 All right, commissioners, if you can turn on your video and view your mics and get ready to start right With that, I'm going to call to order this evening's special meeting of the city of San Rosa Planning Commission and begin by reading this statement due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders and dash 25 dash 20 and And dash 29 dash 20 which suspend certain requirements of the Brown act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to shelter in place Minimize the spread of COVID-19 the planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using the webinar missioners and staff are participating from remote locations and we're practicing appropriate social distancing members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and As noted on the agenda members of the public wishing to speak during items or public comment or during our public hearing items We'll be able to do so by raising their hands and we'll be given the ability to address the commission And with that, I will have our reporting secretary Oh, thank you chairs. Let's go let the record reflect that all commissioners are present great Next let's move to the approval of our October 22nd 2020 draft minutes any corrections to those Not any okay, then those will stand as printed and Next we'll move to a time for public comments Which is the time for any member of the public wishing to address the commission on matters of interest to the commission that are not listed Tonight as a public hearing may do so you may Make yourself known to our host that you'd like to speak by pressing your raise hands button if you're on On the zoom webinar if you're dialed in by phone You need to dial star nine and you'll be recognized and put in the queue to speak and you'll have three minutes to speak Okay, and I go ahead and open public comments with our recording our host to see if anyone is wanting to speak Sure, Cisco. No time at this time No one from the public is wishing to speak or raising their hands and there are five members of the public at this time Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close Public comment and bring it back to report any Reports tonight Okay, I hope All of you that wanted to get a hard copy of our environmental document for next meeting and then able to do so Those are available Next department reports What's the road? Yeah, thank you chair Cisco members of the Commission. It's nice to see you all Not much new to report other than I had mentioned at our last meeting that the city was Head was working on an urgency ordinance for the glass fire rebuild effort And I just want to do advise the Commission that that did get approved by the city council last week So that as an urgency ordinance is effective immediately. So that's the only update for tonight Hey, did you know thank you Next statements of abstention by commissioners anyone abstaining tonight. Yay We have no study session nor any consent items. So with that, we're gonna go ahead and move on on to our Only public hearing tonight item 10.1, which is the public hearing on the downtown stationery specific plan implementation package and Amy Nicholson will be giving our Staff report Good evening chair Cisco and members of the Commission The item before you is the downtown station area specific plan implementation package This item includes General and specific plan amendments to reflect council's direction to remove floor area ratio from 12 historic Contributor of properties within the st. Rose preservation district It also includes zoning code text amendments and zoning map amendments the downtown station area specific plan Began its update in fall of 2018 and the intent of this plan update was to remove barriers to housing Construction and promote a sense of place and walkability within the downtown The planning Commission acted on the plan on October I'm excuse me September 24th of 2020 And the plan was adopted by council on October 13th of 2020 The design review board provided comments on focused zoning code changes at its October 21st meeting These minor comments have been incorporated into the zoning code text amendments before you The cultural heritage board will review the proposed zoning code amendments at its November 4th meeting The downtown station area specific plan includes a number of chapters and the land use and urban design Chapters are those that are implemented through the zoning code and map amendments before you this evening The purpose of the zoning code is to implement the general plan and specific plans It regulates development By setting land uses allowed by zoning districts by establishing process and development standards All ministerial and discretionary approvals must meet each of the standards listed in the zoning code The zoning code text amendments before you are Numerous and are shown on the slide here and I'm going to take some time this evening to walk through each of them The downtown plan Established for new land use designations and the zoning code map and text amendments include for new zoning districts with the same titles a Total of 888 properties within the plan boundaries are proposed to be rezoned to implement these 40 land use designations the zoning code text amendments also include Land use table amendments to correspond with these four new zoning districts and each would allow for multi-family Residential uses by right in addition to retail and restaurant uses The core mixed use and station mixed use zoning districts permit more visitor oriented uses and the maker mixed use Zoning district will allow for light industrial uses in conjunction with residential uses The neighborhood mixed use zoning districts will allow for a variety of retail uses Which would serve the existing neighborhoods? The map on the slide here shows each of the new zoning districts in shades of brown and pink the yellow and orange areas Will remain as their existing low or medium density General plan land use and zoning districts so the changes that will be reflected over the next few slides would not apply there The text and map amendments before you also include a number of changes to base and combining zoning districts The downtown commercial zoning districts has been replaced primarily with the core mixed use zoning district The transit village mix zoning district has been amended amended to reflect only the north station area plan and The limited light industrial combining district has been removed In addition the station area combining district has been modified to reflect both the downtown station area and the north station area After further consideration planning staff is recommending That the end in the NSA combining districts as shown in the resolution exhibit Be removed for the north station area of properties so that these properties will retain the SA suffix and finally the historic combining district has been updated to include character defining elements and additional context statement information and this is consistent with a cultural heritage board resolution, which was adopted in 2006 floor area ratio is introduced to the city with the adoption of the downtown station area specific plan and Floor area ratio controls building mass and form, but it does not directly regulate height and density Floor area ratio is measured by total floor area divided by gross lot area and FAR maximums will be added within the core mixed use station mixed use maker mixed use and neighborhood mixed use zoning districts and a Selection of the floor area ratio map is shown here on the slide. I Want to note that floor area ratio Has been removed for those 12 historic Contributing properties along B Street and 10th Street based on council's direction And for this reason height and density standards will need to be applied to these properties through these zoning context amendments The downtown station area specific plan includes a number of site design and building placement standards And these are implemented through the four new downtown zoning districts These standards address building setbacks and tower separation requirements the location of on-site parking and also a requirement for shadow analysis Along first and third streets between a and D Street Building design standards are also included in the text amendments and address dimensional relief The extent of building design Which includes foresighted architecture and also transparency and ground level elements the downtown station area combining district is implemented Or is applied to these properties Which have either the