at the ABC license type um and try to utilize some of the language there so that we can expand the latitude um for what is allowed based on the extent of preparation. Um and I certainly wouldn't want to limit anyone seeing outside. So, that can be something we can bring back um just to make sure that if there's no ordinance that says you cannot sit outside um after 10 p.m. at a restaurant, then we wouldn't want to um hold you to a different standard.

Any other comments? There's a good discussion. Oh, U Commissioner Willers. Um, you know, I I think in relationship to the outdoor seating, there's four in this proposal. I thought I read eight outdoor seats somewhere in the staff report. It has it inside uh the project narrative, but the site plan does not indicate okay, four tables. So, so the use permit would approve four outdoor seats,

four outdoor seats and two tables. um at that level, you know, and given the location of the use right on Broadway, you know, it's an advantage to have someone know that you're still open as a business at a later time as an opportunity for someone walking by to notice that business and those outdoor seats provide that sign. Um, and so I don't, you know, if we're pulling back the time in which the business, pulling it back to midnight, in which it um can't serve any longer, allowing the chairs to say stay on the sidewalk until the time that they close, I think, is an advantage for the business and, you know, offers them a little bit of additional income possibly. Any other comments, commission? Okay. All right. Well, I will now um uh have a motion as for a motion on this agenda item.

So, I'll move to approve use permit for a wine bar tap room and sidewalk seating at 531 Broadway with the um amendment that um the operator will close at midnight. I'll second. And roll call. Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner Nent. I. Commissioner Barnett. Hi. Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins. Hi. Commissioner Latimer. I. Vice Chair Wyrick. Hi. Chair Donbach. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. So, just one question, Jennifer, before we go on to the next item. At some point, we'll just agendaize that revision uh in the future. Um, yes. So, we'll add it to our list and if you want to see it sooner than later, we can just talk about that later. I'd recommend a hot dog ad hoc.

Okay. All right. We'll name it that. Thank you. All right, moving on to the um items for discussion. Um this is item 5.1 and it is a study session to evaluate proposed site design for a proposed 51 or 61 unit multifamily for sale residential development on 2.99 acre parcel at 20455 Fifth Street East which abuts to uh Napa Road. Um I I just will remind everyone this is a study session. So Oh, you're going to go over it. Perfect. Thank you.

All right. Jennifer Gates, community development director. And um as stated, this is a study session for um a potential project at 20455th Street East that is being proposed by City Ventures. So, just as a reminder, a study session is an opportunity for planning commissioners to look at the site plan as well as some just initial designs to identify any potential issues or concerns. Commissioners are unable to make any statements of absolute judgment um because we don't want to have any expressions of future bias on the project. So the focus is limited to the site planning, compatibility with neighboring uses, overall consistency with the general plan and the development code, the scale and mass of the project, and then any environmental potentially significant environmental impacts. May I ask you if it's correct to add just for clarification purposes that therefore there will be no motions made tonight, no votes taken or even any straw votes taken about this project.

That is correct. It is only for comments from the commission as individual commissioners. The prospective applicant is going to provide an overview of the project concept and be here to answer any questions from the planning commission in regards to the proposal. The chair has the discretion to invite the applicant or public to return for any further comments and questions after the initial comments from the public and the planning commission. Comments on the study session would be directed towards the project proposal as you see it. So as stated straw straw votes or polls of the commission is not to be undertaken and the commissioner comments during a study session are not to be construed as limiting any future action of the planning commission and that concludes staff's presentation and we will move to the applicant presentation.

May I ask before you give your presentation if any of the commissioners have had expparte communication with the applicants? Yes. Yes, I met with the applicant earlier this afternoon uh or the prospective applicant um to hear what they had to say about um their proposal.

I was contacted by the applicant um who expressed interest in meeting with me. I explained to him and explained to all of you that I refused to do that on the basis of a personal view that it's not proper for me as a planning commissioner to meet privately with parties who have applications before the city and that I would look forward to hearing their presentation in public. Thank you. Yes. Um at discussions with the developers, Commissioner Willers,

um had same um discussion with the developer that uh Commissioner Barnett did. Same same comments. Um same reaction. And I will say that I I did meet with the um the prop prospective applicants to hear about their design plan. And thank you um for coming and chatting with us tonight.

Thank you, Jennifer. Uh good evening uh Chair Donach, Vice Chair Hyrick, uh fellow commissioners, and members of the community. My name is Michael Brewer, and I'm here with Council Barnett. Uh on behalf of City Ventures, we're excited to share with you our preliminary vision for the Doyle property at 20455th Street East. As you know, study sess sessions are designed for the commission and community to provide feedback on our project and concept. Uh we are here to listen to hear your thoughts and idea as we explore how this property will finally contribute to Sonoma's housing future. We know that housing been has been a top priority for the planning commission and city council for many years now. And we know this site in per particular which has been designated on the city's housing uh opportunity site uh in the past um has always been a part of the city's housing strategy. We appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and are proud to present a project um for the Doyle property that aligns closely with the city's housing goals. Before we dive into the project, I would like to give you a little concept on um or a little uh brief overview about City Ventures. We are a Bay Area builder and we began a little over 15 years ago and from the beginning we have really focused on working with uh cities and uh communities throughout California to develop infill housing and supply constrained areas. We've also been at the forefront of green building. All our homes are solar empowered and all electric and we remain committed to pushing the boundaries of

sustainability. We have projects all over California, but we are proud to be the North Bay's leading home builder. We've built great projects in Santa Rosa, Nevada, Windsor. We also work in smaller communities similar to Soma. Uh we're currently kicking off construction of 80 town homes in the town of Sebastapool and we are entitling projects in the city of St. Helena. Our experience has shown us uh the significant need uh this kind of housing uh is needed in the North Bay and we're very excited about the opportunity to present uh something to your commission tonight. Our primary focus is building town homes uh which we believe is the best residential typology for the missing middle housing market. Town homes offer um residents the feel and functionality of single family homes uh but with greater efficiency and attainability for young families and firsttime home buyers. Town homes are a timeless form of housing rooted in the classic row home. By gently increasing density, town homes help communities like Soma grow sustainably and achieve goals while preserving community character. So what is the missing middle? Referenced it before. Uh it not only refers to the type of housing we are building, but it is the people who the homes are designed for. These are buyers who are currently left out of the current market. In Soma, there have been few new town home developments in recent years, leaving many potential buyers without viable choices. These include young families, first-time home buyers, older people looking to

downsize to a more manageable home, or professionals that are priced out of uh single family homes in the area. These households often earn too much to qualify for deed restricted units. Uh but they do not make enough um for the median uh single family homes uh in the area. Our goal is to help fill this critical gap um by creating housing that's both desirable and attainable for uh Sonomans. So here's a little site context. Um, now that you've heard a little about who we are and what we build, I would like to introduce you to the site we are presenting about tonight. This is the Doyle property. I'm sure many of you are familiar with it. Uh, it's located on the eastern gateway of Soma and it is adjacent to city limits. Uh, but it is within the urban growth boundary and sphere of influence. The site is located near schools, markets, and many community amenities such as Train Town. Uh the Doyle property has long been seen by the city as a natural candidate for annexation and uh a potential opportunity to help meet Sonoma's housing goals. Sonoma's housing element identifies a clear need uh for the type of housing our project uh proposes. We believe our development aligns closely with the city's goals and policies including providing a range of housing um types to all income levels. We encourages sustainable land use and building at the higher end of densities uh within the mixeduse land use designation and it

promotes uh sustainable construction techniques which city ventures is known for. Our project was designed with these priorities in mind. Um, and it represents the opportunity to help meet Sonoma's housing goals in a thoughtful and sustainable way. Uh, for over 20 years, the city has envisioned the Doyle property as part of Sonoma's natural growth. I can't think of a better visual representation of Sonoma's housing needs than this image here on the screen. To the west across Jones Street, you have the Wildflower sweat equity deed restricted um units. And then to the north, you have multi-million dollar single family homes along with uh large lot estate directly adjacent to the property which just sold for u just under $7 million. And in the middle uh the Doyle property, there's nothing. And that's what we're here to solve tonight, to build housing in the middle for the middle. This slide offers a closer look at the surrounding neighborhood around the Doyle property. As you can see, the Wild Flower project across the street is a denser development compared to much of the surrounding area. It's also two stories tall which will result in a similar streetscape height to our proposed project as the stu two twotory homes will be located around the perimeter. Uh these are the existing site conditions on the Doyle property right now. There's currently one single family home and three ancillary structures. We have had a historic resource evaluation done on the property and none of these buildings uh were deemed historic.

