Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

Commissioner city staff and members of the public Welcome to the city of Sonoma regular Planning Commission meeting of August 18th 2026 the time is 6 p.m. And I will call this meeting to order If I could get a roll call, please Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins is absent currently Commissioner O'Neill here

Thank you, Vice Chair Nugent. Present. And Chair Weyrich.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So moved.

Well, comment or discussion? Commissioner Barnett. I think we ought to survey the audience and find out who is here for what. And on the basis of that, reconfigure the agenda potentially so that the study session item, if there are a lot of people here for that, can move up ahead of the ordinance discussions and revisions.

Thank you. With that suggestion, can I see by a show of hands which members of the audience here are not here for the study session item 5.1? not here for this tonight's study session 5.1. One gentleman in back, are you here on another item, sir? Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other applicants here tonight? I see one hand. Okay, thank you very much. I see two people in attendance for the, oh. Okay, thank you very much. So with that, my suggestion, I'm open to comments from fellow commissioners, is to start and go for about an hour with the regular public hearing. And once we've reached an hour to move item 5.1 up, to be respectful of the time of the members of the public hearing attendance wishing to participate in our study session this evening and Move any other items that weren't heard of the regular public hearing after item 5.1 Could we possibly move 5.1 to just before 4.4?

Because those are those next two items 4.4 and 4.5 are not generally

the public will engage in but there's already people here that are for the other items thank you for that clarification that was the effect that i was going for yeah thank you commissioner o'neill is that uh is everybody amenable to that okay yes okay so is there a motion okay excellent is there a second second roll call please commissioner wellers yes commissioner barnett

Aye.

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

Excellent. Thank you very much. Mr. Menefee, would you mind leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance this evening? Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on to comments from the public at this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on tonight's agenda. It's recommended that members of the public keep their comments to three minutes or less. Although I've been known to be flexible for items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for commission consideration. At that time, upon being acknowledged by the chair, please step up to the podium, state your name, and speak into the microphone. With that said, are there any members of the public who wish to address this body on any item not appearing on tonight's agenda? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move into the consent calendar. Are there any changes or edits to be made to the consent calendar as is reflected by tonight's agenda? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve? Move to approve.

Second.

Excellent. Roll call, please, Hannah.

Commissioner Willers? Yes. Commissioner Barnett? Aye. Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Chair Weyrich?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

Excellent. Thank you all. Okay, we will move into the public hearing portion of tonight's agenda, item 4.1, discussion, consideration, and possible action to adopt a resolution approving a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 21,633 square foot parcel into two parcels at 1101 Broadway. Staff report, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you. As discussed, we will be discussing the tentative parcel map at 1101 Broadway. So this property is located in the Broadway corridor on the corner of Newcomb Street and Broadway. The property is 21,633 square feet. It's zone mixed use. It's surrounded by residential properties to the west and then mixed use properties around the rest of the property. So the applicant's going to be subdividing this into two parcels, with the first parcel being 13,489 square feet. You'll see that picture on the top is where the existing residence is. And there's going to be some sheds and accessory structures that will also remain on that parcel. Parcel two will be 8,144 square feet with an existing gazebo. You can see that in the second picture on the bottom there. And the project requires approval from the Planning Commission due to a dedication of a public utility easement of five feet along Newcomb Street. So the tentative parcel map here can provide a little bit of a clear illustration of what the subdivision will look like and those existing structures that are going to remain on each parcel. And in accordance with the findings, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan and the requirements for Broadway Corridor. The site meets the minimum parcel size for a mixed-use zone, and it will be suitable for future development. And the subdivision is not expected to cause negative impacts to the environment or public health or safety. So staff recommends planning commission approval of the tentative parcel map. And with that public utility easement at 1111 Broadway, the applicant is present for any questions, and so is staff.

Thank you, Jacob. I appreciate that. At this time, I'll ask any commissioners who need to to disclose any ex parte communications that they've had with the applicant in this item. Okay, seeing none. If the applicant is present tonight, if they would like to step forward and address the commission, if they wish. Good evening.

Well, good evening. So we're just doing a very simple subdivision of my parcel, separating off the rear of the parcel, which presently has a Japanese garden that I intend to keep. I don't know what I'll do with it. I may develop it at some point in the future, but it would be a low-impact sort of small development.

Great. Thank you very much. Remind me of your name again.

My name is Cecilia Gabrielli Shumsky.

Very nice to meet you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of staff or the applicant by the Commission?

Okay.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any questions for city staff? Seeing none. Okay. At this point, I would open public comment on this matter. If anybody in the public is wishing to address the commission on this topic, now would be the time. Okay. Seeing none. We'll move on. Close public comment. Any commissioners have comments on this item? Is there a motion on this item?

I will put forward a motion to approve to adopt a resolution approving the tentative parcel map with a public utility easement at 1101 Broadway.

Second.

Excellent. Thank you. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Willers? Yes. Commissioner Barnett?

Aye.

Commissioner Dumbach? Yes. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. And Commissioner Roman-Jenkins.

I will abstain since I did not hear the motion. Thank you. Apologies for being late.

Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Chair Weyrich?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you. Moving on to item 4.2 of tonight's public hearing, discussion, consideration, and possible action to adopt a resolution approving a use permit to utilize a residence for three home occupations at 572 Esta Madera Drive. Staff report, please.

Yes. So this is an item for the three home occupations at 572 Esta Madera. This property is located in the southeast planning area. It's 7,350 square feet, and it's surrounded completely by residential properties, and it's also bordering the city boundary to the east. The applicant's proposing the use of the residence for three home occupations. They'll utilize two of the spaces where you see it says Christmas and fabric for those businesses. The use of those two spaces actually exceeds the typical maximum of 20% of the floor area for a residence. It exceeds it by 10%, so with this approval, it would allow that. And the home occupations will be compliant with all the other requirements and conditions for home occupations that are typically approved administratively. There's not going to be any clients visiting the home, and all packages will be sent through typical mail and through UPS outside of the home. So in accordance with the findings, the proposed uses are consistent with the goals of the general plan by promoting a home business. The proposed uses also are allowed within a residential zone and are compliant with the standards for a use permit. And the residence is not going to undergo any type of modifications, so to still match the character of that street. And the use is not expected to impair any of the character of the town, or sorry, that street as a whole. So staff recommends planning commission approval of the use permit for the three home occupations at 572 S to Madera, and the applicants available for any questions as well.

Great, Jacob. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. At this point, I would ask for any ex parte communications to be disclosed, if that's relevant. Okay, seeing none. Questions of city staff from commissioners?

Okay.

The applicant's present. If they would like to come forward and address the commission, that is an option for you. Good evening. How are you?

Good evening. Good. I just moved here.

Well, welcome.

So on Sunday. So this is my first experience and I look forward to being part of this community. I grew up in Menlo Park in Redwood City and chose Sonoma as my new home because I find it's being creative and community oriented. So just wanted to be happy to hear all about this.

Great. We're glad to have you.

Does that mean you got your 17 new windows? Yes. How did you know about that? You wrote a letter to us.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

We read those.

We actually read.

Yeah.

I got the windows in. Yeah. And they're egress. Yeah. There is an egress window. So, yeah. I complied. My dad was an architect, as I said, and also on the planning commission. So I'm very aware of rules and regulations. So I look forward to being here.

Well, thank you. We appreciate that. Did any members of the commission have questions for the applicant? No. Okay. Seeing none. at this point i'll open public comment if any members of the public in attendance wish to address the commission on this item please come forward now perhaps unsurprisingly seeing none i'm going to close public comment and i'll bring it back to the commission for any commissioner comments and seeing none is there a motion that can be made motion to

Motion to approve resolution approving a use permit to utilize a residence for three home occupations at 572 Estimadera Drive.

Second. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Willers? Yes. Commissioner Barnett?

Aye.

Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Commissioner O'Gorman-Jenkins? Aye. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Chair Weyrich?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

Excellent. Congratulations. Thank you for being in attendance tonight.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay. Moving on to item 4.3. Discussion, consideration, and possible action to adopt a resolution approving the variance of a new residence with reduced setbacks and an existing development footprint at 280 Wilking Way. If I could have a staff report, please.

All right, third in a row. So this is, like you said, for the variance of a new residence with reduced setbacks at 280 Wilking Way. The property is located in the northeast planning area, also on the border of the city of Sonoma. It's 7,930 square feet, the property is. and it's surrounded by residential properties. The applicant's proposing the reconstruction of a legal non-conforming residence. So this is being reviewed as a new residence or new structure due to the level of work, which doesn't comply with non-conforming structures, changes to those. So it needs to be reviewed as such. Because of the location of the foundation of the existing residence, there's a reduced setback that's being requested here. The residents will have a new entryway, new garage and windows and doors and overall style and design will change here. They aim to use as much of the exterior walls as they can and as much of the foundation as they can without having to create more impact. But with the extended extension, it still will require the variance. There will be an extension off the front, which will have new foundation. It'll reduce the length at which the garage extends off the front of the house, but that's still also not compliant. So that also needs a variance as well. So we're looking at a variance for reduced setbacks for both the side of the structure and also that garage. The plans here provide that demolition plan. You can see in red on the right, and then the expansion off the front on the left picture in gray. And just to give you an idea, we are not reviewing this under design review due to its location. It's not in the historic overlay, and we did get a historic evaluation that confirmed that it's not eligible as a historic structure, so it doesn't require design review. But I still put in these elevations here just to give an idea of those changes. So this is the existing west and south elevations. And here's the proposed west and south elevations. And then here's the existing east and north elevations with the proposed east and north elevations there. So in accordance with the findings, the proposed use is consistent with the general plan by coordinating development on a small, continuous lot. And the proposal is going to be compliant with all the standards with the approval of this variance. The development of the residence will maintain that existing land use and it'll be compatible with the neighboring properties as it's not expected to impair the character of the zoning district as well as it's similar in nature to a lot of the residences nearby that have also reduced setbacks. And so the adjustment with the variance is expected to be consistent with the general plan and it'll still, it won't grant any special privileges given that it's similar in nature to those other houses as well. So staff recommends planning commission approval of the variance for the new residents with reduced setbacks for the garage and side setbacks at 280 Wilking Way and the applicants available for questions.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Do any commissioners have to disclose ex parte communications? Okay. Thank you. Any questions of city staff? Yes, Commissioner.

I didn't see any emails or correspondence from the public on this one. Did I miss anything, or was there nothing there?

I didn't receive it for this updated notice that went out. Initially, when we had the first notice that went out, I did receive one question about it, but no comments related to it. So with the new public notice that went out, we did not receive anything.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner questions okay the applicants present tonight if they'd like to come forward and no there's no requirement excellent thank you very much are there any members of the Commission with questions for the applicant not for the applicant but can you just clarify for me clarify for me what the variance specifically on the setback is

Yes. Let me look real quick. I believe it's the five-foot setback instead of seven feet with the combined 18, I believe is what it is.

Yeah, I understand. Thank you. And Jacob, you indicated that this is very much in keeping with several other parcels and several other structures on Wilking Way, right?

That is correct. I looked at the GIS to kind of get an idea as to how much of a setback there was on the other residences there, and the majority of them have a reduced setback. GIS isn't exactly the most accurate way to check, but using that you can kind of get an approximate distance, and the majority of them are about the same, about five feet as well.

And the same is true of the placement of the garage, is that it's in keeping with the placement of the garages that are all fronting? Yes, that is correct. Extend beyond the front of residences on that. It's like the majority of them, in fact. I believe all of them are on the front. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. At this time, I would open public comment. Any members of the public wishing to come forward to address the commission on this item are welcome to come forward at this time. Okay, seeing none, I will close public comment. Any commissioner comments? Okay, I will just say that based on my review, based on the staff report and my visit to the site, I have no problems making the variance findings in this case and approving the application.

The entire subdivision was planned with five-foot setbacks on both sides of the buildings with, as you said, with the garages at the front of the building. Right. And it just doesn't conform with our current development code. Great. Thank you for that.

Yeah, that's a question I had, and if Commissioner Willers can expand on that a little bit because you've got the history. It's non-conforming, but these are not old properties So was it originally built non-conforming and we just gave variances to the entire subdivision?

Our development code used to the setback requirements for R1 historically in the new in the previous development code had five foot setbacks basically for both sides.

Okay, so they were built and then the code changed.

The development code changed.

Okay, because we have that rule where we're not, anything that's non-conforming we can't add on to. You know what I'm referring to? We had that issue with Jackson station.

Yeah. In this case, they're not adding on. They're not making it worse. They're not making variance worse. They're actually making it better on the front because they're reducing the set. They're actually reducing the front of the garage. They're moving the front of the garage back. So it's actually making the condition better even though it requires variance because it's still outside of the exception.

Right. Okay. Well, I really like it, so I'm in favor.

Okay. Any other commissioner comments? Okay. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the project as submitted for the variance of the side and front yard steps.