triangle symbol or the orange area which denotes both transition or overlay areas I'm gonna walk through each of these transitions and also the active ground floor overlay and explain what specific design standards Applied in these cases in addition to those that apply to all properties within the four new downtown zoning districts The downtown transition is applied to segments of 4th and 5th Street and a portion of B Street along the Santa Rosa Plaza Buildings in this transition zone must step back a minimum of six feet above the fifth floor The neighborhood transition was established to reduce visual impact on most residential areas In particular those within our preservation districts These transitions are street specific and you will notice a table in the text amendments Which have slightly different standards depending on the street and that is to protect the existing development These standards include more restrictive front setbacks between six and ten feet Also front buildings stepbacks for portions of buildings that are over three stories and Daylight planes for buildings that are over six stories There is also a prohibition of surface parking areas between the sidewalk and any building facade and in cases of new development fronting Being and being encouraged along places like Santa Rosa Avenue. These rear stepbacks would be applied Instead of the front stepbacks to protect the existing properties that's to the rear The creek activation transition is applied to promote the use and visibility of the Santa Rosa Creek and Throughout the downtown plan process. There were three segments identified for this activation Standards include that new buildings would be required to have pedestrian entrances and residential stokes facing the creek New development would also need to provide pedestrian pathways to connect new development to the existing creek trail network and At least one activating use or two activating design features would be required The active ground floor overlay is applied throughout the downtown plan area To optimize the pedestrian experience These standards do not regulate ground floor uses, but rather building design And they're really written in a way to provide Maximum flexibility for new projects and there are many of options to choose from Access to any off-street parking is discouraged from streets that are within the active ground floor overlay And again, we see the standard prohibiting surface parking between any sidewalks and building facades the zoning code includes a number of sign regulations and It does not include any particular Regulations for weight-finding signs that would be located in the public right of way The text amendments include a Process for these signs to be reviewed and they can be reviewed by The design review board or the zoning administrator or the director of planning and economic development department When in conjunction with a new development These signs are intended to be directional so they cannot include advertising or commercial identification information As I previously mentioned the historic combining district would still apply to all properties within preservation districts within the downtown plan area The text amendments include added character defining elements for each of the preservation districts and cover architectural style types of building building materials and other neighborhood elements The historic and cultural preservation sections of the code have been amended to reflect the latest revision to the secretary of interior standards We have also added in a number of minor exemptions from the landmark alteration process for projects that are Extremely minor and not visible from the public right of way such as the addition of skylights The design review and landmark alteration process has been amended to reflect a mandatory joint design review board and cultural heritage board concept review the zoning code currently For a pirate's mandatory concept review with just the cultural heritage board for new projects within preservation districts Although the general practice of staff is to have a joint meeting and so this would codify that practice The landmark landmark alteration section has been modified to reflect New decision criteria to more accurately regulate new development as opposed to modifications to existing buildings and finally the cultural heritage board forum section has been modified to Allow for an affirmative action to include a majority of the quorum president Except for legislative acts which would require for affirmative votes And this is consistent with the city council planning commission and design review board forum sections The design review section has also been modified to include a one-step process for formal design review Concept design review would still be separate and this is not any this does not include any changes to that process So throughout the design review section of the code any references to preliminary and final design review would be removed resulting in a one one step action by the design review board For design review entitlement similar to the planning commission acting on a conditional use permit or a tentative map Implementation of the plan also includes various additional amendments One is parking so the parking section has been modified to eliminate any parking minimums for vehicles Bicycle parking minimums have been retained There is also some clarifying language to the setback section of the zoning code And standards for specific land uses including mixed use sidewalk cafes And large grocery stores have also been made to allow for full implementation of the plan There are a number of definitions that have been added as well One of these is the addition of electric vehicle sales And other terms used throughout the plan for clarity purposes And with that I'm going to turn it over briefly to supervising planner Amy Lyall who is going to walk through the general plan and specific plan amendments Good evening chair vice chair and members of the commission So Amy touched on this already, but I did want to just walk through What happened at the city council on October 13th with their adoption and then what the proposed Solution is for an issue that we've discovered So at the final hearing at the city council The council did approve the removal of floor area ratio from 12 contributing properties Along B Street and then one property on 10th street And after reflecting on this staff realized that we actually need to define the height and density And density within the the zoning code and then also go back and add it to the general plan and specific plan Because the core mixed use land use was retained That land use does not have height and density defined because it relied on floor area ratio So it was clear that we had to go back and add the height and density Since the FAR was removed So in absence of discussion of height limits and what density should be there It's our staff recommendation that it should default back to what's allowed currently, which is five stories under the CD5 zoning And And actually it is consistent with state law to just simply state that there is no maximum density So there would actually be no maximum density, but there would need to be an expressed height limit So it's our staff recommendation consistent with council's removal of FAR that the height be five stories Next slide please Amy And so the resolution in your package tonight Includes our staff recommendation to just clarify this within the specific plan and then within the general plan It's already stated within the zoning Ordinance Exhibit and in that resolution So just for clarity I've just added a couple lines of what's in that final resolution And that's really just to state that the maximum height for those 12 properties is five stories Or maximum 55 feet And with that I'll turn it back over to Amy Thank you So with that The planning and economic development department is Recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending to the council approval of text amendments to the general plan and downtown station area specific plan Implementing FAR removal from 12 contributor properties and also that The Planning commission adopt a resolution recommending to the council Approval of the proposed zoning code map and text amendments to implement the downtown station area specifically And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions Thanks, miss Nicholson. Um Let me get back to the commission commissioners unless you have any like just sort of like detail