So, this is what we've all been waiting for, our proposed site plans. Uh this was developed with Soma's H housing elements and goals in mind. It would help Soma meet its arena numbers not only for market rate housing, but also inclusionary deed restricted units. On this slide, we are showing two different development scenarios we we've prepared for the discussion so we can explore the the different approaches and hear feedback from both the commission and community. Both uh scenarios feature very similar building footprints. Um the first development option is a 61 unit site plan. This would have a mix of two and threetory homes. Uh the project is able to achieve this higher density with the same building footprints uh by having threetory homes which have a narrower uh footprint. Um along with that we have a 51 unit project um that would be all twostory uh and that would include 13 inclusionary units which complies with Soma's 25% uh inclusion inclusionary housing ordinance. Here are some key elements of the site plan. I want to say again, this is very preliminary and we're still working with our landscape architect and architect on what the uh final site plan will be, but this is our first shot at it. Um, as you can see, all the homes are facing outwards uh with patios opening towards the street. This gives a more welcoming uh streetscape instead of garage dominated frontages along Jones Street, Fifth Street East, and uh Napa Road. All

the garages would be on the interior. Uh we also have greenways going throughout the project and around the project. This would increase the walkability for uh future residents and people living in the surrounding neighborhood. We have a strong emphasis here on trying to preserve as many trees as possible on the site. There are some pretty uh mature oak trees that are currently there. And that green space in the middle was designed purposefully as there are many uh trees growing there right now. And we're still working with our arborist and civil engineer on trying to work all of those into our site plan. Uh we are also planning for a piece of art um on the corner of Fifth Street East and Napa Road. Um as we know this is a a focal point coming into town uh from the east and we would like to create something that represents Sn's historic past and welcomes you into the city. From an architectural standpoint, uh our original idea is to go with a craftsman style home. How however we do understand that Snow has a very diverse architectural uh character with many different types of homes throughout the city. Uh we're also contemplating uh Spanish style uh possibly agrarian new farm farmhouse styles too. But our first plan was with a craftsman style. Um, this is our landscape inspiration. We know that landscaping really plays a crucial role uh when you want to make a project fit in better with its surrounding. Uh, we're considering design details such as that uh stone wall in the bottom

left hand corner um which would be pretty similar stonework to what's used on Sonoma City Hall. And this would sort of pay homage to uh the city's architectural history and sense of place. Our main focus though when it comes to ar landscape architecture is focusing on creating outdoor spaces uh that contribute to commu community connection and sustainability. These are our first stab at conceptual renderings for the project. As you can see, we went with a craftsman style uh with nicely landscaped paths going around the outside of the homes. Uh in this rendering, you can see what a three-story home would look like from the outside. Uh it's in the interior, but on the exterior, you have all twostory homes. Uh and in this slide you can see uh some POS or patios that are beautifully landscaped and are very welcoming to the outside community. So as it relates to next steps uh this is how we see the process of annexing and developing the Doyle property playing out. This slide outlines our projected entitlement path for the project which we continue to refine as we move forward. Uh we are here tonight to listen. This will be one of our first steps when it comes to community outreach. We will have uh community meetings inviting neighbors out uh so we can incorporate their feedback into our project. In closing, our goal is to help Sonoma address what we know is the city's top priority and has been for a while now, and that's creating housing. And that's personal to

me. I got into real estate development for one simple reason, and that is because I had been growing up watching my friends and peers, hardworking individuals and couples wanting to start families struggle to even dream of owning a home. And working with Kelsa over the past year, I've learned a lot about Sonoma. Possibly a little too much as he he really never shuts up about it. But uh I have grown grown and come to love the city and would love to raise a family here at one point. By focusing on sustainable communitydriven projects, we are committed to turning that distant dream into a reality for my generation. Ensuring that home ownership isn't just a relic of a past, but the foundation for our future. We believe this project offers an opportunity to provide new housing for young families and to fill the critical gap in missing middle housing that's so needed here in Soma. At City Ventures, we're committed to working closely with the city and neighbors to create a project that Sonoma can be proud of. Tonight is just our first step. We're here to listen, to learn from your feedback, and to answer any questions you would have. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Um, I'll just ask you to stand because at this point, um, well, I'll open up questions from the commissioners for staff or the applicant. Any Commissioner Barnett. Okay. Thank you. Um, and thank you for your presentation. Uh, first question is, do and staff probably has the answer to this. What's the density of the Wildflower development? I'll look it up. Just give me a second. Okay. It's 11 and a half dwelling units an acre.

Okay. And um uh you mentioned that you use the word greenways. Uh is that what you were referring to about the landscape paths? Is is this the greenways? Yes, these are the greenways. And also when you enter in the site, we're working right now with our architect. I can go back to the site plan. But when you enter on both both sides of the property, uh it's not going back. But uh it's all right. Yeah. Uh there will be nicely landscaped areas when you look through.

Okay. And um uh historically uh in developments with these number of housing units in the past, the city has often um in required the inclusion of a park space. Um has the Quimby fee replaced our parks requirement? Uh do we no longer have a parks requirement? Are you talking about a public park?

In other words, um in the uh development that Ms. Nent had a house um there is a park slash retaining pond area in the center of the development adjacent to Angler Street and and that was what's it called? I think they call it the Saunders Street Park.

Seroma Valley Oaks Park. So, yes, it's it's changed names a couple times. Um, so when we in historically have done larger subdivision developments, yes, there's always been a lot kind of subdivided out to be provide that park. Um, in the code specifically around multifamily development, we have common open space and private open space requirements, which is what this would be considered. So, we don't have a park requirement for not for a public park requirement. Okay. And uh but is this project still generate a quimby fee or not? Yes. Okay.

Because it's for sale product. Okay. And I was a little unclear as to where parking is going to be. Is it is it in is it in in other words do the structures themselves have parking garages or or is there a separate area that's that's group parking for each building? How's the parking work?

Sorry I didn't uh clarify that Commissioner Barnett in my presentation but every home in this uh new development would have uh two twocar garage in it. Along with that, we do have uh some guest parking and we are working with our architect um right now to try to find more room on the site uh for more guest parking. Okay. And how many bedrooms in general are the units? They would be ranging from it'd be like two to four bedrooms. Most of them would be probably threebedroom.

Okay. and the contemplation of a third story. Would that be a third story of duplexes of two stories or is that a third story with its own units on the third story? Uh they would all be the same unit. So it would be three levels of the same exact unit and they I see. So a single residence might be three stories high. Yeah. And all of those uh I don't know if I pointed that out, but those would all be located in the interior of the property. You did mention that. Um okay. And um my last

if I could just add, Commissioner Barnett, just to um back up what uh Michael said in the town home residential topology, the front door for every home is on the ground level. And so if it's a three-story home, it'll be three levels for one unit. if it's a two story two.

I get that. The one other thing I didn't hear you talk about and I'm just interested in what observations you have because obviously if a project like this goes forward, there's going to be a detailed traffic study done. But unfortunately, Napa Road uh has become extremely busy as has Levoni. I mean, they're essentially like little mini freeways with just one lane in each direction. Uh the the intersection of Fifth Street East and Napa Road stinks and uh it's just a blinking light. Um what are you what are you seeing as the future of traffic mitigation and management for that area if you have any ideas?

Thank you Michael. Um Commissioner Barnett, thank you for the question. Good to see you. Um when it comes to traffic and circulation obviously that will be one element of many elements that will be studied during the envir environmental review process and from that process sometimes mitigations are recommended as part of the project and so as Michael said we're very early in the process and traffic circulation mitigation that will all be studied during environmental review. Okay thank you. Next commissioner Mr. Vladimir,

I just got one quick follow-up question on the parking. I think the the description the written description that you put in said something like 88 parking spaces as opposed to and I think you just said two car garage for each unit. Is that I think that might have been a little off. I apologize for that, but it would which is off the the 88 the 88. The expectation is each unit will have a twocar garage and that's going to be stacked or is that expected to be denoted? We're planning for side by side but we are in a still conceptual phase trying to figure out how this site really works altogether. Okay. Thanks

uh commissioner. All right, Commissioner Nent. And this might be perhaps for the um staff, but the annexation process um is that something that will be um will it be contiguous with the project? Is it all going to happen at the same time? And how does that play in with um the Red Tail project that we had a study session a few months ago where that too that that property just south of um the four corners area that annexation process how is this all going to what what's the what's the plan? Good question. Um so when we talk about annexation and these development projects we are proposing to bring them forward as a package to planning commission. That way we are doing the environmental for the whole project as well as for the annexation. In this case the general plan for both sites have been has identified a land use but they have not been prezoned is what is typically what it's called. So they'll go through a pre-zoning annexation as part of this as part of this project. If this project was to be approved, part of this would be a recommendation to city council for that annexation. City council would then have to approve the annexation of this site into the city. And then if that is done, it then goes to LAFCO to finish out the process and goes before their board. and then their board has to approve um that to be annexed into our city. So this way we get SQA to look at all aspects of it. So including the

prezoning but also the project itself. Um as far as timing, each project is on its own time schedule. We all have different meeting dates and so we're treating them as separate. However, SQL will always look at cumulative. So the environmental will look at these projects if they are submitted and are in at the same time as potential projects. So thank you. Commissioner Wyatt,

would you say that there's a good amount of flexibility uh in your concept at this juncture and planning this potential application? I would say there's some flexibility, but I just made it aesthetically. It sounds like there's some flexibility and you've talked about a craftsman style, you've talked about a Spanish style. So, and do you anticipate

uh the aesthetics of this project and maybe some of the scale and massing to be informed by um comments from the members of the public and uh community members and adjoining neighborhoods and members of the commission. Yes, definitely. Uh that is the reason we are here tonight is to mainly listen to both commissioners and community members. And we do have a lot of flexibility when it comes to which architectural style we'll go with and down to small little um what would you call it? Uh small little details on all over the home along with lots of landscaping too. uh we'll take a lot of input on what people believe uh fits in best with with the area.

Right. Another question if I may. um in consuming the public comment that we've received so far around this study session and this you know potential application down the road and in speaking with uh uh neighbors and people who own property and are interested parties um you know in the surrounding area. There's there's definitely a concern around uh increased congestion. Jones Street is a fairly narrow street as it is. Um that is, if I may create a term, overparked. There's there are there's a lot of uh vehicles parked on that street and it's hard to navigate as it is. Do you anticipate what what do you anticipate if anything happening to specifically that aspect in order to help alleviate that problem? Um, thank you, Commissioner Hyri, uh, or Vice Chair Hyrick. Um, as it relates to Jones Street, um, in conversations with the city, um, and has always been the plan, if this site were to be developed, Jones Street would become a standardized street. And so, um, there is some rightway on the Doyle parcel. And so, if this project were to move forward, Jones Street would be widened. Um and uh and I anticipate street parking would remain on Jones Street except for obviously the entrance into the project.