Second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Willers? Yes. Commissioner Barnett? Aye. Commissioner Donbaugh? Yes. Commissioner O'Gorman-Jenkins? Aye. Aye. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Chair Weyrich? Aye. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Congratulations. I appreciate your attendance tonight. Thank you. Have a good evening. Okay. Based on the motion at the beginning of tonight's meeting, we are going to close the public hearing at this point. We are going to move on to Section 5 of tonight's agenda, Items for Discussion. to item 5.1, which is a study session to evaluate proposed site design for a proposed residential development and adaptive reuse and relocation of the general's daughter consisting of four parcels located at 400 West Spain Street. Let me just open by saying that I appreciate the attendance of everybody here tonight and that this iterative process is predicated really on the involvement of the community and I appreciate you giving of your time and being here tonight to learn and to listen and to ask questions with us. That said, when we open public comment, please feel free to come up and begin by introducing yourself or stating your name, at least, and feel free to speak freely and pose any questions you wish, although sometimes it's difficult to answer those questions in this forum. And just bear in mind that we have that three-minute rule. Please keep your comments limited to three minutes. A good way to show support for certain thoughts or topics is to simply raise your hand as someone else at the podium brings that item up. That is not to say that you can't come up and repeat it, but waving hands are a great visual indication for us up here that you stand in solidarity with the speaker at the microphone. So with that, Commissioner Barnett.

with the chair's indulgence I just want to reiterate for the public that it is here tonight that a study session is a peculiar kind of public meeting of the Planning Commission the most peculiar aspect of it is that the Planning Commissioners cannot express a specific opinion about the project either in favor or against it in any way. To do so would be an indication of bias and essentially mean that in the future when there's an actual public hearing on this matter before the Planning Commission that member who has expressed a firm position on this project would have to recuse himself or herself from participation in that meeting. So don't be here tonight expecting to hear a lot of opinions from this body, because you won't. We may ask some questions, but that's as far as it's going to go. The other aspect of study session is that we do not take any action. other words at the close of this hearing we will not have a vote we will not take straw polls we will not be making taking any action that's determinative as to the approval or disapproval of this project and so your expectation tonight should be one of having an opportunity to express your opinion, express your feelings about this project, but don't expect this body to represent any point of view at the conclusion or during the conduct of this meeting.

Thank you, Commissioner Barnett. I couldn't have said it better myself. With that, do we have a staff report?

Commissioner Borneck gave half of it already. Great. Thank you. So just a couple of the highlights that he did not mark on. The first one he talked about. The second one is we're focusing tonight on site planning, compatibility, overall consistency with general plan, development code, scale mass, and focusing on some of the environmental concerns. So the applicant is going to give a presentation and they are going to be available to answer any questions that you have, as well as we do have a couple on zoom to help answer any questions that there may be, um, from this body. Um, they also, the planning commission chair has the discretion to invite the applicant back up at any time and or the public to return to provide any further comments. This is very different than the public hearing standard. It's more of a back and forth for questions. Again, as Commissioner Burnett said, not for comments, just more of questions. And then highlighting maybe some issues and concerns that there may be on any kind of potential product moving forward. Let's see, straw votes we talked about. And the very last part is that any comments that are held during a study session are not to be construed as limiting any action by the planning commission in any future entitlement process meeting. So with that, I'm going to invite Tidewater to come present. I think Kyle is going to present first. So as he is setting up, as noted, this is a project on four parcels, 400 West Spain, 430 West Spain, 450 West Spain, and 443 Casa Bon Lee. And as previously noted in other comments in other meetings, one of the parcels does consist of the General's daughter, the other one of Ramekin's, or today is Seven Branches, and I think you'll go over the zoning a little bit?

A little bit, yeah.

So staff's also available to answer any questions about the properties as they exist today.

Director Gates, thank you. Could you just very briefly summarize the process of how taking a project forward works after a study session, just for the sake of those in attendance?

Sure. So a formal application has not been submitted for the project itself of what will be So this is a study session on a prospective project after the study session the applicant will provide that formal application and with that formal application staff will review and so staff is including our engineering and building division planning division sewer water so basically everybody gets a look at this project and then as we go through the process we'll determine um we'll finalize what those entitlements are the initial entitlements are pretty clear to us but as we would move through the project and then after we deem this complete that's when we would determine its sequa path And then also there may be other state laws that go into effect as well.

Great, thank you. And then as far as notices of public hearings, those would be notice and compliance with statute physically with physical posting and then social media?

Right, so with the size of a project, there will be the physical larger sign that will be placed on probably a couple both sides of the street, since it's a corner lot, and not necessarily three, actually three streets. So it'll probably have three postings, and then that'll be large. And then for each meeting, there will be an actual posting and a mailing, and it'll be in the paper for when a public hearing is going to be held.

Great. Thank you very much. Kyle. Hey. Welcome. Good evening. Thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you.

The floor is yours.

Maybe get some technical. Maybe.

Is it still on the podium?

Anybody know any good jokes?

Okay, we good?

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Good evening, commissioners. We're deeply appreciative of the opportunity here to present our preliminary plans for our development over on West Main Street.

Is that better?

Sorry about that. Where was I? My name is Kyle Winkler. I'm the development director at Tidewater. I'm joined here by my colleague Skyler. And then we are also joined by Zoom by our principal architect, John Ashworth from BSA, as well as our historic preservation architect, Claire Flynn at Page and Turnbull. And we're really here to gather and listen to feedback from both the commission and the community here. Hopefully we can explain some of the thinking that we've had that has gone into this preliminary plan. And I also want to just double down on what we've heard, that we're not here seeking any approvals.

Clicker.

A little bit about who Tidewater is. We're a little over a 13-year-old company. We're deeply invested in the Bay Area, and we try to be a very engaged member of the communities that we work in. The Bay Area is our sole focus. We only invest and develop in the Bay Area. We do not invest or develop beyond that. This is our first project in Sonoma, admittedly. Our North Bay presence also includes the Don Ranch Resort in Guerneville on the Russian River. as well as the building that houses Jackson Hardware in San Rafael. We're proud of our entitlement track record. We've had the ability to get a little over 1,300 units approved of housing across the Bay Area on our portfolio. More recently, some 270 town homes down in Sunnyvale, which is kind of a similar typology of what we're looking at here today on a for sale product. And we've been able to grow an expansive portfolio of buildings spreading across many different product types. Just to orientate everybody on the site, which I'm sure everyone here is very familiar with, working my way left to right, you have what is now the Seven Branches Inn of a hotel and wedding event venue. This is formerly Ramekin's. This is an event venue that houses up to 150 person events plus staff. Just north of that, we have 443 Casa Bon. This is lot 15 of the previously approved WILLOWS WILD HOA, SO A LOT OF INTERCONNECTIVITY AND COLLABORATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH WITH THE HOA MEMBERS THERE AS WELL FOR THAT LOT. FURTHER RIGHT YOU HAVE THE CANARD BARN, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE 90s, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER THERE PRESENTLY SHOWN. Speaking to the general plan and land use, which is the general plan and zoning, it's a split zoning of low and medium density residential. The site is a little under four acres. I'm going to speak a little bit later, but it is located in a very high severity fire zone. And we are following Sonoma's inclusionary BMR process, so we are providing seven deed-restricted for sale homes here for the development. And looking at those, Zonings that you see there that arrives at a base density allowable of 28 homes based on the existing general plan through the BMR units for the local inclusionary We're also afforded the opportunity for bonus units through the state density bonus program. So we are taking advantage of that we are providing 18 bonus units in response to the inclusionary requirement for the site and which is below what I consider the very maximum density bonus, which could be up to 56 homes. Just some context, you know, obviously it's across the street from the amazing Sonoma State Historic Park to the north and south, somewhat similar homes of size and scale and height, and also some duets there. And then working your way left down West Spain Street, getting into more denser product, multifamily of a density that is more similar to what we're proposing here or greater. I do want to highlight just the amazing walkability that this site offers. It's pretty special. You know, we've developed or entitled in some very dense urban core areas, and I think this site is more walkable to your everyday needs and services than all of them. It's pretty special, just the amazing amount of groceries, medical services, retail services, and restaurants. It's really just an incredible opportunity for a walkable, connected neighborhood to the community. Speaking to some of the community engagement we've performed so far, community engagement is something we take very seriously. We try and do it early and often. We're looking for solutions, and we're trying to seek consensus wherever we can. As a part of our process so far, we've held two in-person community meetings. The first one, we've sent some mailers out to all of our direct neighbors that touch the site, as well as the Willows Wild HOA. And then more recently, last week, we had the opportunity to reconvene with the HOA members to talk about some of the revisions that you'll see here tonight, as well as talk about some of the interconnectivity between our properties and the HOA as well. I do want to highlight some of the concerns that I think have been very common across a lot of the meetings as well as some of the public comments that we've heard. Certainly concerns around density and height. I think we have made moves to try and appease that so far. Concerns around traffic and evacuation and parking. There's been concerns around our connection from our site to Casa Bon Lane from the Willows Wild HOA members. And then certainly there's a large concern around the idea of moving the General's Daughter. And obviously this is very preliminary. We don't have any answers here today. the only thing that i would try and ground ourselves in around the traffic and evacuation and parking is just trying to ground ourselves in comparing that to what exists today which i would consider to be a pretty intensive use wedding event venues or event venues in general are very intensive so when you're thinking about that in the context of an evacuation scenario or even traffic just want to highlight that because i don't think we're starting from zero when we're comparing the new homes that we're proposing here today We have had some initial broader outreach to some business organizations, community groups, and other folks. I think those feedback has been more around trying to address the need for housing, which we're trying to do here, concerns around affordability broadly in the city of Sonoma. And I think a lot of direct feedback to really ensure that we're creating a design that is keeping with Sonoma and its character, and really just also addressing and expressing how iconic the General's Daughter is to Sonoma. This is the site plan that we proposed originally that we had with our community meeting. This was what we were trying to propose our underwriting on originally. Here I would draw a highlight to the orange rectangles here, which we were trying to propose a more traditional row townhouse, a high density townhouse product, three stories. I think there was major concerns from that, from the neighbors when we initially presented. So, we're gonna talk more about our new site plan, but here's a summary of some of the site changes that we've tried to make initially to that in response to that. We reduced the overall homes by 12%. We've completely eliminated three-story product on the development, which has also reduced the height down to below 30 feet, which is the zoning height to our understanding. The quantity of affordable homes has not changed in that reduction, and we've also tried to increase the amount of parking through that change as well. And I hope John Ashworth from BSA is on the line, but I think he's going to really speak to that. But this is where we are today. And again, we're trying to create something that's very special. We're deeply focused on the site plan. The site plan is really everything to the success here. It's not the design of the homes or how great the homes are looking. I think it's kind of what's in between the homes and how the site lays out and functions is really that connectivity between the residents within our community and how we connect to the broader community as well along our frontages. I hope, John, are you available?

I'm available right here. So Commissioners and members of the public, my name is John Ashworth. It's a pleasure to be here tonight and to speak with you. My firm is a firm called Bold Stockwell Allen. We're a Bay Area firm that really is all about place making and also place keeping and really believe in environments that really are about community and are about the environment. So I'll go ahead and share my screen if I could. And as Kyle said, talk a little bit about this plan, which is all intended to be about again, that sense of place in a sense of community. I think the 1st thing I kind of want to just summarize is, as Kyle mentioned, this is a combination of single family and do at homes or 2 family units. All of the heights. But these units would all be under 30 feet. So these are 2 story elements at most and then in some cases, including some single story garages that are really more like carriage houses. They're located off of West 4th street. In terms of parking, if you look at the current site today, there's currently about 86 parking spaces. We're not proposing to change that in any remarkable way. We're providing 74 parking spaces for the residences, which is in excess of the 46 that's actually required. And then there would be 16 additional parking spaces centered around the General's Daughter. So that totals up to about 90 parking spaces. So very similar to what is on site today. The General's Daughter is, of course, front and center. It's a wonderful house. And we are proposing to bring it up a little bit further front and center. So it really serves as the headpiece of this proposed development, keeping the corner open at West 4th and West Bain Street in order to frankly enhance the visibility. And that parking would also be an additional 16 spaces, which meets the requirement and the proposed use for the General's Daughter would be a really nice neighborhood restaurant. So, again, you get a combination of units here, totaling. 4046 that includes 7 affordable units, and it also includes the, the unit that would be off of Casablanca and is currently associated with the willows wild. It's an additional parcel. It was picked up and integrated into this overall project. The key thing that I hope folks can really see is this is, as Kyle mentioned, as much about the space in between and the open spaces. The project is all designed around the idea of the human scale and a series of open spaces, public spaces and paseos that are really, the intent is to really form a community where neighbors really know each other. The idea is that there'll be a whole series of porches that look out into these paseos and open spaces. Folks will be sitting on their porch, looking after the kids and hanging out and saying hello. And so it really is much about a neighborhood that is about a neighborhood itself in an environment where people are in touch with each other and in support of each other. There's a number of kind of key features we wanted to mention. I already mentioned that, um, you know, the kind of the parking component and these story, uh, garages along West, uh, West, uh, what, uh, West 4th street scale. Sorry Thank you. And, uh.

What's that we've learned 4th street West. Yeah.

4th Street West. Thank you, Kyle. And really making that very experiential starting again with the general started a lot and moving up with a variety of and even some shared curb cuts along Casablanca Lane. We want to be really sensitive to the neighbors there. And throughout the development, we're really thinking low fencing, arbors, and different elements that really provide a sense of, again, neighborliness and a sense of that landscape. We're proposing to maintain some of the existing oaks on the parcel, if we possibly can, and integrate those into the open space and really make it all about that small scale environment for people to interact and enjoy each other's company. They're a total of, again, a kind of combination of duets and single family homes that are working throughout this development. So I think that's a quick overview of the kind of the key elements. It is intended to be walkable, human scaled, two story, good with the neighbors, and really not turning the back on the neighborhood, the existing neighborhood and across Casa Bon Lane, and really making that a place where you're really going to see the architecture and the integration of this neighborhood into the larger community. And I'll turn it back to Kyle.