of A Minor questions I'd rather we held our questions till after the public hearing because there's just a lot of volume of material here And I think we could benefit from whatever we hear from them prior to our questions, but that's okay um So I'm going to open the public hearing again. This is a time for the public to speak on this item If you are in the queue and you want to hit your raise hand button That will alert the host that you are wanting to speak and you'll have three minutes If you're dialing in hit star nine and the same will be true. You'll be recognized and Allowed to unmute and speak to us for three minutes So with that I'm going to go ahead and open our public hearing You know what our host has to say Sure sys go no one is raising their hand at this time Okay, let's give it another couple of seconds. All right. We have a few hands raised You're going to start with Denise Hill I've given you permission to unmute yourself and speak you have three minutes Hi everybody Denise Hill with the st. Rose neighborhood um, I I would just wanted to mention in in regards to the cd 5 recommendation by the planning department that our neighborhood feels like We would prefer to see a 35 foot height limit actually on those 12 historic contributors we We feel that by Taking a cd 5 approach You actually are putting kind of a target on those contributors that someone might buy a couple of properties up and Tear them down just to go ahead and do the cd 5 and I realize we have historic guidelines For our h district, but we've seen that happen this last this year So we're very concerned that we want as much protection as possible So we're strongly suggesting that it go to a cd Or to a height limit a max height limit of 35 feet Which allows for a variance to be filed if somebody wants to go higher than that But it is in keeping with what is actually there as far as the 12 Contributing properties to our historic district I would also say that if you listen to the council amendment and discussion When they brought this up and it was brought forward by one of the council members to Exclude the far on these historic contributors That the intent was clear that they wanted to protect the contributors and our historic district and so I think the strongest protection for In in respect to that would be if we could go with a height limit of 35 feet Which we have discussed with the planning department several members including bill rose and They say that that is possible And so I'm hoping and we're hoping then you'll go ahead and consider The the full protection would be a height limit of 35 feet and not at the cd 5 Which allows you to go to five stories and 35 feet is closer to three-story height And of course anything that's higher than that and there's only one or two contributors If there was some disaster and They were destroyed That property owner is well within the right to build to the height it was originally and so what doesn't have to They don't have to conform to that 35 foot height, but certainly What's out there is mostly two-story one and two-story residential homes And I think one or two apartment complexes from the 30s that are Within the the 35 foot height limit now, so it is with keeping with what we've got going now So we'd really appreciate it if you would consider our request and there may be a few more people from the neighborhood Who are going to speak to this? Thank you Thank you Thank you. Next we have a henry hwang If you can state your name for the record, please Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi. This is henry hwang I own two properties and also live in the saint rose historic district And my two properties are on the basically the corner of seventh and b street And um one of them is a his um is a home which I live in and the other is an office building um currently it is the cd5 zoning and um You know, we we do not think that I mean as it stands it just looks like it's spot zoning because um, you know all around Our property is all far four um across the street um on Across b street along seventh street there's um The museum which is an old post office and that has an far four. I mean, we just don't understand why um our two properties are included in this mix of the 12 contributing properties um And you know, we would really maybe someday. I mean right now we're we're not um developing anything But you know, we wouldn't if we have an opportunity to bring more homes Into santa rosa. We wouldn't want to be limited because of you know a 35 foot height restriction or A change in zoning So That's pretty much our comments. Great. Thank you Thank you, henry Next we have a greg parker You hear me? Okay Yeah, yes, I'm clear Okay, greg parker. I live on b street in the saint rose historic district I'm up on the north end and as Denise mentioned, uh, what the city council was trying to do is Help us protect the Historic district it's a preservation district and to us that means something That we don't just develop the edges up so much that it's no longer appears like a historic district so, uh With that in mind she mentioned um The removal of the flora area ratio. I think she did Uh, but they needed a height density Uh, and so they Wanted to get from listening to Amy earlier She was saying they wanted to get rid of the cd designations and we went back to a cd 5 and so What we're trying to do is we came up with a Happy medium between what the city council proposed They actually wanted to remove the far input low density single family Uh on that whole stretch and Obviously that didn't work So we've come up with a 35 height limit with a variant so they couldn't go higher uh core mixed use remains farce gone and one of the issues That is coming up and I believe the previous speaker spoke to it Is sp3 30? state law prohibiting down zoning Uh, it decreases the density and From talking to staff There's a couple of things the overall downtown station area specific plan Uh Does a pretty good increase in the development density and all those things and These 12 parcels aren't going to contribute a whole lot More to that And in fact, we have three parcels that are underdeveloped Usually in the 35 foot height limit. So It's kind of a wash Uh for most of this stretch Along b street And I think that pretty much That's what I want to say appreciate it. Thank you guys very much Thank you Next we have a roi louise You can state your name for the record, please This uh my name is roi louise seen. I also live in the saint rose district and um I want to first of all thank amy and bill for their endless patience and explaining many details in a very complex situation to us and uh That they've been very helpful both of them in helping us understand the limits of what we're dealing with But I I I can only really reaffirm what denise and greg has said The the figure of 35 feet was Was part of the original historic combining district guidelines that we read And that formed the basis of why 35 feet and um And the question of the down zoning Also, greg has already stated what I was going to bring up was that there is A pathway to allow for a certain amount of down zoning in the overall In a global overall up zoning if I can use that expression So other than that, I think that's about um all the issues they I would say that we understand that with Development and new developments that preserving in perpetuity Beloved structures on private properties is not really possible But what we would like to do is to preserve the visual architectural integrity of our historic district And that is where our emphasis is on the height factor because a building can be extremely fine tuned to And sympathetic to the character of a neighborhood But height itself can disrupt All of that uh all the desired Continuity of a vision of a neighborhood So again, thank you. Amy and bill and thank the commission for Hearing my words. Thank you Thank you Thank you Roy With that chair Cisco no one else is raising their hands Yeah Okay That I'll go ahead and close our public hearing And um Staff we're gonna need quite a bit from you with what we've heard um And we may need to hear from this crocker On the down zoning issue. So, um Let's let's go ahead and start with um Well, you heard the questions that miss hill's uh suggestion about the 35 feet height limit um And the fact that that's possible. Could you give us a description of How how we might take that up if it's possible? Hi chair Cisco. This is sue gallagher Ashley crocker is out uh today ill. So I am filling in um, and uh, I'll I'll give a