Okay.

And then and just to follow up just on circulation and and traffic and as I said before to Commissioner Barnett, um that will all be studied obviously during environmental review including fire evacuation. Obviously that's a concern for um the neighborhood and Sonoma as well. I mean, I was, you know, obviously we were all here in 2017 and evacuation, fire evacuation is very important and that will be part of environmental review. Um, I would like to add though whether we add 50 units to Sonoma's housing stock here or 50 units to Sonoma's housing stock maybe closer to the plaza. If there is an evacuation, we're all going to be going the same direction. And so the fact that a a project is being proposed of that specific location, fire evacuation, wildfire safety, um this project in particular um will be from a fire safety perspective probably the safest development in Sonoma in the sense that it will have to comply with new fires safe California building standards. But when it comes to evacuation, that will all be studied during environmental review.

Thank you for that. I had another question, but it's escaped me. Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, thank you. Um, can you explain to me why the proposed project includes such a high density of units and whether you considered alternatives with lower density? Um, thank you, Commissioner Ogorman. Um

so, uh this is a um as um community development director Gates said, this is a uh designated mixed use in the general plan which allows for up to 20 units an acre. And so as we began to work on this project, as Michael began to work on this project with architects and landscape architects, you know, you approach it from a design perspective, you approach it from an environmental perspective. You also as you know uh in approach it from a will this project pencil for lack of a better term and um as we all know we were all I believe part of it or many of us were um Sonoma has a 25% inclusionary ordinance um and so what that basically means is whether it's at the low end low AMI moderate AMI or missing middle AMI we end up selling homes to uh families at at price is much lower than it costs to build. And so the developer is um you know has to make up that amount somewhere. And so as a result because the 25% is so high and it's much to be fair it's much higher than I think really any city in the area um to make that up just to hit a you know very reasonable margin you need to have as you you need to have more market rate units. And so the number of units proposed here, whether they're 51 or 61, is is a function of Sonoma's code. And ultimately, we believe it's actually aligned with so it's a function of Sonoma's inclusionary housing ordinance, but it also is aligned with the um the goals of the housing element. Specifically, as Michael mentioned during the presentation, one of the housing element goals and policies into is to encourage development at the higher end of the densities in the mixeduse zone. And so the 51 unit um project here uh potential project is I believe roughly 18 units an acre which I

would uh posit is at the higher end of that zone that um allows for a maximum of 20 units an acre. Any other questions? I I have a few for the applicant and also staff. Um a few clarifying questions. Um so with regard to the um any proposed change to Jones Street, the widening, have you taken that into consideration in your site plan? Yes, we have. We are planning to uh widen Jones Street and improve the frontage much like it is further up the road.

And the parking garages, do they um have pads in front of them or are they just straight uh in line with the rest of the building? They will have a small little apron that leads up to the driveway and in between those sometimes we'll put some plant and landscaping elements but the parking pad wouldn't be sufficient to put a car in front of it. So the expectation is the car would go in the garage. Yeah. The car would park inside the garage. Okay. All right. With regard to the um connectivity on the outside um just uh again for clarification. So that means that there would be some kind of walking path along Jones, Napa, and Fifth Street.

Yes, there would be frontage improvements along all sides. So there would be sidewalks around it. And then there are also walking paths that connect to Napa Road, uh, Jones Street, and Fifth Street East. So you could walk through the through this the property in many different ways. And the materials that might be used for those um are you open to different types of materials, materials that may be more porous? Absolutely. Absolutely. We uh City Ventures has always been at the forefront of sustainable development and if we can incorporate uh new materials into projects, we're always open to that.

Um couple more questions. the open space that you propose, uh, how would that be maintained, paid for? Basically,

that would be maintained by the HOA. And um with regard to um some other comments that were made from the public, um is there a potential to put um and this is maybe a city uh staff and developers, there are potential to to put some traffic bombing measures in on Jones Street? My understanding from the comments is that people are using that as a thorough affair as well. So not only widening it, but um potentially calming the traffic that goes through. I'll defer to council for um I think that's probably a better question for the city

and I would defer to the city engineer on traffic. I am not a traffic engineer. Um I think it's going to come down when we get the traffic study and we see what that is. Um you know and looking at what the speeds are and things like that. Um, as we all know, widening streets makes lines wider. Um, so we do want to widen the street so that it is a straight streets consistent with the basically the area to the north. Jones Street came in on the Doyle property maintained its boundary and so we would look to put that down. Um, so we would need to look at it closer when they propose with the engineering and the different changes to that streetscape. And then with all these projects, the city engineer um looks at them um as well as the building official and fire and everything. So they will be looked at and have conditions of approval as well as any corrections that they're asking for before it even comes to you all. I have a quick follow-up question for you, uh, director. Fair to say that on Jones Street, the city could, um, apply some sort of a permit parking scheme or some other creative means to u alleviate any concern around a parking issue there. There there's a host of things that could be done to address that issue, right? Um so we do have opportunities for um resident perking um passes and things like that. Um that is at the purview of our police chief um and our city engineer about where those get designated as well as city council.

Right. But if if I recall there's precedent in our city for the ability we have a couple of locations around the plaza that have that. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, I'm um I'm still struggling up the learning curve a little bit here by u um is there a place does is the city required I I think I read that the city is required to build about um 311 units by 2031. Is that number right? In terms of the housing element,

our housing element um our regional housing needs allocation is 311 units. 181 of those units um need to be moderate or below. And have we made any progress on that in the I guess four years that this has been? We're actually two years in. Is it two years? Yeah, sorry.

Two and a half. Um, so we are at total, sorry I just brought it up. We've done 24 uh moderate units, two low, no very low, no extremely low, and 23 above mod. So we've done 49 total units. So we have 2 62 total units. However, we have quite a number of affordable units still to go. And what's the consequence of not meeting that requirement?

There can be lots of different ones. Um it just depends on the reason why we're not meeting it. So, in some cases, if your code is too restrictive, um the attorney general's office usually sends you a nice letter um that says you need to fix that. Um we it it just really depends on the why. Um if the if the project if a project that's for housing is denied without meeting the findings for denial, um the AG's office will also write you a letter. Um, so there's different fines for depending on what you do. Now, not meeting the arena, but still trying. That is what we're probably all jurisdictions will be finding out in this cycle to be honest.

And and then I just had a one other question just to kind of get it in my own mind. So the demographics of Soma seems like it I from what I was reading kind of peaked in the late 2019 1819 range at like 11,000 persons has dropped somewhat in the last few years and is kind of like projected to drop a little bit more in the future. So, has there not been a tie-in between the required additional units and the kind of the projected demographics? I'm I'm trying to grasp on to the capacity issues here, you know, whether or not, you know, people are concerned about road capacities and water capacities and all that sort of thing. And what I'm reading from the demographics is we're kind of going the other way at the moment, right? That we should be having more

capa. Yeah. So the state has identified as a state that there is going to be a population increase. With that each region was provided with what their population increase that they need to plan for was. Then that region took that number and basically allocated it to the jurisdictions including um the county as a whole. Um and each location was given what their numbers were. The idea not being what you have but the ability to

absorb more people. Yes. Right. So and and Sonoma is kind of plus or minus 1% 8.8.9 something in that kind of range.

Um and so with that it says you've got to build 311 units. Does that then go with planning of and state money, federal money, wherever infrastructure improvements, road widenings, signalization, water features? We wish, but the state has not provided funds with their housing requirements when so the idea with when developers come in and propose housing that they're providing the needed infrastructure to serve their development not to serve the entire city or all the future but to their development itself. So any water service and things like that. So, we will make sure that we have water availability and that they have the access to sewer because we do require sewer in the city limits. We don't allow septic anymore.

The road is the real challenging one, right? Because it's that's a more regional issue than it is just local, right? So, does that change does does the number of units being proposed by a project change the overall use of a road? Those are those are the traffic engineers. They get to they get to model that.

And again, I think the point that I was trying to make is it seems like in the last 5 years, those uses have probably been going down as opposed to us between the population and then even the uh the visitors kind of declining. So there seems to be more capacity than there was in 2018. Say I don't know if that squares with what others think here on the on the commission. And if I could just add to that, the population is going down because people cannot afford to live here. And so that's what we're trying to solve. And the um the traffic you discuss on Napa Road clearly has increased. And from from what I understand and a lot of people believe this um it's due to people driving acro through Soma from American Canyon, Fairfield, Napa to jobs in Marin County, Paluma, Santa Rosa and because they can't afford to live near where they work. And so in my view everything goes back to this housing issue. And that's again it's a small project but that's what we're trying to solve.

Commissioner Gman,

thank you. And actually, um, Mr. Barnett really answered a question that I was going to present because I I do I do I've seen the same statistics and I appreciate what Commissioner Latimer his questions about Reena and um just to clarify one one thing um housing targets are not determined by the city. They're determined regionally and through a state- driven process because I do know there was a lot of comments in in the public comments that were submitted about why Reena, we don't control Reena. That's an accurate assessment. And then on the population piece, I was prepared to comment that I, you know, in all the the literature and things I've read, it is it is, you know, the ability to stay in the community has been a challenge, which is why I believe we set the 25% affordable goal.

Uh, yes. Uh, Commissioner Eric, Director Gates, is it fair to say that the only way that we meet our state compelled arena allocation is by a developer coming and proposing something that the city of Sonoma is not in the business of at this time at least creating housing. To create new housing in the city does require a developer to do that, whether it's a market rate or affordable um developer. Commissioner Willard.