I think you're going to take the next few slides there, John.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I can certainly go through that. So we want to kind of give you a feel for here is kind of the overall Summary of the unit types and the square footages these all range roughly from 1400 square feet more or less to 2300 square feet. And so they are kind of a relatively moderate scale in terms of their overall. Size all 2 stories you can see the summary here again in terms of the units themselves. And the parking again, looking at a total of 90 parking spaces and that residential component. This is a rendering from West Bain and the intersection. And so you can see the General's Daughter kind of moved so that it is very, very visible. And again, the headpiece, the existing scale, and really creating a neighborhood that has traditional architecture and has a respect for the General's Daughter, and at the same time is incorporating those Elements the sales and the green spaces will interlock the community all together. This is a view looking from the intersection at Casa bone, looking back towards West Spain street. And you can see again, the idea of buildings that are compatible with the existing sale of the neighborhood and the general's daughter itself. You can see those single story. garage elements along the street here, and really an architecture that embraces the neighbors across the way and embraces the street overall with scaling elements, arbors, bay windows, porches that wrap around, and creating a step down scale as you look out towards the open space. And I then will, I think, hand it back to Kyle.

Thanks, John.

Do I have access? Does this work now? Yeah, I really want to dive into the General's Daughter. You know, we have hired what we consider to be the gold standard of preservation architecture, Page and Turnbull, to assist us here in really understanding kind of the status of the building now and any implications of potentially moving it in the future. I do want to share just some preliminary findings from Page and Turnbull. I don't think by any means these are final We have a lot of work to do with staff to really vet this. But again, while it is certainly eligible for many of the local, state, and national registers, it does not appear to be listed. They've also found that a lot of the setting and siting has been impacted greatly already by a lot of the subdivisions compared to its original setting in the Rancho. And then also they have found that the existing landscape and hardscape elements that we believe to be constructed in the 90s don't appear to be contributing to the historic resource. But all that's kind of not to be, it's really not important because we really want to treat this with the importance and just the respect that the General's Daughter deserves. Our goal really here is to preserve, enhance, and create a really sustainable opportunity for the General's Daughter to be experienced for generations to come here. So, yeah, it's really the anchor of our vision. You know, currently it's a really underutilized event space, unfortunately. And through all of our engagement, I think what we've heard is that, you know, it was once a neighborhood restaurant, and man, that would be really cool if that could come back. And, you know, it was a beloved community gathering spot. And that's something that we want to really lean into and try and create here. So that's what we've heard. And we think, why are we moving it? And we really think that moving it forward to West Spain really creates a really distinct visual identity. We've spoken to a few restaurant groups who are interested in creating a restaurant here. They have a very strong preference to have it in a more prominent location, more accessible, more visible from Spain Street sidewalks and streets. There's probably a more technical reason that we're concerned about. We haven't done any engineering, but we do believe we are going to have to lift the site somewhat to address some of the sewer connections and create sewer cover. I think that's a common problem that has been experienced on some other developments here in Sonoma. And ultimately I think it just does give us some breathing room to create a lot of that site planning and the site layout that you saw from John. on the previous screen, but I just want to express how important we know this structure is and how committed we are to making sure everything is done appropriately and under the strict guidance of city staff and other consultants and experts. Again, we've hired Page and Turnbull. They're gonna analyze and oversee the move. We've spoken to Phil Joy moving extensively. He's a local home mover, really a master of his craft, and really cares deeply about these historic structures. And again, also wanted to just highlight that we plan to do everything within line with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the preservation guidelines. And then lastly, I do want to highlight that we are in a very high severity fire zone, something we take very seriously. It's very important to us. And we're trying to make design efforts there to really address that and following all the fire codes, making sure that where noncombustible materials are required, class A fire rated materials are required, are being incorporated. We've also hired our landscape architect, RHAA, who has extensive experience in defensible space landscaping. So I think there's going to be a real push and pull to make sure that we're safely designing this landscape. I think our layout now is probably a little aspirational from a landscaping perspective, but also want to really keep safety in mind. And then we did have a preliminary meeting with the fire marshal I want to share with you. I think that was focused on mostly site circulation. They didn't see Any major issues with our circulation, but we didn't again didn't really speak too much around beyond our property lines the fire marshal And I think one thing that's an open item with the fire marshal is trying to understand that Casablanca connection and their preference or the benefits of kind of creating that from a fire access perspective. So I think that's just an open item of collaboration with ourselves, the fire marshal, city staff, and certainly the members of the Willows Wild HOA. And I'll close I just want to share my contact information I really really would appreciate if folks have any questions feedback any desire to meet communicate We share this intentionally to scribble down We want to continue to have further community engagement further community meetings to truly really try and advance this plan, but To anyone who wants to talk further We're here to do that

TODD BANDUCCI- Kyle, thank you for your presentation. I appreciate that. At this point, I will bring it to the commission for any commissioner questions of staff or of the applicant. MS.

Thank you. I have several questions. I think most are for staff, but I do have one question for the applicant. So the first question is regarding the non-historical category for the general's daughter. Is that something that we can apply for or can be changed? Or is – will it always be non-categorized as historical?

No, we always have a process to list a property. And, you know, one of the things that we're doing right now is doing a citywide survey for historic resources. And with that will be determinations of eligibility and then potential listings. But we have a process for that.

If is there would there be what would be the value of if it was eligible to create it as an historic structure?

So with the historic structure, there are some incentives, including the adaptive reuse ordinance that allows the alternative uses that wouldn't normally be allowed in these zones, kind of like what we've already done with allowing it to be what it is today, because these are technically only residential zones, but we've allowed these other uses, so it would be similar to that. That's really the only incentive that we have It, you know, with other properties in general around historic resources, listing a property at different levels has different meaning under state law as it stands today.

But is there I guess where I'm going is is there would there be a value?

To the community or to the structure to the applicant to subsequently designating it as a historical structure So I'm not gonna use the word value so what designation designation does is it allows for incentives or even Rules or regulations around what can be done with a site similar to what we have already with the historic overlay We have her design standards that we already have in place page interval actually wrote them For our historic overlay and how we apply this this is in the historic overlay already also with historic Resources we have been kind of treating them with that historic overlay and not really treating them too differently and unless the modifications to the structure itself that's when we look to okay how do we preserve this how do we maintain its character defining features its materials are part of that character defining feature so we're moving in that process and treating it as historic currently with the hiring of Page and Turnbull and treating it like we would treat a historic resource at this point.

I have one more question for staff and then two questions for the applicant. With regard to what you've seen so far just in this proposal, I don't know how detailed, you know, the proposal is for staff. What you see. Okay.

What you see is what I see.

My question was going to be around in its current iteration, does it seem to fall within the compliance of the code so that it would be a ministerial process? But you can't answer that right now, so.

So it's not going to be ministerial. It's going to be condominium project. If I remember correctly, it's a use permit for multifamily. So we already know that there's going to be entitlement. The other aspects of it we'll analyze as we go through. And we did look at the number of units and did confirm the density bonus allowance.

Okay, thank you. With regard to the General's Daughter in particular, so most of the site will be single family homes, so those will transfer to single families. Who will own the General's Daughter? Is that something that can be sold?

Yeah, eventually I think we want to populate that with a really successful business and restaurant. That would likely be on its own fee simple lot that eventually either hopefully maybe the restaurateur could purchase or any other investor at that time.

Okay. And my other question was I was wondering if you could expand on the last comment you made around the Castlebone connection and what is the outstanding kind of issue

Well, I think first and foremost, we want to take our neighbors' concern extremely seriously. I think there has been, I think generally the majority of folks there are not interested in seeing the connection to Casa Bon Lane. That's a private road as a part of the Willows Wild. There is an easement deed between our properties that allows for that connection. I don't think we have a strong preference to make that connection. I think if there's an overwhelming reason for it, particularly fire, there wasn't a definitive yes, you must do that for fire in our initial conversations, which I'll characterize as initial with the fire marshal. there might be other reasons for trash pickup or other but I think that's just open item and I don't think we are as the applicant you know driving or demanding for that connection to Casa Bon thanks that's all I have I saw Commissioner Barnett next thank you a few questions one is do you have the sense or can you convey to us

what the percentage of the lot coverage is on these combined parcels?

I can say that it's below the lot coverage allowed. I believe we calculated it somewhere in the high 20s percentage. The lot coverage? Yes, sir. I don't have the exact percentage off the top of my mind.

We can get back to that. Okay.

Commissioner Barnett, 31%. Sorry about that. Oh, thank you.

And with regard to the number of affordable units, city's inclusionary requirement currently sits at a 25% number. But I don't believe you're, if I understood you correctly, you're proposing seven affordable units, which is not 25%. Can you explain that to me?

Yeah, we believe that to be 25% of the base allowable density of 28.

Okay. I guess I'll have to check with staff as to whether the nature of that calculation conforms. I'm not sure it does.

Understood.

And for staff, any building that's over 45 years old is evaluated for its historical significance. And I'm assuming, I mean, has the general's daughter already had a historic resource analysis when it went through the process of conversion to a restaurant from a residential building?

I didn't find anything when I looked back when we added on and when she made the modifications on the interior. I didn't see historic resource evaluation, but that's part of what Page and Terminal is going to be doing as part of their, is my understanding. Okay.

And does, assuming that because it is over 45 years old, would a move in and of itself trigger historic resource evaluation? since it's a change in the siting of the building.

Yeah. So with that, we would, regardless, we're going to do historic resource evaluation for the site because the site is being modified too with additional homes. So as was presented to you, they initially looked at like what's the landscaping and the hardscaping that's already on the site because there's already proposed modifications regardless of moving it. And so we do look at setting that's one of those qualities on historic sites that we do look at but if you're asking move about moving in general yes moving is one of those things that occurs with historic resources and so it does trigger a historic resource analysis in and of itself and okay

And then my last question has to do with Fourth Street. As you know, Fourth Street dead ends. And actually, I was on the City Council at the time. We codified that structural arrangement. My recollection is that the current DEAD END CONSISTS OF A WOODEN STRUCTURE. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S EVEN A BREAKAWAY STRUCTURE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN OPEN TO MOVE THROUGH. DO YOU KNOW?

I'VE WALKED THROUGH IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT'S NOT A BREAKAWAY TYPE. AND SO AS ONE OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE IF DEVELOPMENT OCCURS ON THIS PROJECT OR THIS PARCEL, attendant to 4th Street, a safety and traffic analysis that might result in a modification of that 4th Street dead end so that in the case of an emergency, the fire department can actually get through there, as well as for evacuation purposes, the dead end could be then opened up for auto traffic and evacuation needs.

So the traffic analysis will be required to be done. And then based on that traffic analysis for this specific project, it'll determine what improvements may be warranted. But again, it's going to be specific to any change to existing conditions that this project creates. So they would then, if there are certain improvements that need to be made that are created by this specific project, typically what happens is they pay their portion of something So if there's already that need and this increases that need, then there may be a requirement that we open up Forest Street and go through a pass-through, but we won't know that until we get that traffic analysis.

Okay, so even though that portion of Forest Street is not part of this project, Its adjacency to the project would be opened up as a matter of egress through that area in general because of whatever traffic or safety issues that might arise?

Right, but it doesn't mean that they would be responsible for the whole improvement for what would be required.

No, I understand, but the actual condition would be evaluated.

We would need to look at the condition. Yes, but what goes on above does not impact what goes down on the south side. And as we know, most of us go south.

Thank you. Vice chair.

A question for the applicant. What has not been presented here this evening is the demolition of Ramekins. And although not a historical building, it is a very significant structure in this town. What are those plans?

Yeah, we understand that it's a very beloved structure. I think when weighing producing housing versus preserving that event space, I think we're here to produce housing in this application. So unfortunately, the plan for the ramekin structures is for it to be removed.

Thank you.

Commissioner O'Neill.

Do we have access to the page in Turnbull report?

We can provide that preliminary report.

Yeah, because I didn't see that in the materials we had. I would be very curious to see exactly what they said in that. I know it wasn't a full HRE, but I would still like to see what they said in that. Thanks.

So as we have that initial submittal, we'll start the web page for the project, and then certain studies will start going up in draft say that really loud draft form but we'll start a project web page for this Commissioner

Yes, thank you to the applicant. I appreciate you being here tonight. Just a quick question. So obviously this is pertaining to the General's Daughter. So the narrative clearly contemplates the relocation. Has there been any discussion about an alternative site plan that retains the General's Daughter at a disgusting location?

Yeah, we have studied that, and I think we can revisit it, and certainly, depending on the outcome of the historic analysis, there may be a requirement to revisit that. I think we felt that it just did not result in the site layout that we think the site deserves. And I think it creates a General's Daughter that's really tucked up into a housing development, and we think that bringing that forward really does allow for, again, like that longevity of that business operation within the General's Daughter, which again, I think really supports like the sustainability of that structure going forward.

Just one follow-up question to that. So obviously, just in viewing the site plan, the preliminary site plan, it would appear that the relocation is necessary to accommodate the 46 units as outlined. Has there been an evaluation about retaining, if the site was to retain the General Stoddard as an existing location, Do we know what the potential units would be? Have you contemplated that?

Yeah, I think it would be probably of a similar overall count, but maybe different typologies, and it might need to get back into a denser row townhome, three-story. It might be more homes encroaching on some view corridors, potentially, of the General's Daughter that would kind of detract from its prominence as well.

Thank you. I have a few questions. Director Gates, can you just give an overview of the state density bonus law and what that entitles a developer to as far as waivers and concessions? And educate me, remind me, as to whether the applicant in this case is seeking relief through that law as it relates to waivers and concessions.