little bit of background and then I I know that um miss liles is also very Well positioned to speak to this as well uh, yes, the the A new statute does uh preclude any reductions in High density or floor area ratio other Elements that would reduce density um in less Uh, the the local agency can establish that those that down zoning would not result in a net loss and residential capacity and given that the the uh downtown station area plan includes substantial Up zoning of many properties We do believe that we can make those findings if that is the direction That the planning commission would like to go. We will need to make those findings do some calculations but given this in this proposal affects 12 Properties and again, there are many other properties within this single action of the downtown areas downtown station area plan That will ensure no net net loss and residential capacity And Amy, I don't know if you want to Add anything to that Or mr. Rose Yeah, I'll let I'll let Bo reply to that. Thank you. Sure. I'd be happy to say a few words Thank you, sue and also. Thank you to the neighbors for their kind words We did have several I think very productive conversations with members of the the public that live in the area have properties in the area on both sides of this argument um Yeah, everything sue said we're we're very aware of The provisions in the law for the the down zoning and how there has to be no net loss and density We certainly think that's covered with the overall increase in density through the station area plan I think the specific reason for the staff recommendation is that The night of the council meeting For any of you that watched it We actually Had to take a break and kind of think about what it was that was being asked and um after the meeting we went back listened to the The um the audio watched the meeting and it was clear that the direction was to remove far And so that's why you have the recommendation that you have tonight We did not hear specific direction to go Can you hear me now Yeah, you might have to go back and freeze states and stuff. We lost it and it's all important. What was the last thing you heard? um, you were discussing that the that you took a break and um Had a process how what was going to happen here, so Okay, I'll turn my video off. Maybe that'll help Okay, um What we heard the direction from the council was to remove the far So that's why you have the right recommendation you have tonight That did leave us with then the need to figure out what the development standard would be and what the Density would be since it was being directed through far And what we concluded was the best thing was to go back to what was there originally Which is why you have the development standards of the cd5 so that said If the commission determines that a height limit of 35 feet is appropriate Then yes, we would have to make the additional findings Indicating that there is no net loss in Density based on that action So we're able to do that if that's what the commission wants But the the specific direction was not given to us by the council to do that one other thing The it was mentioned about a variance we that could be the option That could be the way that if you did have a 35 foot height limit Somebody could proceed with a variance request. I think as the commission is well aware We don't see many requests for those when we do. It's a very high threshold to actually be granted one so It's you know the unusual circumstances the hardship findings and several findings that are very Difficult to make but that would be the remedy to then be able to go up above 35 feet If that was the maximum allowed by zoning Okay, and um, what about mr. Wong's position of owning two of those properties and um, you know his issue that it's spot zoning and um He's surrounded by far for et cetera, but what would be our response for him? Well, I think that because it's a It's a a little bit larger area. It's not just one property or two It's kind of a whole block it actually I think it spans several segments of a block and so it it didn't appear to us to rise to the threshold of being considered spot zoning So because of its scale Okay and then um the 35 uh foot height limit that's being proposed That's not just an arbitrary number that number comes from the original design guidelines from years The last downtown stay area plan That's correct as it was as it was mentioned it comes from the uh historic processing Standards and guidelines and so 35 foot is a uh a height limit that you see in the historic districts Okay, um, so I think that takes care of the public's questions missioners our chart Any questions of staff? Yeah, my share weeks There you go. Um, so I have a variety of questions. Um So chair sisco, do you want to talk about this issue first and because I have questions that um go beyond this Uh removal of the far so do you what I want what I want right now is questions from the commission We won't take up that discussion until uh, we get to the resolution So if you can if you have questions about that that are deeper than what the answers we got fine But let's just stick to questions in general and we'll talk about how we discuss it when we get to that point um, so my first question uh has to do with the um Section in the zoning text amendments regarding uh restaurants on sidewalks and um, I wondered how that played into fourth street's closure right now and the restaurants in the parking uh places in the parklets and uh So anyway, if you could address that that that was one question um and then um The wayfinding Which I think is great One of the things I do want to mention is that the open government task force meeting on Thursday night, they talked about including Spanish in On the signs as well and wondered if How that could be added or if Uh, that would be just part of the process of uh, proving those wayfinding signs Um, can you answer the city council's direction? uh, then the last question has to do with the With the owners of the properties where the far were removed Have they all been notified that this Is happening, which i'm sure they have been knowing how good you guys do noticing. Um, but what has What have the majority of the owners? Who are removing who have the the far is removed feel about this So I think That was For now, that's all I have Thank you and so, um Staff if you I think we need to go kind of one at a time for commissioner's questions. So if you could respond to feist your weeks three I'll kick it off and maybe if I could just indulge commissioner weeks with a clarification on your first question Are you talking about the current? Interpretation that allows the the parklets Yes, and wondered if it needed to be specified somehow And it could be in the zoning text amendments, and I just didn't see it I just wanted to make sure that um, the flexibility was there to continue that So that's a great question and it's timely. Um, I what what we've done to date is a zoning code interpretation So the parklets that you see the outdoor dining that you see has been done through an interpretation of the zoning code Um, it's effectively an extension of what we've done with sidewalk dining and it's related to the the health emergency What we're doing now, uh, and it was it was from the outset the plan was to move towards a more permanent ordinance So one that will address these in more detail. So we're in the process of evaluating that right now We're looking at other cities that do that. So it wouldn't be in the downtown stationary specific plan It would be in the the municipal code It might actually land in several chapters of the municipal code, but we are working on that But that'll be a separate work plan item and then on the Wayfinding and the notification. I'm going to ask Amy Lyle or Amy Nicholson. I believe they can respond to that This is Amy Lyle. So I'll respond to the noticing question. Um Thank you vice chair weeks We did send a notice To those 12 properties individually to make sure that they were aware that this conversation would be happening Both with the work commission and then the city council We have done outreach to those property owners who We have already established relationships with through the downtown specific plan effort and you've heard from most of those folks tonight and um, and then we have not talked to The majority of those property owners as of tonight And then Amy and Nicholson if you're are you able to answer the question on the wayfinding? We'll do my best The Downtown plan does call for an