So, I have a question. Um, Michael, you you presented this project as um housing that will serve um people like yourself, like my son who's about your age, probably a little older, but I'm looking at the floor plates of your town houses that are 1300 to,900 square feet. and I and being an architect and understanding the market here. Um, how is how what's the performance and how are those units affordable to that same demographic that you're proposing that you're building for? I may defer to council on this one.

Commissioner Willers, um, are you just are you asking how much we're planning to sell these for? I'm asking you you you you you premised the this proposal on a perform correct that perform has a unit size of 1300 square ft to 1950 in the threetory or in the twotory units. Um I know how much it costs to build. I know how much that inventory will sell for in this community and yet it's being presented to us as missing metal housing. Mhm.

Um as being part of the mixeduse um development code initiation group at that point in time, um town houses really weren't the um intent of that code. Mhm.

What was intended was what was intended in that code were smaller units affordable to a mix of um people in the community who weren't being served by million-doll town houses. And so I'm questioning whether your proposal is meeting what you're proposing it will meet because density is just a number of units. Mhm. It's and the impact as well as the affordability is connected to the scale of the unit as well as the way in which the lot is being used and developed.

The smaller the units, the less impact on the property, the less impact on infrastructure, the less impact down the road. The larger the units, the higher the price, the more impact, the less land, the more runoff that. Mhm. And so I'm just questioning how how this project is being proposed to meet a certain segment of the population in terms of affordability, which is also what the state says they want, but they don't give any guidelines for it. In fact, it feels like they just want a bunch of houses.

Um, and so I'm questioning, you know, I'm putting your feet to the fire. How does this meet missing middle income people in our community? and how will it change demographically those people who are going to come to our community and not end up as second places to come and visit Sonoma in?

Uh well, thank you for the question, Commissioner Willers. Uh we are projecting that these will not be million-dollar town homes, number one. And so what we have at least performed um are town homes that will be selling below the median price of Soma. And so number number one um uh we believe that um a town home that sells under a million dollars in Soma is more accessible for the missing middle. Number one. Number two, we're going to be adding anywhere from I can't do the math in my head right now, but 35 to 45 um units of market rate housing to Sonoma, which will also have an effect on pricing in the valley because we're adding more units to the overall supply. Number three, if small apartments and rental apartments to your point that was envisioned as part of the mixeduse zone um were able to be built these days, they would be being built and unfortunately because of the way the market works in terms of for sale versus for rent housing in Soma, you can only charge so much for rent etc in Soma and none of those projects pencil. And so at the end of the day, what I would posit is we're proposing homes under the median price in Soma. We're proposing homes that in my view an 800 $900,000 town home is attainable to a young f or could be attainable to the missing middle in Soma at homes that live like single family homes at homes sized for young families. And um ultimately they will be built because they work because they pencil. and we've added something to the the uh the housing stock in Sonoma besides preserving land for projects that are never going to get built.

Um I I have one more question. Um and it's actually for staff. So um it's kind of a follow on for you, Jennifer. Um this um the definition here for missing middle is an AMI of 160%. I've seen that before, but that's not legislated. So there's no legislated cap on the AMI for somebody in that's designated as this missing middle. I also know it's in our code. This is you I'll get to my question. I also know that we specifically um articulate this group of people in our code. Um but my question is is there a mechanism by which we can cap this at 160 in perpetuity?

Yes. In the affordable housing agreement that we create for all the units um that's where we do it.

Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Great set of questions. I want to thank you. Um, and now, um, I would like to open up to the public for their comments. Um, based on the input that we receive the letters, I'm assuming there will be a lot of, uh, comments. Uh, I don't want to have to, um, limit you to three minutes, but I would ask that if someone says something that you, uh, agree with, you maybe raise your hand or clap, but um, but let's try to be efficient in the comments so that we can can hear from folks. Um, oh, sorry, Jennifer. Can we do a quick five minute break?

Oh, certainly. Why don't we take a five minute break?

reconvene the planning commission. Again, we are opening up for public comment at this time. So, when you come up to the podium, please state your name for the record. Thank you.

Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Marvin Brook. It's a pleasure to be here in front of all you. I live on 487 Anger. My wife Meline's here. Uh I have a lot of issues with some of the things I've heard. I'm a little surprised that uh that city ventures doesn't have any uh concept or idea about how they would deal with the traffic issue and that'll come out later. That's you should be at the forefront of what you're doing. As we all know, I hope everybody in the city planning is aware of the Denova project that was raised four years ago, came before the city. There was tremendous outpouring from the people in this room about it. Uh it started out at 59. Once we had feedback to them, they went down to 45 and eventually they walked away from the project. In terms of the market part, uh right now Denova has 15 units called the Hummingbird project on one and a half acres, much lower density, and they're making that work. They did the mocking burn laying, which is 16 units on three acres. They're making that work. So there is ability to do it in terms of the bottom line, what you need to make a profit. You know, maybe you can make a profit at 35. So I will read this. Hopefully I can do this within three minutes. I've read City Ventures narrative under the compliance with housing elements section. They mention compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Not true. The 51 unit development on 3 acres is equal to all of Angler, Saunders, Pierce, and In Street Homes. An area of single family homes, which is vastly larger than 3 acres. Further on, they say the compact site design encourages walking and reduces car dependence. Unless all the residents intend to never leave their threeacre development, they will need to use cars as is expanded upon below. And I'll get into that. There are no retail stores within 7/10 of a mile of the proposed development. In addition to cars, the project will put an

estimated 125 to 150 more people in the neighborhood. Given the concentration of this increased population in a small area, we will have constant traffic on the strategic corner of Fifth Street East and Napa Road, which currently is a four-way stop. The backup from that leads to the need for a turnaround or traffic will be a nightmare. Wildflower development as recently constructed. It was done in 2004. The building of this project with Jones as an exit point will not work given that Jones is currently a problem with spillover parking from the Wildflower development. I don't know how you widen the street when people own homes and their sidewalks. What are you going to move the sidewalk of the people that live on Jones? Finally, there's a matter of community engagement. We welcome City Ventures engaging us so we convey our concerns and work together to come up with a much smaller project. Remember that Wildflower has created a lot of congestion on Jones and PBLO streets is 34 units on the same size 3acre lot. We can only imagine the level of congestion from 51 units on the same size lot and adjacent to Wildflower. These issues were discussed with NVO Denova four years ago and they quickly reduced their 59 unit proposal to 45 and then eventually they walked away from the project. Four years later the situation is worse because of a plan to build 120 units with the Red Tale project and all the attending traffic from that project. So we have all these developments that are within a mile of each other at the edge of our city where people are trying to exit. So that's a problem. Right now we're there's no public transportation where we are. So right now we're we have a lack of transportation options and the potential for significant increase in car traffic especially with an estimated 70 to 100 cars maybe more because people that will buy your market rate homes will probably have two cars. Here's why it's so important in evaluating the project.

Reliance on cars. Without accessible public transportation, residents will be heavily reliant on personal vehicles for commuting errands and social activities. Increased traffic congestion. More cars on the road. It leads to increased traffic congestion during peak hours impacting travel times and quality of life for current and future residents. Strain on infrastructure. Existing roads and infrastructure may not be designed to handle a significant increase in traffic volume. Potential leading to road wear and tear requiring costly upgrades. Environmental concerns. Increase in car usage, more greenhouse gas, more air pollution, which can negatively impact local air quality. Noise pollution, more cars on the road translate to increased noise pollution. When a value proposed development on on East Fifth Street, it's essential it is essential to consider how these concerns might be mitigated. That's part of what'll have to be thought of when we really think about that. Now, this project's adjacent to the wildflower development which is also on three acres. The combination of the two projects together on the southeast corner of Fifth Street and Napa Road will contribute to increased congestion and fire evacuation problems. There is also the 120 unit Red Tale development which is only half a mile away. Highlighting it's a critical point about the cumulative effect of all these things. Cumitive traffic impacts fire evacuation concerns. Sonoma Valley faces a unique challenge due to the geography with limited north south evacuation routes primarily highway 12 and Arnold Drive and a few lateral roads such as Napa Road. Napa Road is always been a place in a thoroughare. So it's very essential that that's a place where people can move out. So with increased population density without corresponding improvements to evacuation infrastructure can dra drastically increase evacuation times during

wildfires or other emergencies. We do not want to end up as another paradise California and that's a concern of the people in this room and all the comments that you you got from people. Sonoma Valley has a significant portion of its developed infrastructure with the wildland urban interface where housing meets forest, scrub land, and grasslands. Over 80% of structures destroyed by California wildfires between 85 and 2013 were in such zones, including recent Soma Valley wildfires. So, we need comprehensive planning. One thing I would just like to add before I go, there is a a we talk about infill and infrastructure on the corner on 8 870 Broadway on Broadway and MacArthur across from the hotel. There is a a lot for sale Meridian Capital. It's owned by J. It's owned by uh Morgan Bank. The hotel is not developing it. Why aren't you looking to develop something in there in that instructure? It's two acres and they've already are annexed. They're part of the city. They don't have to go through all of that stuff. Why isn't why aren't you looking in that area? Anyways, thank you for the time. Thank you.

Thank you,

Jerome Nil from uh 1385 Jones Street. There's been a lot of accidents on Napa Road and Jones, lots of them. It needs a turn lane there. If you could put that in your traffic study, I'd appreciate it. Also, there's increased bicycle traffic. We need bicycle lanes. Uh, and so please include them in your traffic studies. And thanks.