So we won't know that until we actually have an application. So just as a reminder, density bonus, when you provide affordable housing at a certain percentage, it allows for an increase in their density by another percentage and there's a table associated with that and it's based on the level of affordability. So under the newest law, which gets us to the, what I like to double down on density. So there's the initial one. And then once you maximize that, there's a new section that says you can get more if you do more in the affordable. And so that's how we get to the numbers that we're getting to. So we'll map that out and we'll kind of show how that all works and it'll be part of the application as well to explain how the numbers came about. Also as part of an application with Density Bonus is also, you know, as we work through the project, we identify what requests there will be for waivers and then also the incentives and concessions. There are unlimited waivers and a specific number of incentives and concessions and it's based on the actual percentage of affordability. Did I say that one?

I got that one. You did. That was nearly everything. There are some limitations on the waivers. It's not just for anything and everything. Typically, it's a physical preclusion of the development at its allowable density. So it's a physical preclusion opposed to the development standard.

Yes. Yeah. So it's about development standards. So that's where I was going with we don't know until we actually get closer to finalizing what that site plan is and the details to know what the ask is going to be. And so then those get listed out for a project when we do that. Does that help answer?

It does. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. And it's different than inclusionary. I will say that. But the other aspect of inclusionary, so inclusionary is a local jurisdiction's choice to have an inclusionary ordinance. A density bonus is a state law. Inclusionary ordinance is what we require to be provided with a housing development of five or more. And so that's what that percentage is asking for. density bonus is something different. So if we ask for 25% affordable and we have those certain percentages, that right there, that affordable provision provides the ability to meet their density bonus requirement. Does that make sense?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it. I've got some questions for Kyle. Do you anticipate... requesting waivers, concessions, or renew standards based on density bonus?

Yes, yeah, we do anticipate that. I think we're trying to design a fairly unique typology of detached home, especially trying to keep it to two stories that I think when you're looking at separation of buildings, setbacks, I think there will be some typical waivers related to that just for site layout alone.

Okay. Do you have any idea how many units you could build within base zoning without using density bonus there.

Sorry, say that again?

Do you have any idea, have you done any calculations? Have you looked at how many units could be built within the existing base zoning without seeking the relief offered by waivers and concessions from the state density bonus?

Oh, sorry. So you're saying if we didn't do state density bonus and we followed every development standard with no variance to a T, how many could we develop? We have not done that analysis.

Thank you. Fair enough. This is a higher level question, kind of overarching. If we remove the economics, difficult question, right? If we remove the economics, what elements of this plan would you say are actually driven by the character of the site and driven by the character of the neighborhood?

Sorry, what did you say?

So if you remove, if you take the economics out of the equation, right, what characteristics of the development that you're proposing right, lend itself to the existing edge conditions, the existing neighborhood and the character of our city?

Yeah, I think the edge conditions are a puzzle. I mean, it's hard to really design that. I think the carriage house parking is a solution that we've come up with that we're looking for feedback on. especially the ability to have that kind of one-story structure that steps up to the Sioux story that really has more gradual experience from 4th Street. It helps minimize some of the curb cuts along 4th Street West. And I think we really want to lean into, again, like creating, making the General's Daughter so prominent and then everything follows back from that from a design aesthetic as well to try and keep with the character of that block in that area.

Okay. In your comments earlier, you talked about, compared, I guess, vehicular traffic that comes from or is generated by seven branches or ramekins, as many people know it. Compare that to what may be the case with the development of these homes. Is there a metric you're using to make that comparison or you're just

No, I think it's very qualitative, and it's probably instinctive. Maybe like some of the public comments we've also received are instinctive, and it's from their learned experience, especially on evacuation. We have a lot of respect for what this community went through from an evacuation standpoint. And I think I just wanted to highlight that I think when we've also reviewed other projects that have come before you, a lot of that has been more like brownfield starting from a field in comparison. So it's like... any new home is a net plus impact. And I think there's just a little bit of a comparative that should be thought through in reviewing that. And it's not just a pure add from what exists today, which is a pretty intensive land use, although more episodic, but it's very intensive land use.

Right. Understood, yeah. My thinking around that was that an event center would generate a lot of traffic at one time.

Mm-hmm. versus the housing development that would generate more traffic all the time sure i think i uh i probably could have been more clear i think that was more in relation to the evacuation where i think when you're looking at studying evacuations you're trying to study the worst case scenario and the most intense yeah any thoughts about what might prevent overflow parking

from being kind of externalized into the surrounding neighborhoods there?

I don't think we have a magic solution there. I think one of the concerns from the neighbors is eventual residents not using their garages for parking. So potentially the opportunity to write that into the CCRs and some enforcement measures to make sure that folks are not using those for stores but for parking. And I think, you know, I think when we're looking to, if we are able to develop this and market it, really just market to the walkability of the neighborhood and really trying to promote those avenues.

Great, thank you. One last question before I turn this over to the public who have been waiting patiently for an hour and 20 minutes. Will the affordable units proposed be indistinguishable in exterior appearance from the market rate units?

They will be indistinguishable from the exterior from a materiality standpoint, I believe, and again, we need to work closely with staff to make sure that we're interpreting the code correctly, but there is an allowance to reduce the size of them, but certainly there would be no reduction in the materiality or quality of those units.

Okay, great, thank you. If there aren't any last minute questions for this round, I would really like to open up public comment. members of the public in attendance have been waiting patiently to share their thoughts as uh by a show of hands could i see how many people anticipate wanting to speak tonight okay thank you very much um i think i will call for a five minute uh recess to um yeah five minute recess thank you

Thank you very much.

All right, folks, if you can please take your seats. We will go back on the record in the regular planning commission hearing of August 18th. And we've come to the portion of tonight's agenda where I will open public comment. So now is the time to come forward and address the commission and share your thoughts. and share your questions. And please, as I indicated in my opening, please keep your comments to three minutes or less. We have a packed house tonight and want everybody to have the opportunity to speak. So I will be enforcing our three-minute time limit this evening. And when I open public comment, please make your way up to the podium and state your name. We'd love to hear from you. Mrs. Campbell.

Yes.

Is that good? Carol Campbell, live on Spain Street. Thank you, Kyle, for your thoughtfulness on trying to appease us in advance. However, the concerns remain, traffic, water, parking, evacuation. 46 units are going to be automatically 92 cars. There's just no way to get around that. That just happens. You have 74 parking spaces. I'm not sure where that overflow will go. You don't want them in the parking lot where the restaurant is, I wouldn't think. I hope you kind of think about that. I do not approve of moving the general's daughter. I'm glad you're just asking for opinions because that's what I'm here to do. You said you were going to have a community feel by putting in gazebos and other greenery and whatnot. I'm glad to hear that. However, where was I going with that one? there was a comment about more greenery and having it look community-wise but i want you to know that this community does care deeply about how units look now maybe my head was down and i missed if you had a slide up but i am very interested in knowing what the front of these buildings will look like are there some set back are they all going to look the same how are you going to have it look individual because our town, every house seems to be different. You drive up and down streets and look at them. I love driving down Spain Street. There isn't anything that looks alike and that's what makes us special. Sorry, I lost my plane of thought. I do have a question. What is a do at home? I'm not sure. Is that like a duplex in the old days or what is a do at home? I'm not even sure what that is. So I did have a question on that. Um, With 46 homes, you're going to have at least over 100 people, and I'm concerned about the water. We've had droughts in the 50 years I've lived here, and it is very hard to accommodate the needs. And evacuation, this last evacuation, I'm really concerned about cars trying to evacuate out of that particular area. Our housing is constant wear and tear on a community. They come to work, they go and they come back, they go shopping, everything. We all do that. That constant wear and tear cannot be compared to event, 92 cars that leave, occasional events. So this is daily, not once in a while. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think what we'll do in the interest of time and an orderly process, what I'll do is ask people who intend to speak to form a single file line behind the podium, and that way we won't waste any time in between speakers. I want to respect everybody's time tonight and give everybody the opportunity to speak and be heard. Thank you very much. Feel free to go ahead and close your floor.

Good evening. My name is Barbara Stouter, and I'm also here in regards to the housing and to the general's daughter. The biggest problem that I have is they mention the word, we're slightly moving it. They're moving it 70 feet. I don't call that slight move. I call that big move. Also, if you care about the general's daughter, why not bloody hell leave it alone? um susan brangham had a restaurant there for years saundra bernstein had a restaurant there for years they didn't move it it was fine so what's wrong with it just staying exactly where it is now they said in the meeting if they didn't move it it wouldn't be financially feasible for their project so now we're down to dollars and cents developers come They make money, their investors make money, and they leave. And we're stuck. We got it. And that's what's really, to me, is super sad. How does this, my big question is why? How does this enhance our community? We're 10,000 people. We're a small little place. It's fabulous. How does this enhance us in any way so that everyone can come here and have a second home? That doesn't enhance our community. Not one bit. He speaks about affordable. We're going to have affordable one block, one block away where the church and the synagogue is. They're proposing that, and that's going to be a big project. You have plenty of affordable housing. So is that seven really going to matter?

That's my other thing I don't understand.

The whole character of Sonoma will change. It's four blocks from the town. This is not. This is the wrong project in the wrong place. And with your kindness, you look at it as that way. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Barbara. I appreciate that.

Good evening. I'm Robert Staudter. Robert, nice to meet you. And we live at 436 Castlebone Street. And forgive me, I'm going to read this because I don't want, everything I have in here is very important. And so I'm going to read it because I don't want to miss a trick here. Okay. As a member of Willow Wild HOK Architectural Committee, I am submitting our review regarding the proposed Tidewater development. My wife and I chose Willow Wild approximately 18 years ago because of its unusual and wonderful character. We are a small development of 15 homes, and when we purchased our home, the city showed us plans for approximately 1.3 acres across from the lot we were interested in, because I was very concerned about that property there before I purchased my property. Those plans showed three lots similar in size to the homes of Willow's Wild. I'm talking about the plans that the city showed us. We understood that the intent was to complete and complement this small, carefully planned neighborhood behind the general's daughter. The proposed tidewater development is fundamentally different in scale and character. We believe it is too dense and too invasive into this particular location and would have a significant negative impact on the west side of Sonoma. Our first concern is parking. 18 units with only one parking space per unit is simply inadequate. There is virtually no additional parking in the surrounding neighborhood for blocks. The General's Daughter already has limited parking, and historically parking has also been shared on the General's Daughter and Ramekins. Wills Wild itself no longer has street parking. When we first moved here, our guests could park on Cassabine and Bowdoin. About a year later, that changed when the fire department decided to prohibit all parking in Willows Wild for fire protection. All the parking on 4th Street will be eliminated by the proposed driveways. Where will our guests park? Where will the visitors of the development park? Where were the bikers and those parked to walk their dogs and other children that presently use that parking along 4th Street, where were they parked? This is just totally ridiculous to have this kind of a concentration with zero parking for guests.

Robert, if you would wrap up in about 10 seconds, sir, I'd appreciate it.

Oh, man, I've got two sheets here.

Oh, boy. I appreciate your preparation.

All right, you have two choices. You can let me continue, or I have about five or six people here that continue this one at a time and break it up.

That's what we'll do. Thank you.

Okay. There you go.

Thank you, Robert. Patricia, if you could state your name, please.

Patricia Cullinan. I'm here because I'm the president of the Sonoma Valley Historical Society and my board has asked me to present regarding the proposed housing. What I'm going to do I'm going to briefly read the headlines but we formally are requesting that the City of Sonoma require a complete EIR on this project under CEQA we believe the scope of the proposal and the significance of the site warrant careful consideration for the following traffic and transportation bicycle and pedestrian circulation Cultural historical and environmental resource. I'm going to read that Site is adjacent to the Vallejo the site and the adjacent Vallejo property contains sensitive historic cultural and natural resources including drainage considerations, they should be fully evaluated in Including consultation with the tribes the general's daughter. I think you've heard it a lot about that the surrounding neighborhoods environmental review will consider the project relative to neighborhoods the city infrastructure that's been spoken about fire safety and emergency access yes accessibility are those Is the project safe and accessible pedestrian routes to building entrances without requiring residents or visitors to travel on vehicle roadways? That's a big thing in some of the developments in Sonoma that I think would surprise you. We request a review of whether Ramekin's building may qualify as a historic resource based not only on its age, but its usual construction and architectural qualities, the completion of the project, that's a money issue, and the use of a housing. Is there any, will these homes be second homes? Thank you.

Thank you, Patricia, for your comments. I do appreciate it. Robert, if you could state your name.

Robert Demler. I have 41 seconds of patricious time. Thank you very much.

She didn't indicate that she would cede her time to you, sir.

And I'm also colorblind. I only see green. Robert Demler, First Street West Sonoma. I'm here in my capacity as executive director of the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation. I am speaking for the board of directors, all of the directors except one who's behind me, Mr. Menefee, will speak for himself and the board. I consider this a first shot across the bow for the developers, and I consider it a first shot across the bow for some of us. Transparency, I just met Skyler and Kyle tonight. I've exchanged emails with them. They are coming to the Sonoma League board meeting on September 8th to discuss this further. But I want what I want to read is a statement written by The board and I will read it tonight It expresses their opinion The league strongly discourages development of any kind for significant historical cultural and landscape resources and features are already established and The League does not object to new development for infill, low-income housing, or nonprofit purposes as long as that development is thoughtful of its surroundings and abides by all current laws and regulations and codes. In no case should any development replace or destroy historic properties. Sonoma's rich cultural and historic resources must be retained and sustained in order to tell the special story of Sonoma. I agree that a draft environmental impact report, CEQA, and the traffic issue should be considered, the parking issue should be considered. And finally, if the city of Sonoma counsel, commissions, or staff VIOLATE THE STATED PROVISIONS OF THE SONOMA HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT RULES, WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, WITHIN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT WILL CONFIRM AT LEAST TO SOME OF US THAT THERE IS NO REAL COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THOSE FORENAMED PARTIES TO PRESERVING THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF OUR BELOVED COMMUNITY. So thank you very much. I do hope this is, as I said, a first shot across the bow for each of us. And the developers have seemed to be flexible. And I hope that flexibility will continue because we are a very tight community and we are very protective of our resources. Thank you.