overall plan for wayfinding signs We don't have a detailed plan provided at this point. I would imagine that the Some language and either the zoning code or design guidelines encouraging spanish but to be included on those wayfinding signs Could be helpful and appropriate Okay, um Fisher dug in you had your hand up. I believe yeah Yeah, I got a couple of questions. Um, so amy. I've known originally the cultural heritage board was going to um Have a joint meeting with the design review board to hear about this and they're not going to have their meetings How later this week so what happens to their comments? How do they get incorporated or if we make a decision tonight about these historic properties and they Have a different take on it if they want to see something else like how do how do their comments get incorporated So that's one question and then the other question is um the Thing about the electric vehicle sales. I know we have a special zoning district for regular Combustion engine auto sales on that largely land down on otter row and center of the avenue. So why? Singling out electric vehicles and if we do single out electric vehicles like this Does that prohibit somebody like share privilege who has an electric vehicle? Can they set up a storefront just for those vehicles or Are they required to stay on otter row because they have a fleet that's got other Gas convention combustion engines. So those are my two main questions Thank you commissioner dug in can everyone hear me. Okay. I've been told my audio is not great Well, we can hear you. You just have a little buzz behind you. So, okay As it relates to the cultural heritage board comments Those will be forwarded along to the council before the council acts on the zoning code text amendments on november 17th Unfortunately, we had some Quorum issues and we originally had the cultural heritage board slated to Comment on the text amendments prior to this meeting As it relates to electric vehicle sales The definition included in the zoning code text amendments is pretty limited to the Kind of design or layout of those ev sales operations So it would be very different from a classic automobile dealership with surface lots with inventory of cars to be sold The only types of vehicles that would be allowed as a part of the ev sales operation would be display models and those that Had previously been purchased and ordered and were waiting for pickup. So any type of Ev sales Company that could meet those requirements would be allowed within the three zoning districts within the downtown plan Otherwise, it would not be allowed Okay, other commissioners with questions Mr. Peterson, did you have your hand up prior? Okay I did. Um, I I'm just trying to kind of I've got a couple questions related to to far and a lot of it It's just trying to keep the the numbers straight. So pre downtown station area specific plan Uh, it doesn't have to I don't know if they're different for each property But what were the height limits for these properties to either in general or if there was a maximum for all of them It was five stories Or it is five stories Okay and the uh FAR for these prior to removal upon recommendation from the council was was what? So the staff proposal on the specific plan was a mix of far three and four. So it was four For the southern part of the properties Um, it's actually the properties that Henry long owns Okay, and that that 35 foot limit came from The historical planning documents. I mean are these the ones from like the 80s when it was created or For somewhere else I'll defer to Amy and bill on the history behind those but in talking with the the st. Rose neighborhood group um, they identified 35 feet as being a logical Point because the historic preservation districts call out a height limit of 35 feet Although there's opportunity to go beyond that with um with hearing approval That is the Targeted or trajectory of the height limit for historic districts That is that is my my guess in talking with them okay, and Anyone who can answer this I it i'm going to go a little bit different than normal Anyone that that wants to make an argument for 35 feet and an argument for uh the Five stories. I'm interested to hear a quick sort of thumbnail sketch for for either of those if anybody wants to make Make the case. I know the I heard the public's case, but um, just sort of the thumbnail sketch um I'll turn my video on I will um I will try that to describe the situation and um Bill rose feel free to step in as well But at this point our staff recommendation is limited to what the council directed And so our recommendation is the five stories, which is um really the absence of f they are and um, of course our previous um Recommendation was based on the the full plan area and all of the the vision and um guiding principles within that And so it's really your discretion on um, which way you would like to go you do have um Community members on on both sides of this issue. So um, I don't envy your decision But um, it really is up to to your Commission tonight as far as what you would like to recommend to the city council And the city council will also have another opportunity to revisit that decision Because it it did happen very quickly at the very end of a long meeting October 13th And and they'll feel free to weigh in if you'd like to Yeah, certainly. Thank you. Amy. Um, I concur with everything that Amy just mentioned Uh, and I'm actually trying to get the code section that references the 35 feet. It is a threshold. It is a, uh, Uh, standard that is used but as Amy indicated, there's a mechanism to exceed that right now through additional findings through the Uh, landmark alteration permit process and and I can get that code section, um and review it for the commission Here in just a moment, um The difference here with the proposal that's been presented by the neighbors tonight is that The variance would be the option to do that and it's a it's just it's a higher threshold So the end result could very likely be the same but the process to get there is much different So it's not to say that You still wouldn't go through the process that we have now With the additional findings, but you would just be doing it through the variance findings instead Mr. Duggan, I see you, but I want to see if anybody else has any questions before. Okay, Mr. Carter Yeah, uh, when we started this discussion, uh The understanding was with the removal of the far there had to be some sort of development standard guidance and that would be First staff's recommendation the reversion to the cd But there is also this historic overlay which has A 35 foot guideline within it. Am I correct in all that to this point? I see nodding. Anyway, um My question would be How complicated would it be to incorporate the 35 feet and still have the cd, which i'm assuming we need for Uh, guiding other development standards on these properties. Is it possible procedurally to make that minor change without Having to go back and make other revisions to the cd zoning text. That would be my question Yes, this is amy lyle again. Um So funny in the virtual meeting just see our videos popping up. Um, but I so we are able to facilitate a change tonight if you do wish to, um Move from our staff recommendation So we do have if if your decision is to go lower than the five stories then we do have an additional finding Related to sp3 30 that we would recommend that you make Um, but you you do have flexibility and what you do and you also have flexibility and where that occurs So, um, it doesn't have to be all 12 contributing properties where you make a change Just a complicated thing a little further for you Hey Anybody else before mr. Duggan? Okay, mr. Duggan I think this is true, but I you know, I I would like correction if it's not but largely in in a residential district Um, which the st. Rose district largely is isn't it true that 35 feet is the maximum height limit? I mean if somebody tore down the house next door to me and they wanted to rebuild Isn't 35 the maximum height that they could build to So commissioner Thank you for that if if the commission pleases I like to read the section of the code that's relevant to this discussion and I'll just I'll do this quickly So it's in the zoning code. It's regarding height limits within the age combining district And it says In an effort to preserve and enhance neighborhood character within designated preservation districts height limits within the combining district are more Restricted than the height limits of the primary