Thank you. [Applause] Hi, I'm Don Lungren and I live on Ingram right next to Martin Orman. I just have a simple question. It's about parking. Uh there's no parking on Fifth or Napa Road and there clearly is parking on Jones and all the people that go on Jones go on Angler. So those have both become throughways uh for people. But parking uh I assume you're you have twocar garages for all these people. I'm going to go with that assumption. And uh in the in the neighborhood that we live in here, the most people don't put two cars in their garages. And if we're lucky, they put one car in their garage. And the garages used for storage and all kinds of other things. So, you're going to have a lot of cars that can't fit in this space. I mean, you just drive around the the angler of that whole area there, and you will see tons of cars on the street in front of nice homes that don't put their cars in the garages. And and I own two cars. One of them's in the garage, the other one's not, but we have a driveway, so it can sit on the driveway. So, I think you will have a lot of cars that will not be in their in their garages and they will have to be somewhere and they can't be on Fifth and they can't be on Napa Road. So, they're going to have to be on Jones or they're going to have to go in the neighborhood and be on Ingler or, you know, on one of the other streets. So, I think you've got to a plan. There has to be another place to park cars or you're going to have to dig a parking garage underneath the property because there's no way you can put cars parking outside of this

structure. So, that's just a question that I think has to be addressed. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, my name is Jesse Ortiz. Um, and I live at 20525th Street East. I spent the last 40 years living in the Nimi capital of the state, which is the town of Hillsboro. If any of you know that Tony town, so I'm familiar with what is going on here. We moved here about a year ago. We loved it because we loved the space. We loved the community. Loved the people, the outdoors. I look across the street, I see a farm down the road a little bit. Vineyards. It's It's a beautiful, beautiful area. I understand the pressures that all of you all of us are under to bring more housing. You have you have worries about fines and what the what what's going to what the state's going to do. But let me tell you, if you don't build more, you're not going to be alone. There are very few towns or cities in this state that are going to reach the goal or what's been set by Sacramento. It is outrageous. And we know the population is dropping. They can say it's it's affordability. It's a lot of other issues. But let me address traffic. Well, let me first address the gentleman here saying that they were bringing in this project to that would fit in with the area that is surrounding this project. And and that's not true. All of you live here. You know, you know what it's like out there.

Farms, vineyards, the guy across the street has has goats. There's cows down the road. This does not fit at all with the area that that that this project is is supposed to be being built. It it it doesn't fit at all. But I do understand that it has to be developed. We can't stick our heads in the sand. But 50, 60 units, come on. I don't even call them homes. I have an apartment building in San Francisco. I have one-bedroom apartments that are bigger than what they're saying here, onebedrooms. These are really not homes. They're apartments. They can sell them as homes, but they're apartments. And that's not the style of living in the area where we are on Fifth Street East. Traffic, you're talking 60 units. You're talking 120 cars. I live on that corner. Often the traffic is backed up to the to the deli up on 8th and down past Freedman's. Very often it's going to get a lot worse. The gentleman here says, "Well, that the traffic uh people are coming through through uh Napa Road because uh instead of going through 37 because they're going to Paluma and other places because it's it's it's unaffordable. All of you know what the traffic is like on 37. The reason people are coming through Napa Road and cutting through the town of Soma is to get to Paluma and to get to Roner Park and to catch 101 that way because 37 is a parking lot. You all know what that is like in the

afternoons and the morning. So the people that are during commute hour are using Napa Road as their thoroughfare to get to 101 Pedaluma and the rest. This is only going to make it a lot lot worse. Um, I think the project should be scaled back tremendously, but then it doesn't make sense for them to build. And you've got to understand that they are in this to make a profit. That's their business. Okay? But what we're here for is to maintain a community and to do the best that we can to maintain that community through growth. That's makes sense. That's reasonable. Believe me, this project is not reasonable. It's grossly it's it's grossly aggressive. I know you I know I'm not familiar with the zoning that oh you can get 11 units or 10 units per acre or whatever it is. I'm just asking that all of you consider the quality of life. Think about the poor guy who a year ago spent $7 million on the house next door to this project. How do you think he feels? I'm surprised he's not here. He probably maybe he's he's somewhere else but

he knows about it. His place is going to drop 30%. It it's anyway think about quality not quantity. Okay. Please please think about it. Thank you. Thank you.

I just have a quick question. Um Patty Defern 465 East MacArthur Street. on the map, you show two streets that dead end, and I don't know if they're going to be culde-sacs or what's going to happen or do they back up to a future street. Um, so that's my question. If you and and the map's gone, so I can't really show you what I mean. Pardon me. Oh, they do dead end. Okay. All right.

Okay. So, that my question. I think that that's going to cause more problem on uh Napa Road and Fifth Street East. Um I actually work in Pedaluma. I'm on that road every day and uh what they talk about at the time that I go in the morning a lot of people don't really see but I see it and it's back to back. Nappa Road is back to back. So we've got to come up with some kind of solution somehow. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, Nikolai Mat, 373 Saunders Drive. Uh, just two quick things. One, uh, I think density is the real issue here. Honestly, if you walk through wildfire development at 11 12 units per acre, it's pretty dense. And it to propose something that's even out of scope at 20 units per acre. I know there's a profit motive and you deserve a profit motive, but uh that just seems unreasonably dense for that particular environment. Second thing is I live on Saunders Drive and we constantly have uh cut through traffic. When Napa uh road gets backed up, then people hang a left and they cut through our neighborhood and they drive fast. Um and sometimes you'll see two, three, four cars at a time drive up to Denmark and then go up Denmark in order to come out eight streeties and avoid that traffic jam at Fifth Street. So, another development with more cars on the road, etc., um, would just increase that nightmare. So, thanks for your consideration.

Thank you. [Applause]

Hello. I'm Carol Dodge. I live right across from I I live on Jones Street where the uh entrance would go into the development. I don't regrudge the development. I love being at Wildflower and I'm really grateful to be there. Um, just regarding traffic and all the vehicles, the thing about building for young families is the kids grow up and they all get a car. So, you might have parents with two cars and then, you know, the kids are um getting their cars. So, there's two more cars in that family and um there's just nowhere to park. As you can see, Jones Street will unless it is widened, it will will lose at least six or seven parking spots. So, um that's all for now. Thank you very much.

Thank you. [Applause]

Good evening. I'm Caitlyn Cornwall and I'm representing the Sonoma Valley Collaborative. And I know you know with the Snow Valley Collaborative, but just so the audience knows, Snow Valley Collaborative is a uh coalition that is meant to represent the broadest possible array of interests in Sonoma Valley and to work together kind of across those boundaries on whatever issues all of those different interests can agree on, which maybe is not that many, but they're important. Um so for example we have uh all the big business organizations the chamber the vendors and growers the visitors bureau the hospital the health center the school district uh environmental organizations many children serving organizations education organization arts organizations philanthropy so we have about 30 members and growing um and we spent a lot of time talking across all of those different interest groups to figure out if there was something that they all agreed merited their time and their investment of their social capital that would improve the community of Sonoma Valley. And the thing that rose to the top by a long shot was infill affordable housing because businesses cannot hire. Nonprofits can't keep staff. 70% of the people at the hospital do not live here. They cannot find places to live. Our schools are closing. Families are leaving. So our membership which represents uh invested, informed, caring, dedicated people from across a very wide range of sectors have agreed that the thing that is most risking the viability of our community is the lack of housing affordability. So, I'm here watching this project on behalf of all those members uh because we are looking for projects to support

and help even help craft that can increase the affordability of Sonoma Valley. This is not exactly the project that the collaborative dreams of. These units are big. They're expensive. Um um and so I guess from the perspective of the collaborative, we would urge you to use the levers that you've got and that the city has got to maximize the ability of this project to be economically feasible, but produce units that people who need to live here and work here that we need to be able to work here can actually afford. Thanks.

Thank you. [Applause] Hi, I'm Fia Grace. I live in Pueblo Avenue. Um, so my uh my only comment is that in addition to this project, there seems to be uh in the general plan an idea that the the area um in the south will be a commercial gateway. And so we've got this project by Kger, this project, maybe a roundabout plan. And I don't think I've ever been I've lived here for 15 years, ever been involved or asked if uh we want that area annexed, if we want these things or been involved in any way because we're not in the city limits, but now this is impacting us. So, I would ask for some some engagement with the people that live in that area as we consider these projects, not only this one, but the others that are planned.