Thank you, Robert. Good evening, Lori. Good evening.

A LITTLE BIT LOWER HERE.

OKAY.

I DID GO AHEAD AND SEND IN A COPY OF MY RESPONSE TODAY. IT IS RECORDED EARLIER TODAY. I DID BRING COPIES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR SERVING ON THIS COMMISSION. UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. All right. Basically, I wrote to subjects on the general's daughter, fire safety and emergency access, impact on surrounding neighborhood, natural resources affordability and accessibility, the ramekins building, completion of the project and financial stability. And at this point, I'll just read a few, all right? So the General's Daughter, please require the applicant to evaluate alternatives that preserve the General's Daughter in its current location. The building and grounds it's in currently, a setting is historic in a cultural and structure and landscape. I support the concerns of the Sonoma Valley Historical Society as to the deposition of this building and the surrounding site. Relocation may or will alter this significance. Impact on surrounding neighborhood. I have owned my property at 434 Rosalie Drive since 1985, 41 years. The landmark site of the General's daughter and living next to Vallejo's home, cultural resources and state park land were prime factors in choosing and staying at this residence. on any given day you can see neighborhood people of all ages on walkable and biking routes throughout the community the city of sonoma has spent considerable taxpayer dollars to make this area a bike and walkable destination recently west spain street was painted to preserve the safety of the pedestrian and bicyclist while using this route. The intersections of West Bain Street, Second Street West, Third Street West, St. Francis School drop off and pick up, and Fourth Street West are commonly used during times of high traffic congestion. The street west and West Main Street is already an F traffic intersection with most pedestrians avoiding at all costs. I have noticed the increase in electric bikes and other users. The environmental review needs to address this impact, so I am requesting The City of Sonoma require a complete environmental impact report under CEQA for this project. The scope of the proposal and the significance of this site warrant careful consideration. In conclusion, as a former mayor and city council member, I know the importance of housing in this community. I have supported many projects with the knowledge that they are a benefit to the city and its residents, building a better community. I have questions about this development and developer. I urge you to request an environmental impact report addressing several or more points in this letter. A parking management plan is in order. Thank you.

Thank you, Lori. I appreciate your comments. Mr. Menefee, do you step forward and state your name, please?

Good evening. I had to write things down, and then, of course, my printer conked out right before I came over, so I've got to read it off my phone. Chair Weirich, Vice Chair Nugent, Commission, staff, my name is Mike Menefee. I live at 380 Church Street, which is... Right on the cusp of District 1, but just across Kitty Corner from this development. I serve as the Vice President on the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation. I'm a lifelong public safety person. I started as a volunteer fireman here in town on Patton Street in 1976. Almazza hired me as a paid fireman in 1986, and I jumped ship and went to San Francisco in 2000 where I retired in 2012. So a little bit of what I have to talk about revolves around life safety and evacuation. And I'm also a candidate for District 1 City Council, if anybody's interested. The General's daughter has sat where it is since 1864, through vineyards planted and pulled, owners come and gone, dignitaries and friends. Now Tidewater Capital wants to lift this 162-year-old building off of its foundation and set it down elsewhere on the property so that 46 homes can rise where it used to stand. They call it preservation, but it certainly doesn't feel like it. A building isn't just its walls, it's the ground it's rooted in, the exact spot where 160 years of Sonoma actually happened. Moving it to make room for townhomes isn't saving history, it's staging it. That's the feeling underneath all of this, Sonoma being rearranged to fit a spreadsheet. It's not really about one property, it's the pattern. Every parcel that comes up for sale in town becomes another 40 or 50 unit proposal, each defended on its own terms, needed housing, historic tax credits, revitalized blight, while nobody adds up what all of them together mean for a town of our size. Plaza traffic that already backs up on any given day of the week. Narrow roads in and out of the valley with only four real ways to leave when a wildfire strikes. Each of those one lane in and one lane out. Everyone here remembers the tragedy and challenges of 2017. A water system that wasn't built for a population that keeps climbing while the county keeps drying out. Those aren't separate issues from the General's daughter. They fit the same issue. 46 more households at Sonoma's own average of about two cars per household means somewhere near 80 or 90 more cars converging on Spain Street. More people needing water in a valley already watching its wells and reservoirs drop. More bodies that need to get out now if the hills explode again. Development doesn't happen in a vacuum just because an environmental report treats it that way. Project by project, never asking what the fifth or sixth, just one more development does to a town that can't widen its roads or manufacture more water, no matter how the paperwork reads. I've got 30 seconds, please. None of this makes Tidewater the villain. They're doing what a developer does with a distressed property and a profit to chase. That's exactly why it can't be left to them to weigh growth against what the valley can actually absorb. Mike, I hate to do it, but I hate to cut you off. Watch this one. Growth may be inevitable. Overgrowth is a choice. It takes a village. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, sir. If you'd step to the podium, you're the only speaker whose first name I don't know yet. Thank you.

I'm Cliff Merrill. Nice to meet you. I live in the same here. Thank you for all you do for our town of Sonoma. Ms. Campbell, thank you for recognizing that. I live in the neighborhood just north of this development. So it's a thought in a question form. Do we really need more housing, and do we really need this density of housing in our town? State laws aside, sorry. Our town of Sonoma is in no comparison to Sunnyvale. You touched on the traffic issue regarding a wedding event versus permanent new homes in the town. are not the same, especially Spain Street there with schools out. That's also another issue where traffic backs up some, and we know what just happened last Friday with Arnold being closed down because of the power outage. What a nightmare that created Friday afternoon regarding traffic. The density in the slides, the two-story homes on 4th Street just seemed to be a massive wall. And if that can be, have some consideration to be mixed to single and instead of just a row of two-story homes, that just really stood out. And regarding 4th Street, the fire access there at the end of 4th before you get to Rosalie is a metal gate that can be swung open. The wooden permanent gate is farther north at the bike path. Water was touched on. It's not only the water usage, but it's the other side of it, too. The impact on the infrastructure is where is the discharge going to go and the capacity on our system regarding that. I've touched on my notes here. Thank you for the previous comments made, Mr. Menefee. I also was a fire service first responder, and Mr. Menefee and I have also worked together, so I appreciate your time. Thank you, everyone. Please keep our town safe and within the character that we know it as. Appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Cliff. Appreciate your comments this evening. Tina, if you'd step forward and state your name, please.

Hi, my name's Tina Moy. I live on Bodden Way in the HOA Willows Wild. I'm here continuing what Robert has already started with members of our HOA here to support. We spoke about parking. Our second concern is setbacks and neighborhood compatibility. The proposed homes along Cassabone Lane are very close to the proper line and will create a contiguous 25-foot, two-story wall along our street. We strongly recommend a 15 foot setback along Casper Lane from 4th Street to Bodden Way with no vehicular access. These are part of a easement that he touched on that we want to highlight as well. Our concern with that is stormwater management. um we need to have this fully demonstrated before any approval of a site plan our neighborhood willows wild currently collects gutter water and connects to a below ground pipe to the street which flows to a catch basin at the property line of lot 15 which is one part of the development the addition of building roofs driveways and other impervious surfaces will substantially reduce the natural absorption of the water we need to know how this storm water will be handled and how whether additional warm starter STORM WATER EASEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL BUILDING LAYOUT IS APPROVED. THERE'S ALSO AN EASEMENT AND SETBACK PROVISION AFFECTING LOT 15. AND THE CURRENT PROPOSAL DOES NOT APPEAR TO ACCOUNT FOR THESE REQUIREMENTS. Finally, we strongly urge the city not to move the general's daughter. This has been touched on by many people. It's a historic house. Current settings are very crucial to a part of Sonoma's character. This is a place that has been not just a restaurant that we've all gone to, but it's been a home. And it's been a home to many people. It's been a home to the two founding families of Sonoma. Moving it will require substantial structural, seismic, ADA compliance, insulation, windows, and many other upgrades. More importantly, the open space and the mature trees surrounding the house, including heritage redwoods, which are an essential part of the property, would be lost. So please consider the small town character that makes Sonoma special. Please consider our community as you look at these proposals. We ask you to respectfully look at all of these issues as we go forward. I believe we have sent you guys a copy of this letter. If we haven't, it will be coming. We would love to see something more in line with our city's version of zoning as opposed to the state's. Thank you.

Thank you, Tina. Abby, what would you like to say?

I'm Abby Hamm. I'm also a resident in Willows Wild. We have children at St. Francis School. I don't think I need to tell anyone here that at 3 o'clock, Spain Street is gridlocked, as is Napa. But that school is a block and a half away from this development. There are small children all over the place. Parking is extremely limited. there's just no space for this density. The crosswalks, the school came forward and remember Mrs. Campbell, we had the crosswalks put in next to the Traffic Safety Committee and with a light, but there's just, there's no space in this community for all of these homes in this location. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERIOUS WORK. I LIVE ON SPAIN STREET. IN 2022, OUR PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPROACHED THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE WITH CONCERNS ABOUT SPAIN STREET. SO I'M JUST GOING TO GET A LITTLE BACKGROUND. SINCE 2017, THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS TRAFFIC VOLUME STUDIES DONE BY THE CITY. EAST AND WEST. IN 2017, IN SEPTEMBER, There were 9000 vehicle trips to cut them in half 4000 going one way whether most people come and go the same way they want to avoid Napa Street. We Spain has been graduated by the city.

FROM A RESIDENTIAL STREET TO A CONNECTOR.

AND THAT'S A SIMPLE WAY THAN JUST SAYING LIVE WITH IT. AND IN MY OPINION, THE CITY HAS DONE NOTHING TO LIMIT LARGE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ON SPAIN STREET. SO WE NOT ONLY HAVE REGULAR VEHICLES, ET CETERA, MOTORCYCLES, A LOT OF THEM, WE HAVE SPEED DISPLAYS. all the time. And so it took us four years, let's put it this way, it took the city four years to repave from second

to the end of 3rd Street, I mean, well, basically 3rd Street to 4th Street.

It took them four years to repave that street because they let it deteriorate so much. And my understanding is that it cost about $450,000 to have that repavement done. Some of the Lining the lines new lines bicycle thing which are good. We're part of it, but nonetheless I can't stress What it is to have lived there 15 years and seen the increase the tailpipe emissions the noise from the cars the boom boxes And those are all, again, they're not directly related to this project, but this project will not do it, how I say, will not lessen those things. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Armando.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Paul Brown, and I'm a resident of West Spain Street. I urge this commission to consider three things, the plan, the partner, and the precedent. First, the plan. The applicant proposes to uproot the 162-year-old general's daughter from its setting and risk its destruction. They want to clear the way to cram 46 two-story units in parking lots where they do not belong. When you subtract the 1.3-acre historical parcel of the general's daughter, the remaining 2.56 acres permits a maximum of just 20 units. Frankly, national population growth is slowing. and our own permanent population is declining, evidenced partly by all the schools we closed last year. We need less suburban housing sprawl, not more. We will never ever get our historical buildings or their settings back once they are gone. This plan forces the west side to continue to absorb a disproportionate share of the development, guaranteeing daily gridlock, lost street parking, and a permanently diminished quality of life. This density also overburdens our broader municipal infrastructure and our local services. Beyond the evacuation concerns already mentioned, the demolition and construction itself pose an unacceptable ignition risk for the Sonoma State Historic Park. Second, we must examine the partner. Who are we trusting with our town's heritage? Tidewater Capital is an out of town developer with a 2023 default on a $43.5 million Oakland property. Allowing a potentially unstable partner to physically relocate a fragile landmark creates a terrifying perverted incentive. There is zero financial reward for them to keep that building safe. In fact, the easiest way to clear that parcel for even more high density housing is for that historic wood structure to accidentally suffer damage during the move. We cannot gamble our irreplaceable history on a potentially unreliable partner. Third, we must consider the precedent. The decisions you make tonight will, and in the future, no decisions tonight obviously, but will echo beyond West Main Street. We risk becoming known as a town willing to gamble its history and bend its established zoning for developers. Once you relax our preservation and density standards, you set a dangerous precedent that invites future developers to systematically erode our small town character parcel by parcel. I ask the Commission to stand firm and defend our town's integrity. We demand a full, rigorous environmental impact report under CEQA, an in-situ preservation, require the developer to build around this landmark in its current location or find a more suitable location, and strict enforcement of the true zoning limits on the remaining land. Please protect our history, prioritize public safety, and enforce our zoning. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Paul.