zoning district Height limit no structure within the age combining district shall exceed a maximum height of 35 feet and two stories Except as provided in subsection e3c E3c says increased height a structure may be approved with a height over 35 feet or two stories provided that and then there are two Uh findings effectively the review authority finds that the increased height does not detract from the character of the preservation district Or any adjacent contributing properties and the review authority may require conditions of approval that pertain to the placement of screens Excuse me the location and type of openings the location and projection of sun decks porches balconies patios and similar Architectural amenities to enhance or preserve the residential privacy of the proposed structures And of any adjacent existing or anticipated residential structures or uses so those Findings if they can be satisfied. That's the mechanism to increase the height above 35 feet versus as we've mentioned previously the variance findings Which would be the alternative um Mr. Roses But that is for the residential zoning correct and In the past the the area of b3c that we're talking about was Not residential it was business and retail and business services So that's thing section applied to that with it being a historic overlay Yeah, I am looking I think it's just the age combining district But if you give me a moment, I will look for that and see if there's any distinction It would make sense that the residential would have that but but this was a different land to you So just want to make sure we all know what we're doing I'm reading quickly um for applicability So the very first the purpose statement the age combining district is intended to recognize preserve and enhance santa rosa's Locally designated historic resources Be applicability the age combining district shall apply to all properties within designated preservation districts Including both contributing and non contributing parcels Additionally the age combining district shall apply to all locally designated landmark properties Uh, it may be combined with any primary zoning district established by section 2020 So, uh, I'll keep reading but I'm not seeing that distinction Okay, okay, great. And uh, vice chair, we have a question Yeah, bill, um, who is the reviewing authority? Is that the planning commission or council or drb or chb? Uh, well Each entitlement is a little different land use obviously comes to the Planning commission No, I'm sorry. What what you were just reading. Yeah, it's Ultra heritage board most likely Okay Thank you And and to clarify the About 35 foot height limit does apply To residential and commercial districts so long as they're within that historic combining district Great good. Um other questions Okay, um Well, I have a couple one from From this Gallagher, but um, I'll do the easy one first Uh The tickles and you are mentioning that we needed to amend Uh, the and being removed from the north station area properties in the resolution. Is that resolution number Three And how would you like us to put that language in when we get there if that's the case? Yes, let me pull up It would actually apply to the exhibit for The zoning code text amendment Resolution Resolution number two exhibit eight. Yes So that's the exhibit that includes the n in the nsa and there's one section The proposal is still to keep the title as north station area, but That the suffix would just read sa and that That way there isn't a rezoning of all those properties within the north station area Because it's not a change to any of the uses that are allowed. Um, it's just a clarification So our language would be to just remove the n of in that in those exhibits that say n dash nsa and Have it remain sa Yes, that's correct. Is that right? Okay Okay and then, um Miss Gallagher, um I think It's likely that, um We're gonna need to have a discussion about this the proposal to deviate from staff's recommendation and so I'm Thinking since the discussion is probably going to be likely It would be best not to try to go the friendly amendment approach and read it in as if That's what we would all be doing to start the discussion Just how do we do this under our uh, Rosenberg rules so that we can have an active discussion Sure, you may um the the initial motion you do not currently have a motion on the table So your initial motion can include that change Alternatively your initial motion could not include that change and then someone could suggest a friendly amendment But you're free to start out the motion Including that proposed change And then through our discussion, it can be become obvious whether or not we want to go the friendly amendment way if there's more consensus Right and and and I and I can say also that if your initial motion is to include that change to go to the 35 foot There could be a friendly amendment going the other way to put it back to the cd5 so Whoever wants, you know, which whichever commissioner is going to start the motion Would presumably Start it in a way that that that they support Okay, and then um Same is true for the wayfinding We could add that in Yes, correct. Yes, correct I just want to make sure You can add it in again just at the initial motion or you could add it in Proposed to add it in as a friendly amendment Okay, great Chair cisco, excuse me I just wanted to add to my previous discussion about electric vehicle sales and I described that The vehicle how the vehicles on site would consist of display models and already purchased vehicles for pickup The land use would also allow for associated vehicle maintenance to service the specific make The electric vehicle being sold on site So I wanted to make sure that that is clear that that would be a permitted part of the EV sales land use Hey And chair cisco just to to add on to what Amy just said the the distinction here is that the vehicle service will only be associated with the The retail sales of the EV vehicles So it won't be just a blanket vehicle services are allowed in the downtown area on their own as a standalone land use so Who's going to be the brave soul to With our resolution you can go in any way you want it sounds like it will we'll be able to discuss the things we need to discuss so The first one is the The limited general plan amendments and specific plan amendments. So do I have a volunteer? Commissioner dug in thank you Why not I'll move a resolution of the city of santa rosa planning commission recommending to the city council approval of limited general plan As part of the fall 2020 package and downtown station area specific plan amendments consisting of text changes to define the development standards For 12 historic contributor properties within the st. Rose preservation district file number st 18-002 and include The revision to limit the heights to 35 feet And this is where I put in a thing about the wayfinding signs Or no, okay, and also to include Spanish language text on wayfinding signs and wait for the reading If I may chair sisco, I will note that it does appear that there was a word missing As as you read it that it would be an approval of limited general plan amendments As part of the 2020 package. Thank you. That's why I kind of stuck there for a sec thinking Yes, exactly medical text. Okay And wait for the reading So we don't need to reread it. We're we're good We're good. You did not need to reread it. Okay, great And do I have a second? So that tells me that So do we need to then move to reading the resolution without those amendments? What is this telling me I got no second Yes, so that mess that resolution did not get a second so it does not move forward So you can invite an alternative motion to start the discussion Okay Would somebody like to move Move a different resolution that does not include the revision to the heights In the b-street properties and include the Spanish language amendment In other words just read the resolution or add in whatever else they want to add in Okay, commissioner Carter Uh, I'll move the resolution of the city of santa rosa planning commission recommending to the city council approval of limited general plan amendments as part of the fall 2020 package and downtown station area specific planned amendments Consisting of text changes to define the development standards for 12 historic contributor properties within the st Rose preservation district file number st 1802 And do I have a second for that? Okay, somebody we've got to do something here um So if I don't have a second for