Thank you. Thank you. [Applause]

Good evening. Uh, my name is Doug Mile. I am an architect and I live a quarter mile south of this site at 20820 Fifth Street East. Um uh this is Dja Vu all over again and I am just concerned because four and a half years ago we addressed pretty much all of these issues. I think Mr. Barnett here was you know there at the time and um a lot of these issues really got ground through. There's a lot of existing history and a lot of research that can be done. A lot of things can be learned from looking back at what was already proposed by Denova. And looking at this, this looks like Denova Denova Denova Redu. This is the same thing and actually in a lot of ways I think much more brutal. Um very worried about it. um being down there and having already ground through all of these issues. So, I'll try and keep it really brief and just kind of hit what are the big issues. When this first came up, I I dug up an old letter that I wrote to the planning commission uh as part of the community alliance for planning southeast Sonoma, a big group of neighbors that all coalesed around this issue and and and about the development here. And in general, we understand the need for developing this parcel and annexing it into the city and helping to deal with the housing shortage. But there are so many issues. Uh I do not envy these guys. As an architect, I I know that this is probably one of the toughest projects and bringing it around again in this same form kind of disappointed me. I would think that somebody would have looked at it and say, "Okay, we'll we'll bring a a different approach to it." But um we're

seeing pretty much the same thing. And it's it's fairly standard developer fair. I've worked for a lot of developers. you come in with a big thing and, you know, get it all chiseled down to something that that works for everybody. But, uh, we we've already kind of been through all of this. Um and and the biggest issues I see um as before and actually I think I'll probably resubmit the letter I wrote and with because all of these issues still apply and I'll I'll just go through them as quickly as I can. But uh the most important I think here for the planning commission is they have to prezone this and when at some point a long time ago I I' I've lived in Sonoma over 31 years and 28 years at my current location on Fifth Street East just south of there. Um but uh the the parcel in question was pre prezoned at mixed use in in in kind of a crazy way. it apparently there was a story I'm not sure exactly you know where it came from but that somebody wanted to have a quickie mark on that corner because it's too far to go to Broadway market so you know let's make this you know the easy access uh and in no way shape or form can that parcel be considered a mixeduse parcel I mean even the general plan indicates that mixed use is supposed to go in between commercial and residential and there's no commercial anywhere here this parcel mixed use there is crazy. And so therefore the whole premise that the mixeduse housing would apply with no other mixeduse uses involved in the project um just seems ridiculous. And at the time when this was reviewed it seemed to me the consensus of the planning commission that that was a mistake in the past and that needed to

be addressed. And I fully support that this planning commission uh create an ad hoc committee to study this issue before this comes up and wastes any other developers time and money and everybody else's time. And you know, uh, it's it just it just seems to me this big issue about how that parcel gets zoned and decided by the powers that be, how it's going to be developed needs to be addressed and discussed in a way that is, you know, really above and beyond. It seems to me now we're talking about, you know, parking and floor plate sizes and design and and, you know, dead ends and all of that. None of that really matters until you take care of the the number one issues. Prezoning being the initial one before annexation. Annexation itself is just a huge issue because in my view and many others that annexation of this uh creates the responsibility uh for the street front of Napa Road and Fifth Street East and the intersection that lovely intersection I drove through every day um is now part of the city and that has to be addressed as part of this. And so again, I I think this is like the hardest project I could imagine. I I really feel sorry for anybody who would want to come in and try and do this because this has to be addressed. There's no way that you can develop that parcel without addressing the intersection. Whether it's a street light, a roundabout, I looked at the roundabout would be tough to make it work. Street light best, but you know, we're talking crosswalks, sidewalks, you know, everything involved. um all the drainage the drainage at that corner is very difficult. Um, third big issue is is that uh this is a gateway to Soma

from Napa and you come in and if you come in and you drive in, you see a two, threetory, basically an apartment blocks, six, how many ever large apartment blocks on that corner right after driving through rural, you know, unincorporated Sonoma. um that is to be very jarring and I've always uh supported some kind of a buffer element, some kind of a design that would be appropriate at that corner because it it kind of sticks out as a bulb. Uh there are opportunities for daylighting the creek and bringing in a water element there and making a buffer zone so that anybody who lives in any development in that corner will not be as affected by the traffic and the noise. Uh, I live a quarter mile away, but I hear the noise from that corner and it's and and it's substantial, especially 6:00 in the morning, exactly on time. One truck with the screeching wheels comes through. Um, so other issues including the environment. A a big thing of it that we that we found out is that obviously uh the the entire site will have to be flattened uh sub excavated, recompacted, raised five feet in order to get the sewers to drain to the west because that's where you're going to make the connection. So it's it's huge. It's it's just it's not this is not something that simply, you know, can be fixed by looking at a plan. It's it's it's very three-dimensional. Um, and

I'm going to ask you to wrap it up very soon. Okay. I I'm sorry. And and and I'm and I'm sorry for for uh overstaying, but um anyway, I I think that the most important thing is that for this committee to take this under consideration and I don't think anything should be done here until the general plan has been reviewed and this specific parcel uh get reviewed very carefully about how you want to develop it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, one more comment.

Hi, my name's Christy Eddie. I work in real estate. I live on the west side of town, so I'm not a direct neighbor to this, but I think this project is really interesting. I'm very torn about how I feel about it because working in real estate, you're acutely aware of what it costs for young families here in Soma. And um man, I'm all for making it more affordable and you watch what's happening, the trickle effect to our public schools, etc. So, I'm torn on this issue. I I don't have a solution, but I do have some questions. Although, can I ask questions or is everyone just commenting? Is this these are public comments, but you're welcome to ask questions.

Okay. I noticed that as I was sitting there with my little list going. But um well, first off, you know, I guess I'm curious if the city is going to limit, you know, what we're deeming as affordable because I think, you know, um a few of us in this room work in real estate. When you sell a house that's 850,000 and you have an HOA associated with that, if you're at a 6 and a half% interest, the families who are buying at the 850K range are usually on a three and a half% down. They're not at 20% because that's so dang much money cash up front. So, you're looking at three and a half% down. And just running quick math on that plus an HOA fee, we're at a seven about a $7,000 a month payment. So, I just think it's like a good perspective on when you talk about a million-doll town home, like what does that really cost a young family and how much money you have to make to afford and I'm bringing that down to 850. So, that's just a reality check for everybody on like real numbers. Today's market, we're looking at seven grand. So, that's a comment, but I do have a question. Um, so you know, I think it was Marvin in the very beginning. Um, there were 51 units at where this pencils. The other thing I'm aware about is what building costs are and they're high. They're crazy high. So, I respect that fully. But I wonder, you know, Mockingbird was able to figure this out with less units. So, you know, maybe there's an option here that is less units because here we've got wildflower across the street. Then we've got mockingb bird. it was less units and somehow that was able to be done and done recently over on Fifth West and um MacArthur. So I think there maybe we could look at some options that are lower even though I'm kind of understanding that 51 was where this this pencled which I can appreciate. Um, and then in terms of

locations being considered, so I think Marvin again said across from Broadway, um, on MacArthur across from MacArthur Place Hotel, I think there are some other sites in Soma that could be really valuable to look at, too, because then we're not running into this four-way stop issue. We're right along Napa Road. Um, I love that Broadway site across from MacArthur Place Hotel. I'm sure they wouldn't love that. They're probably listening now. But um you know that's a really good spot too that already has is annexed already and it is a site that could be maybe developed into some of this what you know the term affordable housing. Um and then also just I think I didn't quite understand this in the beginning but what is the timing on a project like this? I don't know if I can ask that question anyone can answer but what does that really look like? Like we're talking about annexing. Are we talking like years from breaking ground or what? Like just help us in the room in some layman's terms like timing of this is this like commentary where we can't or can anybody help understand like just

so this time frame you're going to be providing comments and if you have questions within your comments you're welcome to do such. The chair can then ask the applicant or staff the questions that they want to ask.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I think that's it. I was just looking. Yeah, I just wanted to understand timing on it, too. So, I think this is great in general. I guess coming from the bracket of trying to afford these, I do appreciate what's happening here. And I think Soma, it's great for people to know in this room that, you know, unfortunately, I work with almost all second home buyers because the primary can't afford around here. And that's a sad thing. You know, my I was just had a lovely chat with some women in the back. My parents were teachers. I grew up in Kenwood. They live on four acres. And my dad and I just lament about how my husband and I make five times their income as two teachers. We can't ever afford the home that they own. And that is just a wild concept with how much money we're talking about to afford that $7,000 per month. And that's not even to have the lights on. That's just to unlock the door, you know. And then you got a million other expenses. And when public schools start dropping down, we're forced into private. So now I'm paying two grand a month to send my kids to a private school when public schools aren't terrible, but they're struggling in Soma. And now we're at nine grand. And you just see how this starts to add up. And just this is why we're having the great comments that um were made earlier about the declining you demographic of Sonoma, like this town shrinking. So I think affordable housing is great. I'm glad there are people trying to solve this to be honest, but I don't know if we have the solution and maybe it's just a smaller quantity. So that's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. I don't see anyone coming up to the podium. Oh, one more.

Hello. Uh Logan Harvey, 380 East MacArthur Street, uh Soma. I live near the project and I just want to speak in support of it. I appreciate the woman's comments before. We've continued to see young people leaving Soma. Um we've continued to see schools shutting down. We saw the birthing center shut down as well. Um we need young people. Um whether or not we like them as a town is is not clear. Um it's funny, but it's true. Uh we don't seem to. And so projects like these provide some amount of an opportunity or a hope or like a glimmer that maybe a young person could move here and live here and have children here and work in our shops and shop in them. You know, you hear from business owners even there's a lot of trouble for them to even have people come in and and buy things because nobody, you know, the people that have money here already have all the things that they want and you know, young people that buy things can't live here. And then we reject every opportunity that we have for housing. I mean, SDC, in my opinion, is a perfect location to put a thousand homes. I'm fully supportive of that project, but we had people that already own homes protest it. Um, and Broadway MacArthur was offered as a a location for housing and we had people pretty sure people in this room seek with that and make sure that that couldn't happen either. So, I just want to speak in support of this project. I think 51 units is fine. I think 61 units is better. Um, I don't care that they have to grade it. That's what you have to do to build on property. Shocking. That's what every single person that owned a home in Soma, we had to cut down trees and grade for their property, too. Connect it to sewer and adjust for traffic and the rest of it. I think roundabouts are great. I think we should embrace them. And I'm just hopeful that the new law that basically blocks SQA from stopping housing projects applies to this property and that we can get it

through without lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit after delay that continues to rise the cost for the developer and then for the end user of the home which might possibly be somebody over 75. Thank you. Thank you and welcome back. [Applause] All right. Um I don't know if you'd like to in a in a in a in a brief way just give a an idea about timing for folks. I know nothing can be pinned down and then um and then we'll go to commissioner comments.