Hi, my name is Ron Smith. I'm a fairly new resident of Sonoma. Been here two years. I've been visiting for about 35, and this is my first experience in front of this commission, but I want to commend you, the staff, the commission, the developer. for your thoughtfulness and demeanor and how you've conducted this meeting, so thank you for that. And my speakers who've gone before me have said it so more eloquently and in detail than I could possibly purport to do, but when I saw this project for the first time, my reaction was first and foremost emotional and instinctive. And one of the reasons I decided to settle here after living in historic homes and neighborhoods in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Miami, Florida, in part was the history of Sonoma and how it's so beloved here and how it's preserved. And my first gut reaction was moving the General's daughter How can anyone allow that to happen? And if we allow that to happen and this project to go through in its current form, we are questioning you know, Mariano Vallejo, his advisors, his architects, his land planning, you know, experts at the time, and saying that we have a better idea than they did. And I don't think we do. So I ask you to examine your conscience, your initial emotional reaction that you probably had as I did, and say, what are we really doing here? And let's preserve history. Let's not demolish buildings for the sake of potentially ill-informed projects. And if this does go forward in any form, I would kindly ask that you consider leaving the General's Daughter where it is and making whatever improvements and enhancements need to be made, keeping or finding some other use if it's not economically viable right now for that rammed earth structure that might also in the future be deemed historically important for many reasons that I won't go into now. And we honor that emotional reaction that I'm sure all of you had. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ron. I appreciate it. Okay. Are there any other members of the public who wish to come and address the commission? Thank you.

Rob Pickett. I live about a block from the proposed development site. And I've been able to eliminate a lot of stuff based on what everybody else has already said, including tidewater. So that's good. We'll keep this pretty quick. But I think unless tidewater capital or other experts can prove there are major problems with the existing foundation, it shouldn't be moved because of the risk and problems that moving it brings. If Tidewater were to get its way and General's Daughter is to be moved, I propose the developer has to set up an irrevocable trust fund of approximately $2.5 million to help ensure the long-term survival of the historical structure and to address issues that occur because it was moved. And we did talk about earlier about its high-risk fire area. This is an interesting one. Placing multiple residential units in close physical proximity to an aged, fully timber-framed historical treasure increases its permanent exposure to external residential fire hazards. And then these are just questions. Obviously, we're not going to get answers today, but just things to think about. I was wondering if the city or planning commission could choose who moves the General's Daughter, not Tidewater Capital. That's one thought. And also to look at the track record of moving historical structures from the company that is set to move it. Make sure that they have a proven track record of moving historical structures like the General's Daughter. And then lastly... Oh, what is the expected level of impact with respect to vibrations from vehicles on West Spain Street to the General's daughter if it was moved as planned? And the reason to bring that up is I work at the Valeo Home and at the Petaluma Adobe. And the Petaluma Adobe sits pretty close to Adobe Road. there's big cracks in the walls the building is shifting and it's because of all the traffic on adobe road trucks vans cars whatever so that will happen to the general's daughter just because it's more structured granted one is adobe and wood and one is more wood but it's still a consideration of what will happen to the building because it is older because of vehicle vibrations by moving it closer to the road that's all i've got thank you thank you very much

Okay, any last takers for participating in public comment tonight on this agenda item? Okay, with that, I will close public comment. I will bring it back to the commission for thoughts, analysis, discussion. Commissioner Barnett.

Thank you, Chair Weirich, and thank you to those who have put in the time tonight to appear and make your comments. As I said earlier on before we started this particular agenda item, during a study session the members of this commission are essentially prohibited from making categorical statements or conclusions about a proposed project. So I'm not going to do that because I want to be able to participate in the future. What is of interest to me, and I don't expect we have to get this answer tonight, but the Spate of state laws regarding housing fall under a variety of forms, and a developer may make an application to the city for development under one or another of the various regulatory structures that have been now codified by the state. The long and short of it is that the degree and the amount of discretion that this commission and for that matter the City Council has on determining whether or not a project can or cannot be approved is greatly diminished as compared to what it was before all these laws were passed to an enormous extent. Our hands are tied, depending upon the nature of the application and the privileges that a specific type of application brings with it. You heard earlier Chair Weirich ask the developer about whether they were going to be looking for waivers or exceptions that go along with some of these various state laws. There are certain application modalities that a developer can use that even goes so far as to allow that developer to disregard the underlying zoning of parcels within a jurisdiction. I mean, the degree to which our authority has been impinged by the state of California is something about which I have complained bitterly over these last years that I have been on this commission. And having both served as a city councilman and a mayor previously in the 1990s, the comparison with the degree of discretion that this city and this commission has in considering applications is dramatically different. For example, the state has said that our consideration of a project cannot be based on what it has deemed subjective criteria. So let me give you an example of subjective criteria. Neighborhood context. compatibility, historical precedence, look, feel, character. These have all been deemed illegitimate judgments which cannot be used by this commission to approve or disapprove of a project because they are considered subjective criteria. When we talk about town character, Of course, if I ask 10 people to define Sonoma's town character, we might get 10 different answers. But the fact of the matter is, it isn't on the table for this commission to bring up character. It's not a word we can use on the basis of approval or denial. So much of what I've heard tonight has to do with character, in my opinion, how it and whether or not it can be objectified, and that's what the state's demanding, is an objectification of criteria. Let me tell you how the state defines objectified. Objectified to the state of California insofar as housing law today means quantifiable. Quantifiable means by the numbers. So, if a project is proposed and it meets the technical specifications of a development code by the numbers, it is almost impossible to deny the project. Now, I'm not saying it is impossible, and there are elements to any project which are subject to some judgment. But I don't want to create a false expectation on the part of the community. The way we used to be able to make these decisions is no longer the way we can do it today. And to the extent to which we will depend upon staff to provide this commission with clear indicator of where we have discretion and where we don't is where the rubber will hit the road in the decision-making process. And so what I will be looking for in the future is direction from staff based on its legal analysis, and that includes the analysis of our city land use attorneys and so forth, as to where we have discretionary authority and where we don't. Because I'll be honest with you, I don't really know exactly where it is anymore. And that's the facts of this situation. It's a very bizarre situation for me because it's unlike the way we used to make decisions. And I'll finish by saying this. When I worked on the first general plan in the early 90s, because I've lived here now 36 years, The guiding principle of that general plan in the early 90s was this idea, defining and preserving a sense of place. That's no longer legitimate. You can't deny a project because it doesn't conform with an idea of our sense of place. This is the world we're living in today. I want you to understand it because it's real. This is the legal framework in which we must now operate. And I stress this with you because while I appreciate deeply your input and your feelings and your concerns, we're going to have to make a decision based on law. And that's where we are today.

Thank you, Commissioner Barnett. Commissioner Millers.

I'm going to try to talk in big, general terms here. But Kyle, you brought up the idea, or not the idea, but you made the comment that the edge condition is difficult on this property. I would say the edge condition on this property is primary. And I believe that the current solution is far from addressing those edge conditions. In our community, the street is the community place. We are not a community of enclaves. We don't turn inward and become insular. It's the very fabric of our town. Our streets are our public place. to line them with cars, quote unquote, carriage houses, in a sense is an assault. I gotta be careful. I'm glad you hired BSA. BVS was a very reputable firm headed up by two architects that I knew well. I actually worked for Dan Volkman for a little while on his house in Sonoma. And I know Heinrich Bohl was very concerned about the appropriateness of a structure on its site and within its community and the way in which it addressed that site and made it better. I hope the heritage of that thought runs deep with BSA as it did with BVS. I would challenge your architects to do a better job, to learn what Sonoma really is and to address it in a way that while it allows you to do what the state allows you to do, does it in a way that's appropriate for our community. Just because you can build 30 foot high homes and stack them one by one doesn't mean you should. The hillside is part of our community, and piling 30-foot houses off of St. Street, blocking that hillside is an assault to our community. And so if the words you state to us in your one-letter synopsis of your of your project hold true, you have a lot of work to do to live up to them. And I hope you do, because I'd like our commission to be able to approve a project for you that we can be happy with and that you can be.

Thank you, Commissioner Willers. Commissioner O'Neill.

Just a few things I'd like to add to that one thing I just want to share with the developers is Getting things built these days is really expensive and difficult We have two projects right here in Sonoma that have been fully entitled housing multi-family housing projects that are fully entitled and both of those Properties and projects the properties are for sale with the entitlements in place. They're not getting built. So I feel very uninspired that something else is going to even be proposed and nothing's getting built because it is so costly. So I think that that's a big caution that I would say. I mean, if you're really in a hurry and you want to get things built, there's two properties available today. The one on First Street East and the one over on Highway 12, the Maldonado properties. And they're available. They're entitled. They're ready to go. You could get your shovels in the ground right now. And we would love to support you in making that happen. So if what you really want to do is build housing here, you'll have our support. There's two projects ready. Go for it. You don't even have to go through this process. The other things I would like to say is that we can't require whether somebody buys this house as a primary home or a second home. We just have no ability to either enforce that, to monitor that, so that's not something we can even put in our dialogue. It's not something we can even worry about in any regard. have no ability to make that happen. I do worry about the insurability of these properties. We are in a high wildfire zone, and so the insurability is a big issue. That really factors into the expense, the cost of ownership. So I think that's something to really take into consideration. I do think that the General's Daughter has 16 parking spaces in this plan. I don't remember what the code is for restaurants, but I think 16 sounds really insufficient for the size of that property. So I'm going to ask you to go back and look at that with the code, and I think that the number is going to be a lot higher than 16. and I don't know what the number is, so I just put that out there as a discussion. Ramekins, is it historic and is it a cultural resource? I'm not even going to address that, but I would say it's there, it's built, it was functioning until the most recent owners that kind of blew up Sonoma, so we can't look at how the General's Daughter or how Ramekins was working in the past several years because that was what a crook came in and bought them. So we're not gonna use that as a general assessment of how those businesses operate. But do take a look and see, is that a useful business? Is that something that could be up and running in a month? because it is a money-making opportunity, and it does have hotel rooms in addition to the event space, the cooking center. So those are things that could start making money today. So they're there. They did function. There's probably some deferred maintenance based on the previous ownership, but I do think it's at least worth considering and taking a look at. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Commissioner O'Neill. Any other comments?

So reflecting back on a couple of projects that have been completed here in town, DeNova developers, the Hummingbird and Mockingbird. So those over the last several years have been sold. Challenging to sell them. They were averaging anywhere between 580 and 640 a square foot based on the same square footage of your designs. My point being that none of these homes sold for under 1.2. So I don't know if that market rate, I mean, I don't know if that's, it's not affordable with the big A, but is it affordable for, I mean, that's a big chunk of change. to so I don't know where that comes into your calculations but you know if you whatever the cost is to construct per square foot I don't know who your buyers are I can speculate but that's just something to consider the other thing about ramekins so I As an aside, I was the original cooking instructor at Ramekins and very familiar with that building. I went along for the ride in getting that building built. And it is a treasure in our community. And not only was it a great event center, but today in our community, we have a serious lack of meeting space for various organizations, service organizations, nonprofits, that could really benefit from the use of meeting space. we sorely lack it. And I don't know that there's profitability in the cooking school world anymore, but that kitchen, that commercial kitchen, something else that is sorely needed in this community for outside catering, that kind of thing, it's a world-class commercial kitchen. The demonstration Back when we we built that kitchen too was also world-class so it's just something to consider that as a benefit to the community that ramekins and Sorry, I can't call it anything else because that's all I know it has That ramekins would be It's it's a It's an important component in our community. And I would hope that that would be considered in whatever recalculations you may do. And the building, it is a rammed earth building, a very unique building material. And it was built to be here forever. it will be here forever if it's maintained. So it's just something to think about. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Nugent. Any other Commissioner comments?

Just a couple. I just want to just reaffirm, and I think I appreciate the comments of all my colleagues, but I want to just again reaffirm and express appreciation for all of you for coming out and for the applicant for coming out and hearing the concerns. I certainly recognize why residents are concerned about this, particularly when the proposal does involve a property with such a meaningful place in Sonoma's history. We care about our neighborhoods and we care about the safety and the character of this community and I think, I just can't stress enough as somebody who works in Sacramento as Commissioner Burnett, often references we have very little that we can do but I hope tonight's discussion I hope you will take that very seriously Kyle and use the comments tonight to make this a better project this can't be about whether Sonoma should accommodate housing we have to build housing we are obligated to build housing we can't simply be no growth but our housing obligations should not prevent us from expecting a thoughtful, safe, and context-sensitive project that respects both the surrounding neighborhoods and the concerns of the community. So I hope you'll take that into strong consideration and thank you all for being here tonight.

Thank you very much. Comments? Okay, I'll offer a couple of mine. Commissioner Worman stole my thunder in thanking all of you for being here this evening. and for sharing your concerns with us and being students of the process. It is a frustrating position to be in sometimes up here as Commissioner Barnett very eloquently outlined for us and that we don't have the discretion that once existed and that then relies on developer partners to work with jurisdictions to find some middle ground. And I don't think that's impossible. Some of the themes that resonated the most with me this evening in this discussion that came out of this evening is that preserving a historic building and preserving a historic site are not necessarily the same thing. Historic buildings derive significance not merely from architecture but from their orientation and their setting and their relationship to landscape and to the place and the things on it. I would really like to see an alternative site plan that treats the General's daughter and its existing location as a fixed constant, not necessarily something that's movable. And I think that the density and historic preservation are directly related. And the reason we need to relocate this historic structure that is the General's Daughter is that we otherwise can't achieve a desired residential yield. Then I think we need to question whether that residential yield before the question of the historic structure. Just some thoughts. And I think I'll conclude with saying that I've appreciated this discussion tonight. I've appreciated very much the developer being here, their presentation, and their willingness really to work with the community. What they presented tonight was representative of an evolution from what was originally proposed and what was originally shared with the public at their first meeting. So we appreciate that and we appreciate continued good relationships as we try to find something that is compatible with that site and with its surroundings. And with that, if there are no more commissioner comments, I will close tonight's public hearing or items for discussion. Thank you all for being here tonight. You feel free to stay while the Planning Commission picks up the remaining part of our remaining items in our public hearing, but also would not be considered rude if you chose to leave at this point. Thank you all for your time this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

He certainly can make fun of it.