that one does somebody have another resolution they want to read Yeah, commissioner peterson So I I apologize. I really am trying here to track exactly what is in front of us So if somebody maybe from staff can can walk me through commissioner dug ins And then commissioner carters um Because I think one of them has to be worth discussing. So I think i'm just missing um A piece here Chair cisco, this is bill rose. I'd be happy to do that. I think uh what what we're seeing is um The um the proposal or the lack there of of the 35 foot height restriction So as it stands the resolution that staff has presented Includes a height limit of essentially five stores You've heard from the neighbors tonight the discussion has kind of been put on the table about restricting that further down to 35 feet And by doing so it creates the different um scenarios that that I've discussed previously So the the question at hand now is we simply need a motion and a second to start the discussion So as the city attorney mentioned it can go either way It can include the 35 foot restriction on its face or it does not have to That still doesn't prevent the commission from entering in either of those two options through its discussion So I think at this point, it's you know, it's less important Uh than it is to just get the motion on the table for discussion and then I come back in either way All right, well then if if the motion is still on the table Like the commissioner carters the commissioner carters This is the direct read of our uh first resolution without any amendments to it is on the table Okay, then I second Great Okay, so That resolution was moved by commissioner carter seconded by commissioner peterson Commissioner peterson you want to start? Sure, so um procedural difficulties aside, I guess the The conundrum i'm i'm kind of having is uh if as so let me stick back overall, um, I think the Resolution has written with the exception of the height limit Is fine. I I have no issues. I think the wayfinding thing and making that bilingual is great. So That's that's sort of where I'm at on on the height limit and trying to put some Meat on the bones for the council's direction is is where I feel a little pinned down And the reason that is is is it sounds like from the discussion there's sort of two options and I'm not sure This is where I'd like to hear from my fellow commissioners So it sounds like with you know, if we go forward with a 35 foot height limit we are Limiting the ability to deviate from that. I mean I I don't I think Deputy director rose is very diplomatic But I mean, I think the reality of getting a variance in in that is Basically impossible. Um, so we're sort of Backdoor inadvertently potentially Enshrining a 35 foot height limit sort of in place for The next however long however many decades Without I think a lot of discussion About what that means. I mean that that seems to me to be a pretty big decision to take on some sort of nebulous council guidance And on on the flip side of that is, uh, you know, I think the members of the public have articulated a good Argument for that that height limit and you know, maybe the 50 or excuse five story 50-ish foot height limit is is a little too extreme We've got guidance from council that they wanted to remove the florida area ratio I think this is a logical Substitute for that. I think it it sort of Fits in nicely with the rest of the zoning code. I think the staff has articulated a good Basis for that You know, but I'm worried that it then, you know puts the goals of the council Um Sort of at at risk. So those those are sort of how I'm seeing it now And I'd be interested to hear from my my fellow commissioners on on that particular point again, the rest of it. I think is There's no issue for my end Place your weeks I am also in a quandary And part of it is having watched the council meeting that night and seen I mean staff was doing yeoman's work trying to figure out what the council was wanting to get at. Um, and To be honest, I don't know if they realized By eliminating the far what was going to happen. Um, and so that's a concern It's a concern to me that some of the Neighbors want the 35 feet and yet we heard from mr. Wang about not wanting the 35 feet So What neighbors do you go with and what property owners do you go with? um I don't know, um I don't know if There's a way to explain this Clearly and succinctly to the council whatever action we take that would Help them make the final decision um I guess I'm because of the council's direction That night. I'm leaning towards the the Five floors Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry Okay, um Were you done your microphone went off? Yeah, because the phone was ringing here. I'm sorry. I didn't meet my phone. Sorry. I apologize um The cd. Yeah, um This is this is really tough. I guess that's what we get the big bucks for, right? We're gonna have a good discussion I love it This warrants it. Yeah That's it for me So after reading the staff report I went I today I listened to the council Meeting specifically to hear their discussion about this and I didn't hear any discussion From staff or to council or between the council members about what the implication would be I heard that they all want to minimize um The impact on the preservation district that they don't want to have these large looming structures with the potential floor area ratio of like I guess up to eight floors in the far four area um Looming over the preservation district, but I didn't hear anybody say if we do this Then it'll revert to cd. Five and at the maximum will be 55 feet. I don't think that was clear to council So to my mind I think reverting to the what's in the combining district that the h combining district, which is 35 feet Makes the most sense and if council Gets our discussion after this And they're Walked through it and they want to change it. I think that's fine But I think absent that because there was no discussion about what height limit would result by removing the f a r from these um 12 properties that I I want to go back to the um The combining district standard of 35 feet because there is a mechanism However difficult to apply for and build the taller building And i'm also in support of um the sign the way finding signs being dual language. I think that's a good um yeah If you call you Here chair sisco. This is bill rose. It might just To interrupt the discussion, but I just I wanted to touch on what commissioner dug in was just referencing um Is that the The combining district, um It has it's kind of a I guess you could say a baseline height limit of 35 feet And so the distinction here is that the 55 feet is a maximum height limit. It's not And to get there because those properties in the h district have that 35 feet They have to make those additional findings. So I hope that I was clear earlier But I think that's what you were uh referencing as you just explained that so I wanted to just add that as a hopefully a clarification I hopefully it doesn't confuse it further But it's essentially a 35 foot baseline height limit per the h district Up to a maximum of 55 feet provided these additional findings are made. That's how it has been Prior to the downtown station area plan and that's what would be with the staff recommendation As presented tonight Yeah, thank you deputy director rose because I had the exact same Question that I was just going to ask after listening to commissioner dug in that From my understanding is that what is existing currently is the cd5 designation and The and that is also what staff recommendation is and if we were to change that to put that So as 55 feet being the maximum and 35 being the minimum or Yeah The if we were to change that would be 35 feet And then if you wanted to get a variance you'd have to go through that process Like as commissioner peterson says is a very Difficult process to go through and a different level of findings needed. So I appreciate that clarification I I am I'm leaning towards staffs recommendation along with The addition of dual language on the way finding And I think that makes no sense is because I feel like for the argument that has been made that if somebody wants to because the reality is has Currently these properties are at the cd5 level at the moment So if someone was going to go in and build a five story building they could have done that in the last You know five years and that would have been the exact same process could happen in the future. So I feel like I am going more towards staffs recommendation Mr. O'preppy