Uh thank you Donbach. Um in terms of timing uh the way we're sort of approaching this general estimate is it'll take um anywhere from 6 to 9 months to go through the entitlement process and get um hopefully earn your approval here before the planning commission. At that point, I believe it's another three months to go through the laughco process. And so we're looking at sort of like possibly anywhere from six months to a year to entitle the project. Um then that becomes a permitting um scenario with the city and so we have to uh you know obviously develop construction drawings and um permit with you know the building department, the city engineer etc. And that generally also takes another 6 months to a year. And so in terms of breaking ground, I think we're looking at anywhere from 18 months to to two years.

Thank you. All right. Thank you everyone for your comments. I'll now open it up to the commissioners for any final comments. Commissioner Barnett.

Well, just a few things for the benefit of the audience. There's been discussion about the regional housing allocation numbers commonly referred to as the RENA numbers. The uh the agency that formulates those numbers is an agency called ABAG, the Association of Bay Area Governments. It represents um a number of the municipal and jurisdictional entities that surround San Francisco Bay. uh they were designated by the state as the regional planning agency responsible for coming up with the RENA numbers. This is not something that the city comes up with. We were able to participate in the process by uh responding to their number assigned to us. Um and um so from a uh technical standpoint um it's uh numbers created by an agency outside of our area uh not something that was created with the input of the community. Um, secondly, the state has passed innumerable housing related laws over the last several years, many of which remove jurisdictional authority from this body and from the city overall as it pertains to housing. I'm not sure which, if any, of those laws are going to intersect with an application like this, but it's important for the community to understand that the options that the city has in approving or disapproving a project, these discretionary decisions are far more limited today than they have been in the past. And that's a simple reality of the legal framework we

are working in. and the secretary of the attorney general Bob Bont has made it perfectly clear and publicized widely the efforts that he's making been making to sue jurisdictions that are not upholding the state law. So that's another reality that we're working with is the pressure from the state. It's interesting to note that the numbers that the state came up with for housing in California were developed by McKenzie Company. McKenzian Company's numbers McKenzie is the largest consulting firm in the world. Um and they consult for governments and businesses. They're huge. They're gigantic. Um, basically the number that they proposed for the state of California, which was something, if I recall correctly, like 3 million homes by 2030 or something, I can't quite recall the exact number, um, was basically something that the legislature embraced. And based on the research I've done, um, it's not really known if that number that McKenzie came up with is actually accurate. Um, there are some people who say it's overstates the need for housing in California by a third. We'll see how it all shakes out, but the state laws we're seeing and the policies that the state is enacting um are based on projections of population increase and housing need developed by McKenzie. That's where this all began. And um and these consulting firms are also lobbying firms and they have great connections to the

legislature. And the laws that get passed by the legislature all flow downhill like other things we know about. And this is this is the way we've ended up in part in the situation that we're in under the gun from the state dealing with numbers that almost everyone agrees are not going to be met and a very aggressive uh litigation attitude on the part of the state to intimidate municipalities and jurisdictions into doing what the state wants them to do. even though the uh targets of the state may be totally inaccurate. I just want to add one more thing. I was on the city council when the designation of this property as mixed use happened and it was an idea put forward by then. He may have been Mayor Dick Ashford who was on the council for four years and um and his feeling was at the time and this all seems quite long ago. I was on the council 20 years ago. Um the the notion of oh this property is going to be developed one day. What would we like to see there was really pie in the sky. You know thinking about what we what might we do over the next 20 years? and he said, 'Well, you know, maybe we need some sort of little commercial component in this part of town because there's not that much on the east side. And and the council that oh, we're talking 20 years. And the people who own the property, they don't seem to be interested in selling it. It's been the way it is for a long time. It ended up being part of the zoning designation, and that's how it happened.

It was just an idea for something that seemed so far in the future that why the heck not? We can always change the zoning. Now, what's happened is that there hasn't been a close consideration of the change in the zoning on this property, partly because there's been other priorities for the city. This property needed to be annexed. It was in the UGB but outside of the city limits. It seemed like a low priority issue to the city overall over all these years. Nobody said, "By the way, maybe we ought to take a look at whether that zoning designation made sense." Well, here we are at the new general plan where the zoning designations are all going to be re-examined because 20 years have gone by. And so, here we are. Lo and behold, um it's a complex issue. Um it never really has been fully explored as to whether the zoning on that property makes sense. Uh it certainly does not reflect what the intention of Dick Ashford had because there's nothing about this that has a commercial component on it. That's just the reality of the history of this situation. So with that, thank you.

Any other comments from commissioners? Um

um since this is a study session, you're looking for input from the commission, I'll hopefully give you some input. Um to me, this parcel has not been um addressed in the way um that it should be. Um the idea that the fronts of houses along Napa Street are going to face Napa Street um suggests to me that the architect neither um sat on the corner of um of Napa Street and watch the traffic go by and consider that in the livability of homes. Nor did they consider the context of the surrounding properties in placing what is a standard formulaic way of addressing a site plan for a town host home subdivision. This happens everywhere in California in every town in California as a solution to to today's housing perform town houses internal driveways and garages and circulation to it front to a front door which is a garage or the front doors of these houses don't make community they simply face a street very busy streets in fact I would encourage your architect to look at wildwood as a as a or wildfire I forget wild flower. I would encourage them to look at that and understand how that community is actually formed in a high density situation. Um it it isn't this solution. It's a synoma solution. Actually, the houses here face each other. The streets are the common place between buildings. They aren't just circulation for cars. So, they form the community in

infrastructure and network. It's what people move here for. They don't move here to live in a townhouse facing Napper Road. If you take that into consideration, you may end up with a development that will meet with the community's approval and you may be able to get it through the process because I imagine because this this project doesn't meet our multif family objective design guidelines. So, you're obviously going through a discretionary process with us. So, you're going to be in front of us for design review. you're going to be in front of us for site plan review and all of the use permitting that's required under that. So, so I would actually encourage you to look at the multif family um objective design guidelines because those are heavily considered for highdensity housing and how those could can meet the context of what Sonoma is. And it was also they were also structured in a way um to form the type of multif family housing that this community needed and wants. Um I you know I the site planning is the place that it starts. It's what will form the buildings and the neighborhoods that will hopefully be inhabited by new by new community members to Soma. It's not craftsman. It's not modern farmhouse. You can't apply a dress and expect that to be a place. It's not. The thing that makes Soma Sonoma is what is in between the buildings, not the buildings. So take that into consideration when you bring your SMA based considered heavily

considered Soma solution to the corner of Fifth Street and um and Nappa Road and I hope there is some change that comes along with that. All right, no other comments. Um I want to thank the applicant and staff for bringing us study session. Um and then this will conclude this uh particular item. Thank you for the public comment. All right, we'll move on to our last item uh for discussion. It's 5.2 discussion and direction on minor modifications to non residential structures such as awnings.

All right. um for Kate's community involvement director. I um so last night we introduced um the city council introduced the ordinance for design review. Recently I had a request for an awning in the plaza and I was like, huh, how would I apply this new code we just finished to that and and thought of it a little bit stronger. So right now the way we have it written is anything within the public view on non-residential would be a major design review. And so I wanted to bring that back to you guys with some just thoughts. I wanted thoughts from you all if that's the level of detail that you want to have brought to you at um planning commission because it's not a sign. So it's not going to fall within our sign. it's an actual awning. Um, and your thoughts. So, awnings or other architectural features or things that serve purposes that don't change the structure of the building or um they're easily removable is kind of the way I was thinking about it. I'm not thinking of like, oh, X building wants to do all those lovely foam surrounds. like, "No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm really just wondering mostly about awnings at this point. I haven't had anything else come forward that really triggered my brain and trying to figure out how to apply. Um, so I wanted to get your feedback and so based on just from again this is discussion, I don't have anything for you. But then with that I could either bring back kind of a policy interpretation or you know move forward with as we've discussed is anything that's visible on a

non-residential building is going to come to you. Um or I can bring forward a um a amendment and make it maybe a minor um design review or an exemption. So feedback

question. Well, I just want to make sure I'm understanding um what we're introducing here as a topic, which is you're asking whether we feel that changes such as awnings to non-residential properties in the plaza area, for example, should come before this commission for a decision. The alternative is that some sort of standard be established below which staff would make the decision and then this there would be a standard above which the commission would make a decision. Is that basically what you're asking?

Yes.

Okay. Um I I guess my reaction to it is that when it comes to comes to other places other than the plaza, um I can contemplate a a minimum maximum standard in which decisions get made without commission review. But when it comes to the plaza overlay zone, I think all those decisions should come to us. I think it's too sensitive an area. Um I mean, I don't want to invoke the pink door controversy, but but one can see how sensitive changes on the plaza are for people. And I think that the wise the wise decision from my standpoint would be to concentrate the decision making for plaza related changes even if it's something as pedestrian as simple as an awning that's removable or that should still come before this commission.

So you just brought up paint. So we exempted paint. Um, so in the plaza, are we wanting different treatments? Plaza, historic, commercial district or something for non-residential. Again, going back to the non-residential aspects. Um, is that another clarification we just need to to be clear? Is that um what do we call it? The Plaza Retail Overlay District is what we call it. um which is a portion of Broadway, a portion of um the side streets that lead into um the plaza that the com is that the intent is that the planning commission does want to make sure that they are reviewing all modifications.