So we're going to proceed. Oh, reopen the public hearing. Yes, we are. Proceed with the ADU ordinance. Yes. It is 830. Do we want to try to get to the sign ordinance tonight?

I think in the interest of thoughtfulness and the ability to, I appreciate Associate Planner Dunn's DESIRE TO GET THIS OFF OF HIS PLATE, BUT I THINK THAT IN LIGHT OF...

IT'S SO READY. HE WANTS TO FINISH IT. HE WANTS TO STAY. HE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO STAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY NO.

LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, AND THEN I WILL PULL THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, BUT IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE TO GIVE THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND ALL THE WORK THAT JACOB'S DONE THE TIME and the prestige that it deserves.

We can do that. So if we're going to do that, maybe we...

So we will give full deference to Jacob's hard work on the signed ordinance at the next... Can we open it?

Yes, we can. Continue the public hearing so I don't have to pay for another notice as well?

We certainly can. That would be great. Yes. OK, I will reopen tonight's public hearing. And I will open item 4.3, which is discussion, consideration, and possible action to adopt a resolution approving it. Strike that, please. I will close 4.3 and open 4.4. Discussion, consideration, and possible adoption of a resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance amending Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 19.45, Accessory Dwelling Units.

Thank you, Chair Weyrich, Diane Levine, Associate Planner. So the item before you tonight is the draft ADU ordinance update, and it's before you for recommendation to the City Council. So here's just a recap of how we got here today. So in June, just a couple months ago, the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss the ADU ordinance update prior to it being brought forward to you in its draft form. During that meeting, the Planning Commission requested to further define kitchen requirements, more specifically efficiency kitchen, which is a term that's used within the code, and I appreciated that because we do get inquiries on that term. And the Planning Commission also inquired about HOAs and how NCC&Rs and how they relate to the development of ADUs and JADUs, specifically in regard to the potential for separate sale conveyance of ADUs. The staff report details staff's responses to those inquiries. We'll go into brevity about those tonight as well. And in addition to those, the staff report discussed a list of additional forms and resources that we've been working on that supplement the ADU law, as well as a discussion item regarding the height of a two-story ADU and clarification on that term. and what potential amendments to that term mean and whether that would preclude the development of a two-story ADU if it were to change or so on. But we'll go into more detail on that as well. And lastly, you have the draft resolution, the draft ordinance for City Council, which included Exhibit A, which was the draft ordinance update. So in regard to the kitchen requirements and further defining efficiency kitchen, that's actually a hot topic. And that's a term that's used as something that's supposed to be provided. However, after a decent amount of time spent combing through the state law, the health and safety code, the building code, speaking with my peers, as well as a letter to HCD, I did get a response, but we did not get a better definition for efficiency kitchen. And the response was actually to a strong suggestion of refraining from further trying to develop a definition for that term. So in regard to the separate sale conveyance and how CC&R's indeed restrictions can potentially speak to those, the HCD handbook does specify that CC&R's cannot prohibit the development or construction or use of ADUs or JADUs with regards to separate sale and conveyance. That's pretty much where the information stopped that I was able to gather, again, utilizing state law. I don't know if we've brought this up before, but I think it would be beneficial because it'll come up in front of you in other aspects as well. And that's HCD's Technical Assistance and Enforcement page. That's sort of been, Amy looks like she's familiar with that, that's sort of been a new tool for us where we get to see the letters that get sent out to various jurisdictions pertaining to HCD's review of their laws as they pertain to housing. And that is where we're now gathering a lot of our information and our decision making about where we can have leniency and where we need to really just remain within the exact verbatim language within the state law. I also emailed HCD directly and asked whether the city would be able to impose a deed restriction for affordability purposes. This was another thing that came up during the study session, and I did not hear back. on that inquiry. So we are continuing our research and are continuing to gather more technical memos that come through HCD on their platform, and we can reach out to them again. And, you know, we also looked at, There's so few jurisdictions that are implementing this at this time that there's not even resources within those jurisdictions, newly adopted provisions for this that give any type of process at this time. But we are continuing, as we said, to research this and bring something forward to you when we have something else to provide you with. So some amendment highlights. There were definitions added. There was a section that added the number of units allowed, which has changed some in this last round of revisions. Removal of language and requirements that are no longer allowed pursuant to the state law. So just some cleanup. I listed some examples there. and some reorganization for readability and public understanding. It was a goal as well as getting us up to date just to satisfy HCD and make sure that we're in compliance with state law to also make it more readable to people that are at least making the effort to go into the code and try to utilize the code for its purpose, which is for them to go and find out what needs to be provided opposed to sort of just throwing a project out there. So we did do some organizational changes and simplification as well. Revisions pertaining to the understanding of two stories, as I mentioned, and we'll discuss that on the next slide. And some minor updates to deed restrictions, which we can discuss too if there's further questions on that. So the main item for discussion in addition to anything else that the Planning Commission would like to discuss is clarification for staff on if the way that the first paragraph reads is how it is intended to read and this reads to staff as a height limit for a two-story detached ADU. We don't typically see something called out for a detached two-story ADU. We usually see them called out in regard to an ADU on top of a garage. So we made suggested changes here, and I apologize in the staff report, there was one strike through area that didn't make it into the staff report, but it is correctly revised in the Exhibit A. However, I did want to clarify that this change more so just discusses the construction above an existing detached garage shall not exceed 25 feet in height, it would preclude somebody from developing a two-story ADU. We're not allowed to restrict a two-story ADU any longer. However, it would still need to fall within the height limitations. So... And this is just what was the recommendation in the staff report, but I figured we could potentially have a more robust conversation. There's been a couple grammatical edits that got brought to my attention, so I've made those revisions. They're just very non-substantive. I guess we could first discuss the desired potential change to the existing discussion of two-story ADUs and how that was if it's written how it was meant to read and then any other Conversation or questions happy to discuss Thank you very much there any questions of

I have a few questions.

Some clarifying questions, probably, mostly. Thank you for clarifying the two-story question that I had. Just for a moment, I know it's going to come back in the future when you do more research regarding our ability to revise a deed restriction. I'm just curious if, I know you're waiting for HCD, I know there's no precedent, but the way that's written is very vague, and I'm just wondering if there's a legal way that If there's a legal analysis that can be done Based on the ambiguity of the way the law is written, you know, you might not have an answer now But in addition to the research you do at HCD, I'm just curious if that's a potential also to have our land use lawyer Look at the legality of us doing that. So that was only a comment there. Okay and then I don't have any questions regarding the height or the efficiency kitchen. I have some questions, comments in actually Exhibit A, so I don't know if you want me to wait for those or if other people have other comments.

If you think it's more appropriate to hold off, I have no problem with that. Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions of Diane as to her staff report? Commissioner Rollins?

My understanding is that the language, the second paragraph is the revised language that you're proposing? Yes. Because that's an exhibit A?

Correct.

So when I read that, I read it as the only two-story allowed ADU is one that's built over a garage existing or proposed.

Okay.

I don't read it as a two-story ADU being allowed.

Okay.

And so... So I guess here's my question. Because when I read this, and I'm thinking about it also in terms of why we would limit it anyway, but would the state allow us to limit its placement as a full two-story ADU? In other words, if you set it at four feet, you get 16 feet. If you bring it back to the normal setback, you get 25.

Yeah, so as far, it would need to meet the setback and the height requirements that are listed unless it precluded the development, right, of the 800 for one bedroom or 1,000 for more than one bedroom. But in addition to that, the existing code also allows for an application for a variance. So that could get brought to you. Did that answer your question?

Yeah, I get that part of it. But at the same time, there is an advantage to having a smaller footprint on our lots. And if we incentivize these units from moving off of that four-foot setback, we're lessening the impact on the adjacent neighbor, even at 16 feet.

I would say that trying to develop setbacks that would exceed four feet would become problematic with the state.

If you just condition it to the required setback. In other words, you could get a 22-foot, 25-foot high ADU if you put it on seven feet.

So everything that falls within what I call the box can meet the standards of the box. And an ADU can be at that setback and at that height. within the box when we allow it to be outside the box or the state says you have to allow it. That's where you were bringing up that four and four and 16, which is a law that we have to allow that. But we already allow garages, right? An existing detached garage is sometimes only five feet, right? For, you know, or zero from that, uh, from that, uh, property line. And so what we're saying here is, you know, let's keep our existing footprint. Let's just go up with an ADU and allow for that. That's what this is allowing is kind of putting that into the code to say, hey, if we already have an existing detached garage or a proposed detached garage that we already allow to have reduced setbacks, we can allow an ADU on top of that, creates that carriage, old school carriage housing. I think you have one. um and and then at that height of 25 feet in those types of situations but not just because you're doing an adu at four feet okay anybody else have questions yes um out of curiosity which municipalities in california are leading on this

Well, there's only about five that have adopted it. One of them is the city of Sebastopol, but there's no material on that yet. But the other ones, San Jose, San Francisco, I think I have a list actually. Yeah, Santa Monica, San Diego, West Hollywood, Berkeley.

So is there a pretty good communication among your peers in these different municipalities? Because, I mean, they're on the bleeding edge there, and it would be really nice if we don't have to be on the bleeding edge and we can be back a little bit. So do you have the opportunity to communicate with the peers that are working in those municipalities?

Yeah, I could do some additional outreach opposed to looking at their resource materials online.

I think it'd be great because Commissioner Dombach brought up the questions about some of the legal issues, and I bet everybody's working on this. So it's like, let's work together. Actually, let's follow. Let them do the dirty work and the hard work and the bleeding work, and then hopefully we can just take advantage of that and come up with something that's more effective. in tune with Sonoma but yeah.

I did read specifically a lot of concern in Berkeley and Sebastopol about the impact on the characters of the towns and also the utilization of this type of that allowing that type of split essentially and who may or may not take advantage of those opportunities.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

How does this letter impact your work? It was from the Housing Defense Fund at probably like 3 o'clock this afternoon. I'll pass it on. I figured you probably haven't seen it. I want to say thank you, but I don't. No, you don't want to say thank you.

What's the thrust?

The thrust is that our ordinance is in violation of a section of the ADU law.

Yes. So we also received our letter, the city of Sonoma received a letter from HCD that we're out of compliance. So that is why this has been something important to get in front of you and also why we wanted to separate it out from the separate sale and conveyance because we want to at least get into compliance with state law and then we can go from there.

So We had this reviewed by our attorney against the state law because we know state law overrides us regardless. We have to, after it gets approved by city council, we have to send it to HCD. HCD has to bless it. I've never seen them bless one yet. So they will give us a letter of additional changes that we will need to make at that time. So in that sense, not worried about being sued at this point. Um, this will be my second letter I've received this month from them. So, um, that not, this is not a concern to me. It's interesting because, you know, and we'll give it to the attorney too and Let's say that there are additional changes or something that gets called out, we can always bring it back to you guys after Planning Commission or after City Council with their direction to make additional modifications.

What they're concerned with is primarily a certain segment of ADUs. So it's not ADUs as a whole. It's that we're not addressing those ADUs that fit their box under that section, which are primarily multifamily.

Okay, that may be in relation to the number of ADUs within the multifamily. Yeah, okay. Well, my goal is to be the first to get through HCB in the first round, but... Thank you. Thanks for your support. So, yeah, we did add the language about the multifamily. And this is actually another topic that came up was how it's – Difficult to distinguish one the differences between some of the different provisions listed under the number of multifamily Dwellings, I do understand that There are some very minor ones that we can get into if that's another discussion topic that's desired but and then there's now this sort of new interpretation of Government code section six six three one four versus government code section six six three two three and it okay see and And how one of them actually provides for an additional unit that they should be looked at separately that it's not a sequential provision and so we've also erred on the side of caution after multiple discussions with council added that provision so you'll I think it's Item D under both for the number of units allowed for both single-family homes and multi-family dwellings We've added that additional language to account for Hopefully the max number of 80s that can be built on single-family or multi-family dwelling homes.

Yeah I just as a general piece of information I Is HCD making its judgments based on their interpretation or reading of the state legislation? Or are they making their judgments based on some other set of criteria that can't be tied specifically to the intent of the legislation?

I would say that it's both. It's in response directly to the law, but I would say what is not in the law. It's addressing the ambiguity in the law.

So they are in some cases interpreting.

Yes.

Intent of the law.

Much like they do with the housing elements, you know, sort of depends who you get, the reviewers can change.

And HCD is answerable to whom?

The state.

No, I understand it's answerable to the state, but in other words, the determination by HCD Is it appealable? I mean, is it basically the courts that you have to go to in order to get a determination as to whether HCD's interpretation is correct?

Yeah, been there.

So you've got to sue this HCD.

We sued HCD.

Lovely.

Been there. It's not lovely. But what happens is the more they want us to be ambiguous. They want it to be open. So when we start adding specificity is when we get into trouble.

But specificity is the objective standard.

Not when it comes to ADUs.

In regard to development standards, I would agree, Larry, yes. It is just that. It's a specificity.