um, yeah, uh, like to mr. Collier, um Deputy director roses clarification helps me out a lot And kind of figure out what direction I want to go first. I mean the dual language. I absolutely agree with that on the way finders findings I just think that should I'm also after that clarification leaning towards staffs recommendation but I just think it needs to be Clarified more for for counsel when it goes in front of them So that I think we're all had a little bit of confusion right now trying to PC everything together is what was being discussed Versus what's possible versus what's the way it is now. So, um, I think it just needs to be Uh, clarified or not clarified a little more would a little more clear. Um, I guess those are both the same thing but uh before it goes in front of counsel, so um But yeah, as of right now, I'm going to lean towards test, uh recommendation as well Mr. Carter Yeah, I mean my intention In reading staff's recommendation was uh, precisely what mr. Rose Clarified for us all is that we do have the protection of the age combining district and 35 feet is What that limits it to and there is Uh discretion on the city's part to go beyond that but with certain findings that have to be made and I I'm for one I'm comfortable with that sort of limitation Because I think it provides more flexibility I'm certainly supportive of dual language signs. My reading of the materials was that The signs are approved by a reviewing authority and the reviewing authority has ability to impose conditions If we want to make it, uh Upfront it within the ordinance that the sign shall be dual language. I support that Entirely and if one of my colleagues wants to make that friendly admission Edition I would certainly support it um Yeah, this is this is an interesting discussion. Um, I did watch the the city council meeting and You know, they're they were very sympathetic to the neighbors Request and I think like vice chair weeks. I don't think anybody knew what just Removing the far might mean it didn't mean that those properties would never be developed and they would remain historic In perpetuity it didn't mean that Um They're developable and so they need development standards. Um I have a couple of issues with reverting it or you know going to a definite 35 feet limit and that's um That suddenly we're in the position of being looked at as potentially down zoning And that was cities in the position of having to make findings and prove that they're not And um, that that really concerns me A lot. Um, I also have the same issue that some other commissioners have mentioned that we've got some property owners that Really aren't on board for this. Um The other thing that uh stands out for me in in terms of just Reverting to the cd5 standards is that those have been played that that was what the original downtown station area specific plan put forth that those have been in place for over a decade and And and without any kind of question. I I would hate to see us get into a situation where A variance would be required because just like you know, we the council did have a discussion about um The parking garages and maybe changing that that land used to public institutional and what that might mean If somebody did want to develop then they'd have to do a general plan amendment They will start we start putting obstacles in the way, which is exactly what we're trying to remove In terms of this plan So, um, I have a problem with that uh making it more difficult making it difficult to explain to you know the With whoever we'd have to explain it to that we aren't um Exactly down zoning. So I'm definitely leaning towards just um reverting to the cd5 standards of the text amendment that it be The height limit of uh, 55 feet no maximum density. What staff is recommended um, I also have no problem with inserting the the dual language requirement under Under the way finding signs So this is really difficult, uh, because you know that that neighborhood has has dealt with a lot and I'm Very sympathetic to that neighborhood and care about its its development a lot um But this isn't Going to the cd5 staff's recommendation isn't changing anything that hasn't already been there for the last 10 years So, um, I'm more comfortable with that than taking a more drastic move which might need greater explanation From review authorities and or you know an obstacle to development So, um, mr. Peterson, do you want to say anything more? No, I think I think that discussion was was very helpful Mr. Duggan you want to say anything more? No, also just that, uh, mr. Rose's clarification was helpful as well So we have uh that motion Moved by commissioner carter and seconded by commissioner Peterson Would anyone like to introduce the friendly amendment for the dual language under the way finding signs? And then we see carter and peterson's permission to do that Why share we'd like to make a friendly amendment to include wherever applicable That the way finding signs, um Are in english and spanish And so commissioner carter are you in agreement with that? Yes, I am And commissioner peterson you're in agreement with that? Yes, I am Okay, so that goes in as a friendly amendment So any other discussion before we vote? Great So again, that was moved by commissioner carter seconded by commissioner peterson including that friendly amendment And um, will our reporting secretary take our votes, please? Yes chair cisco as usual we'll go in alphabetical order starting with commissioner carter I commissioner duggan I commissioner calia I commissioner crepeki I commissioner peterson I vice chair weeks And chair cisco Yes And so that passes with seven yeses Or seven eyes, however, we want to say that so next we move to um resolution number two And this is the one where we would be amending This exhibit a to remove the n from n s a And so would somebody like to move that resolution including that amendment mr. Weeks Uh, I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of san aroza recommending to the city council approval of zoning code text amendments to implement the downtown station area specific plan file number re the two zero dash zero zero eight and amend Exhibit a to remove the n from the n s a We're ever applicable a second Hey, so that was moved by vice chair weeks with that amendment seconded by commissioner duggan Any other discussion on this resolution? Not seeing any Mr. Maloney you want to take our votes? Yes commissioner carter Yes commissioner duggan Yes commissioner calia Yes commissioner okrepke Yes commissioner peterson Yes Vice chair weeks Yes And chair syska Yes And so that passes with seven yeses And we have one more resolution number three for our uh Monday Our um Can't see that far so would somebody like to read that resolution uh commissioner peterson Resolution of the planning commission of the city or excuse me I moved the resolution of the planning commission of the city Santa Rosa recommending to city council rezoning of eight hundred and eighty eight properties Located within the boundaries of the downtown station area specific plan file number re z two zero dash zero zero eight and wait for the reading second Great, so that was moved by commissioner peterson and seconded by commissioner calia Any other discussion on this? Um, I just want to again We did this when we were Finalizing the plan just again compliment staff. This is an incredible body of work and commissioner duggan and I you know We did this with the original plan And if that took a long time to get those zoning code amendments in place following the approval of the original plan So the fact that all this is coming through in such a short amount of time Is pretty a pretty amazing And so we we have a great staff to thank for that and um And a great commission to thank for that as well. So thanks for all your work and being willing to do the special meeting So with that I will ask for our votes to be taken commissioner carter I Commissioner duggan Yes commissioner calia hi commissioner krepke I commissioner peterson Vice chair weeks Chair cisco Yes, and so that passes with seven eyes And I believe That concludes this item and I will be adjourning our meeting to our november 12th meeting And just want to say stay safe if you haven't done so already Go out and vote And with that all adjourned me Okay, well then We don't have uh any public comments So I think that we're done. Is that right? So you just need to move to approve and get a second and then all vote on approving the inner report Oh, that's right. Okay, so I missed