That would be my preference, but I don't know how the other commissioners feel. I mean, I've always felt that while and we may have even had in the past a pallet of standard colors that could be used in the plaza if people wanted to have a more streamlined process. Um I don't know if that's still in effect, but um I think that uh if for example, and I know that this was a fire department issue, those very large numbers on the historic buildings that I would have liked to have a discussion about that before this commission before it happened. It may seem like a minor item to everyone but the fire department, but to me, it's a major item. it it's it it's something that should have been talked about. So, I I'm I just feel fiercely protective of that historic district and I don't want to I don't want to leave it open to too much interpretation. Um, Commissioner,

uh, regarding paint, it being a much more permanent in its application and its color choice than an awning, I would think that that would uh, come before us. It seems to be a more um important decision than a awning that could be taken down. And I I I echo your concern about your your fierce protection of the of the um plaza and that overlay. Uh I have a question about um historical properties. So, um would they get an historical uh evaluation based on an awning or would that also need to be um discussed?

Depends on the awning honestly um and what what we're what we're modifications are to the building itself. So, even when we're putting on buildings on some of the um we added an awning to Capoetta, that's a new awning. Um it was re reviewed by design review. Um so, it is a more structural change to that one um in its design and such. We have other awnings that are more just fabric simple frame awnings. And when it is historic, we want to make sure well even if it's not historic, we want to make sure that they're compatible with the design and its placement um on the structure as well. So if there are specific standards, things like that that we want guidance to provide for design review, we can do that. We're going to be doing some of that with the signage um component of awnings as well. It's kind of more going back to it's not signage. a new feature on a building maybe in the plaza overlay. Commissioner Leader.

Um I'm wondering if you are looking for that authority having heard some of the commissioners passion for the plaza area. My instinct is to give you the authority to go do your job and to streamline the process of getting these things done because paint and awnings are not permanent problems. You know, paint can be painted over and awnings can be removed if there's a real issue. Um, obviously if we've, you know, maybe we have if if the commission ends up being concerned about the decisions that you've made because there's pink doors too many places in the in the plaza, you know, that there'd be a problem. I mean, are you comfortable with that decision-making process or would you prefer to have it in front of the commission?

Are you gonna yell at me? No, I don't mean right now. I mean um with every you know when it is a high value area I would call it um in the those specific areas and um as planners I think when we have very specific guidance on things it makes us the most comfortable in our decision making. Um, and so when it fits into a nice little box, we like it the best honestly when we're making decisions and then we could quickly make decisions. Um, and we don't get to be honest, we don't get as much back and forth with applicants sometimes. We say this is we know that we can approve this and so that's what you know we recommend as staff. Um, so, you know, going, you know, I know there's probably different thoughts on paint color, but just in general, um, there's always options around not these paint colors, right? We don't want you to paint your building black or whatever that is. So, those types of things are easier to plan around and staff approve over the counter. It is a lot quicker. Um, and then around awnings, you know, placement, location, again, color. Um, we want it to be compatible just like you all do. Um, but again, if there's certain uh concerns around what it is, how it looks, what color it is, then the commission could always give us that guidance to still be able to approve. But it's what you guys are comfortable with at this point um in this process. That's what we were trying to do previous, you know, with that previous

design review. Just a couple of things have come up that we're trying to refine now as they occur.

So, um is there a opportunity for I don't know how to say this, it's something that I would hate, but anyway, is there an opportunity for discretion at the staff level? In other words, we give you the discretion to review these without having to bring them to the planning commission. And yet, there's an understanding that at a certain threshold by your discretion that it can be brought to the planning commission because of what you see as a at a staff level of its potential impact and you're maybe uncomfortable with just approving it administratively. Um, to me that's kind of the a balance situation where you know if you're not doing something very impactful, you're adding an awning, it's small in scale, it doesn't have much impact in terms of color. The way it's mounted on the building makes sense, why should we go through the hoops to get here for everyone here to say yes? Because that's probably what's going to happen. But, you know, if it's at a another level, then it does come to the planning commission. We have those items already, I think, in some of the in some of the to me that seems like a a good balance for these kinds of items. Um, paint, I happen to agree. I, you know, paint is one of those things that's a personal choice. It adds variety to our community. Um, the idea of a standard pallet of colors means that the buildings are going to be a standard palette of colors because that's the easy way through the process rather than some variation. So, you know, um, that's where I stand on paint. Um but but you know an awning is a physical structure and an awning we're g we've we've included seating outside and the

sun shines and so it's comfortable to sit outside under shade against a building. Um and then I think of places where we all think of like Paris. Does Paris have an awning ordinance?

Probably. I bet it doesn't actually because Paris, it's funny the Europeans, you know, Europeans like they have old buildings. They treat them well, but they're very comfortable around their old buildings. They like the mo they like modern change. The they like it to fluctuate with with living in in that area. So, you know, that's where I come down. I think on I think there is a threshold um where it's obvious that it should be come for review um that it has some significance that it should come for review and then there probably are many that don't really rise to that level.

Yeah, I I'm of the same mind. I think that if we if we can create some criteria for you all to make a decision um kind of baseline criteria um and also a mechanism for which you can escalate it um so that most hopefully most of of the require the request will go through a ministerial process.

Yeah, I'm of the exact same mind. I just said that I I'm joining Commissioner Rollers and Chair Donbach in their comments and that I I believe that staff should be empowered to make the decisions that they are so good at making uh with the you know their backgrounds as professionals in this industry. Um but there being some kind of a the threshold by which uh you could escalate

and I would assume that obviously the next steps is if everyone is kind of in agreement is you would put something together and you'll bring it here for us to review um and have a follow-up conversation on kind of those standards or criteria.

Great. So I'll um we already have it built into the ordinance that I can bring anything to any level. Um so but I can based on what I have heard um what I can do is bring forward something to add it to the exemption with the qualifier aspect and then um and maybe have a little bit more specificity around what that looks like for it's just hard to describe awnings honestly. It's it's an awning, but I can think of we'll we'll look into it a little bit more.

Yeah. I mean, I think um the way I think about it is what's the risk of not having those criteria? Like, are you going to get a pink awning, you know? So, I think the the things that that um make sense that you're probably aware of um are probably the logical things to set at those standards. All right. Thank you. All right. And um with that, we will close that item and move on to item number six, which are director comments and announcements.

All right, I have a couple. Um one is the design review um ordinance introduction occurred last night and we will go on August 6 for its adoption. So it will be in place at the beginning of September. Um so we uh look forward to rolling that out um in the next couple of months and getting ready for that. Um, and we also awarded a $250,000 grant using the affordable housing trust fund to help with the preservation of 18 affordable units. So, the sets um units as well as the Msave units um their affordability term ended this year or was getting ready to end. And so we received our notice um of intent for them to sell and worked with Burbank Housing. We had reached out to a number of different um nonprofits to look at it. Um and then we've we identified Burbank Housing to move forward with the purchase and so they were able to raise the funds um with a $250,000 gap that they asked us to fill. And if I recall correctly, these retaining the status of these units does not apply to our arena numbers.

That is correct. I think that's really a lousy policy. But it's we have to report that we preserved them otherwise they would be losses. Yeah. Well, it helps us some. Jennifer, would are those now would these would these now be put affordable in perpetuity and aded? No, they will not.

Um, and then the uh last thing I wanted to mention is we've been having our task force meetings for the general plan. Um, and we've discussed the local economy element, the noise element, and started the circulation element. We'll continue to talk about the circulation element at the next meeting which is on August 4th. Um and uh staff will be releasing um in that first week of August the open space um element and um we also activated the ad hoc for um the planning commission general plan um as well. So they've started to meet and that concludes the director's comments. Thank you. Um, any commissioner reports or comments? Commissioner Willers.

Um, let's see. I have two comments. Uh, one one question. Do those little guys that get fans put underneath them that wiggle their arms up and down and go around. They're not allowed in our community. Correct. That's correct. They are not allowed. If you want to tell me the address there, we also don't allow the flags. Yeah. I'm working on that one. 7-Eleven doesn't have them now, but they had them for a brief period of time. I saw them, too. I saw them during Fourth of July. I don't know. It was in the last few weeks.

Yeah, in the last few weeks. Um anyway, that that's that. And um and just a comment um I'm saddened to see that the single family house on the corner of um Second Street West and uh starts with a P cross. Anyway, um which that that was a parcel that was zoned for um mixed use which which um right right behind 7-Eleven from the

Yeah. Yeah. Perkins, right? Um I'm saddened to see that that opportunity has been lost basically. Um, so and especially with the way that that single family house now addresses Second Street East with its garage literally 4 feet off the sidewalk. Um, where that garage is going to be backing into Second Street East. Um, it it's or I mean West, sorry, which we all know is a busy street. So, um, anyway, it's just a comment.

Any other comments? Um, I'd like to make two. First, I I want to congratulate you all for using the housing trust fund in the manner to preserve the affordable housing stock. Um, and secondly, I just want to welcome Hannah, um, the new Matt and, uh, looking forward to working with you. Okay. Okay. On to item number eight. German. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Thank you. May I say one thing?

Um I was a planning commissioner and I'm also a dental hygienist and many times I had people come to my office so that they could sit with me independently and discuss their project. And I heard that a couple of you have had that happen to you. Um, my suggestion is you say, "I'm more than happy to meet with you at city hall with someone in attendance." The one onone with a private conversation with someone could be very dangerous for you. So, hate to bring it up, but boy did it brought back a lot of memories for me. Um, they would come, they would get their teeth cleaned, they would find out, I wouldn't discuss it, and then they leave. So, uh, there was an ulterior motive there. Anyhow, I think you run a fabulous meeting. Thank you very much. I agree.