But they don't want us to define what a kitchen looks like. What does that mean? They don't want us to get into the details like that that would help people sometimes. They just want the ADUs built. We can't make four feet. We can't make it less. Now that we have this new separate section, I think that's what, in just scanning this, they really want us to create two different ADU sections, one that pertains to the one law and one that pertains to the other one, which is so much more open than the other one was. It was very specific, and this other one is more ambiguous. That we can't do anything. That's what it says. Yeah. And so, so we're trying to find that middle ground and then this is where, you know, we'll see what HCD says at the end of the day, but in our attorney's review of the ordinance, we had them review it before we brought it to you. Um, they believe that this meets the intent of the law. As the law is stated, um, the law keeps changing as we know, which is why we got the letters because we haven't updated it in three years and the law has changed every single year since then. So you'll see this again next year. Um, so, uh, so anyways, great love ADUs, uh, even though my questions will be worthless based on this conversation.

I do have some questions for clarification, just understanding in Exhibit A. Yes, let me pull it up. Yeah, and I've kind of listed them, so these are probably rather mundane. The first one is 194010, under purpose. Sorry, what was that? It's the purpose right here. So my first question is, why was affordable struck?

Yeah, so the term affordable, I think, gets, now that we have official affordable housing criterias that are met, I think it gets sometimes used interchangeably. And we want, when we say affordable housing, to be referencing housing that meets those AMI criteria. Does that make sense? So like 80%?

I know what an AMI number is, but when you strike affordable, it basically infers that it doesn't have to be affordable. And yet, one of the questions I had was could we deed ADUs affordable? Right. So that's what I'm just trying to understand kind of the thought process behind it.

Yeah, so that was staff's thoughts, but we're open to a suggestion or keeping it in if that's what your recommendation is.

Well, I have a perspective. And my perspective is that, you know, out of one side of the mouth, California is that ADUs are considered as you know heading up to our affordable housing and so but out of the other side of the mouth is the ambiguity of the law that was just written which is so ambiguous that developers can find a loophole to make for-profit housing so I guess from my perspective you know trying knowing that most of the ADUs that we build are The cost of those is so prohibitive that they're probably never going to be rented. I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity here to at least encourage the affordability. So that's one perspective.

So how about another word that's not affordable? Because I rent, without giving too much personal information away, I rent an ADU. I don't qualify for affordable housing and I cannot buy a house. So I'm one of the people that benefit from ADUs. Is there another term that's not affordable that would sort of fit what you're trying to achieve here?

Well, affordable... What about cost-effective?

Well, but this is small A affordable. It's not large A affordable. So I think what you're saying is that. So whether you use cost-effective or not, small A affordable is missing middle.

I would go with housing because it's affordable by design because it has to be smaller than the house you've got all those restrictions on it but if you get into affordable then you put that restriction on the owner that they have to go through that process of vetting their potential tenants and I wouldn't want to do that to people because it'll make them back off that's fine and I think when we

Originally, when we rewrote it the first time, we tried to maintain ADUs as affordable housing, and we got pushback from the state on it, that you can't do that.

That's what I mean.

You can't restrict it to affordability, even though they say it's affordable housing. It'd be great if we could say capital A, if that's the intent, but it's not really the intent. And the people who are writing these laws aren't the legislature, they're the housing developers.

I get it. And that's why I think that I wanted to bring this up because it sounds like any work that you do toward us allowing a deed that says affordable perpetuity is not going to happen. I mean, that's what I'm hearing. That's what I mean by one side or the other, so. Okay.

Any other questions for Stephanie?

I actually have a few other. Okay. Yeah, thank you. So the other one was, it's this language around the multifamily stuff that you were talking about. It's really, it is really confusing, so just as a layperson, if we look at, A, number of accessory dwelling units, part two, multifamily, item B. I just simply don't understand what is written there.

Yeah, and this is how it's written in the state law. So, okay, on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, at least one ADU or up to 20, it doesn't say or up to, it just reads as up to, up to 25% of the existing multifamily dwelling units shall be permitted when constructed within existing multifamily dwelling. So the difference I believe in this one is that it's differentiating that it is to be constructed within the existing multifamily. So there's an encouragement there to use old boiler rooms, other unused areas, storage closets within existing multifamily and do a density or an infill in that sense, opposed to building out.

Okay.

So that's how that one differentiates.

Yeah, I'll explain a little bit more. So you have a four-unit building, you know, multifamily building. You have some extra probably storage space or something like that. you automatically get one ADU, but it's 25% of that number of units, so 25% of that four, so you're getting the one, right? So if you've got 20, then we're going to get 25% of that as well, so now I can have up to five ADUs that I can cut out of my space.

But not separate?

No, it's within the building. Yeah, okay, that's...

It's an attached ADU. Yeah, okay. Within the existing building.

Okay, and so therefore it doesn't really contradict with number C Which says no more than two detached because the things you're talking about are internal Correct. OK. Thank you.

Yep. Any other questions?

But don't forget, you can have 10. Sure.

Go ahead. I don't need to make the comment other than to just acknowledge and express my sincere appreciation because I sent all these questions earlier today and Diane did a very very credible job of answering them so I just want to thank you because and it sounds to me from all of the dialogue that you really just lifted this from existing statute I mean and really the intent is to ensure compliance with HCD at this point and to the extent that we can continue to come back modify as we see additional direction from other cities we will do that so deed restricted and affordability and all those things but I took all of my questions today as being you're just simply lifting because we just need a compliant correct yes that's all I wanted to restate thank you can you get a gold star from HCD okay I need to open public comment there are any members of the public who would like to come

and address the commission on this agenda item. Please come forward and state your name, Julian.

My name is Julian Mackey, and I am the Executive Director of Sonoma Valley Commons. As part of our efforts to understand how we can increase housing affordability in all of Sonoma Valley, we have facilitated a number of interviews with individuals who have built ADUs over the years because we see that as potentially an opportunity for either capital A, capital H affordable housing, or lowercase a, lowercase h affordable housing. And what we found is that for the vast majority of those individuals, the people who have been successful in navigating the ADU construction, they've mostly been paying all cash and then ended up using those units for pool houses, guest houses, things like that. And for individuals who who were seeking to construct ADUs for rental, whether that was intergenerational or for other individuals, many of them were caught up in the process of navigating approvals navigating the permit process and so it was those individuals who I think are most likely to build the types of ad use that we're wanting to see more of specifically in the city that are getting caught in in this process now some of that may be the cost of borrowing the cost of goods and materials but the extent to which we can simplify this process and make it as clear as possible what the rules are from the ordinance all the way down to our code, it will benefit those people the most. Now, this hasn't necessarily made me understand what is and is not allowed within city limits, but I hope that we're on that path. The other thing I would add is that so much of what we see as a pathway for constructing affordable ADUs in city limits is likely going to come down, especially when it comes to multifamily, is modular. And the modular housing industry is increasing throughout the state and the extent to which we're using, and I think this is likely why the definition of kitchen and other things is trying, they want, you know, blanket language is because the extent to which we have language that defines some of these features that matches elsewhere in the state makes it easier for some of these modular factory-built housing units that are built throughout the state to also conform with our local rules. And so this is all to say that the extent to which we can simplify these things, I think, makes it much more likely that the types of ADUs constructed will be the types of ADUs we want to see. Thank you.

Thank you, Julian. Seeing no other members of the public in attendance, I will close public comment and bring it back to the commission for commissioner comments or a motion.

May I interrupt for one moment? So I did, I mentioned earlier I made some non-substantive changes. One of them was just doing a global reduction from using accessory dwelling unit to its acronym throughout the document accurately. So that was done. And then the second item, which is maybe not non-substantive, is just an additional An additional sentence for the definition of accessory dwelling unit, the definition that was provided in exhibit A didn't include the latter portion of the ADU definition pursuant to state code. It included that an ADU also includes an efficiency unit and a manufactured home as defined in the health and safety code. So I did make that note on this that I would like that implemented as well, and I think that that should be part of your motion tonight.

Can you do me a favor and scroll down since I'm on this page? Scroll down just a little bit, I just wanna see. Nope, too far. Proprietary of construction management shall not trigger requirement. Okay, that's fascinating. Because currently we have a rule as to the, it's either the dollar amount or the square footage that triggers the sprinkler requirement. But this is basically invalidating the sprinkler requirement, even if the dollar amount or the square footage would trigger it in the alteration of a home.

That's correct. Typically, it would be based off of, I think it's a cost. in construction to or upgrades to the primary would trigger then a need for.

Right. And was this written once again in conformance with state law?

Yes.

So the state has essentially negated the protection of fire sprinklers, which are a requirement in a house of a particular size when it's added to, but they basically invalidated the addition of ADUs to that structure as a trigger.

If the primary does not have sprinklers, correct.

I get it.

And it's not in the fire zone.

You know, is it any wonder that housing starts in California essentially flat? Nobody knows what the hell to do anymore. I mean, the state of California has lost its mind.

All right. Okay. Any other comments? Commissioner comments? Is there a motion?

What's the language? I'd like to propose a motion to adopt. There we go. OK. Make a motion to adopt a resolution recommending city council adopt an ordinance amending chapter 19.45, accessory dwelling units. with regard to the added language that was presented tonight.

Second. All done.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Willers?

Yes.

Commissioner Barnett?

Aye.

Commissioner Namba? Yes. Commissioner O'Gorman-Jenkins? Aye. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Chair Weyrich?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

Great. Thank you very much. So moving on to item 4.5. Refresh my recollection as to whether that requires a motion for a continuance. Okay. For item 4.5, there seems to be interest in continuing this item to give it due regard and due analysis at a planning commission date in the future, a date certain, which will be the meeting, the regular meeting of September. 17th So do I have a motion to continue that item so moved a second Yes Yes Thank you very much and that concludes our

public hearing portion of tonight's agenda the items for discussion agenda has already been heard move on to director comments and announcements I'm back I will get to your emails if you sent me one soon as I can we have the mobile home study session tomorrow at City Council if you're interested in watching it So I will be doing that tomorrow night. I am going to send out emails now that I'm back to bring back ad hoc committees to get those things moving again and bring those forward soon. We will probably have a October, I think is our tentative for a housing project. Looking at a couple more ordinances to finish out this year, a housing project, and then just our normal things that we've been doing. General plan also probably will be late mid-September for public comment. And then during that public comment period, as I stated during a prior planning commission meeting, I'll be holding meetings will be going to every single Commission meeting or hold special meetings during that time to have conversations with each Commission so that they have an opportunity to participate by law Planning Commission is the Commission that makes the recommendation to City Council for their consideration we do want input from all the commissions because they have that expertise or information on those certain things. And so I want to make a concerted effort to go to everyone before we actually bring it forward with a draft for your consideration. The other item is on Thursday. I don't know if you heard the last City Council meeting, but the Art and Luffy conversation We've continued that item to the second meeting of September. City Council wanted to give an opportunity for the Cultural and Fire and Arts Commission to provide their feedback on what the proposed ordinance is, including your amendments. And then we'll be bringing that back to City Council. If City Council does any discussion or provides direction for any changes that you all have not discussed per law, I will be bringing that back to you for your consideration and discussion. Then you'll have another time to review it again. If you've already considered it or discussed it, and that is what they're going to be recommending or providing direction,

then it will not come back to you okay and i think that's my update thank you yes i understand we have somebody who applied to be the alternate on the planning commission i have no idea i'm sorry I'm sorry? I don't know. I literally just got back. Okay. My question is, how does the process work? Because they asked me and I couldn't answer. So does it go to the city council because it has to be at large? And so the existing city council would be the ones to put on that? That's correct. Okay.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Commissioner reports or comments. Yes, Donna.

I would just like to offer a comment and thank Diane for all the work you've done around the ADUs. And you can go and start your own consultancy after this, I would think.

Any other? Yes, Commissioner Willers. I wish my comment was as joyful, quite honestly. I just have to... As a commissioner who's responsible for health, safety, and welfare of the community, I have to respond to what happened on Third Street. The roundabout, bicycle enhancement, traffic, whatever it's called. It's insane. Sorry, there's no other word for it. It's just simply insane. It makes nothing safer. It confuses the issue of where a bike and where a car should be. I'm an avid cyclist, particularly the previous 40 years. It's insanity to make cars and bikes share a space that isn't clearly defined. By putting something in the middle of the road where the motorist is confused about what they're doing is a total hazard for the cyclist. And the cyclist is a motor vehicle. It is considered a motor vehicle on the roadway. And it has all the rights and privileges of the car. And cars don't believe that to be true. And so when you compound that confusion, you create an unsafe condition, which was normally in its previous configuration, in other words, a street without an object in the middle of it, very safe. And I really hope it gets removed and does not become permanent because it's insane.

I believe the Traffic Safety Commission will have it on their next meeting.

They do.

They do.

And let me just say that there's some very interesting videos that have been taken of cars negotiating that roundabout, a number of which go in the opposite side of the roundabout in the opposite direction. They don't understand it. It's not intuitive. It looks misplaced. It looks like an obstruction in the street, and people use a variety of techniques to go around it, including going into the opposite lane of traffic to negotiate around it. And so the videos are quite interesting. And these are just taken by a neighbor who's set up their camera to watch how people are responding to the structure.

It's an absolute liability for the city.

I have every faith that the Traffic Safety Commission is going to be studious in their study, their evaluation of the issue at their next regular meeting. One brief thing, Jennifer, do you think there may be interests with the interim city manager in continuing the chairs and vice chairs meeting that we used to do that we found in speaking with some other chairs of other commissions found to be helpful and effective.

I'll bring it to their attention. Okay.

Thank you.

Is the city council any closer to making a selection for the city manager?

I believe that they are probably in September.

It's taking a long time.

It's fun.

I won't be here in September.

Actually, I won't either. I was invited to speak at a conference on the East Coast. We better get that alternate.

Sorry.

I may be able to TBD TBD We'll send out we'll send out an email to figure out quorum Okay, is there a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn okay we're adjourned