historic building or not. this legal office use, changing the roaning or keeping the zoneling in a way that does not allow office which, is eventually what is happening is none permitted and none conforming and there is nothing that would force those business toss leave or not allow new office tenants to continue to build their space it would only impact the proposals for new development in those areas and so i want to be clear about that because there have been some comments about that issue and i want to be clear that just being a none conforming use does not mean that you would be required to leave or not operate any longer. >> right and then there is some sort of accessory expansion within the same building that you can do based based upon or no? yes if you have a none conforming use, you can propose none residential -- because this

is in the eastern neighborhoods and it will apply to anymore and it's basically in none conforming uses that are none residential and not office can expand up to 25% with a conditional use authorization -- that the thanks not true -- sorry-we just had a section this month that did that and you have the option to expand 25% from your current size under the neighborhood and so there is an option for expansion and obviously if you are legal you can continue to operate. >> so it has been a newer issue and i don't feel we have as much information as i would like. and then on 3b we had discussed the 3b and i guess to clarify to the public one of the reasons for western sonoma zoning is there was an incompatibility with the night

time uses with housing because people move in and then they complain and there was a desire to try to avoid that and so pretty much the zoning is an either or proposition. it's not -- we did it is not plated as both a proposition and members of the public cannot speak and so when the 3b option came forward to make those none conforming and could not expand, you know, there was an acknowledgement that that was an entertainment area and we would toying to continue it being that way and then the proposal chooses one use over the other unfortunately and we have learned that although people have claimed that they can co exist with entertainment uses they don't always do a good job of that and so that things us to

the other issue about the 11th street project and it seeps like there is a two projects on the whole list that would be impacted and so there doesn't need to appear that there is a need for a larger grandfathering and for this project in particular and i do not want to speak to the other project because i don't think that is appropriate do with any other site but, i don't know how that -- how do you that without it being you know how you do that in a larger planning process. carving something out so i would love to hear staff feedback on that point. >> just to be clear are you asking about technically what kind of languages and pro vision you would need to create -- this. right to have this housing project go forward only. >> right it would been two separate action one is to change the zoning on the map and the

other is amending the planning code amendment resolution about creating a grandfather system or pipelining system with specific details and pro vision that you want to have as part and so the exact that the code line is at this point because it's a detailed and technical process but if there are specific components of the grandfathering profession that you want to include, for example what type of application triggers it before what date and so on. between had street and that street because i want to make sure because i do not want to open up and moving yawn the policewoman that has been discussed. >> as we said the pipeline that we looked at there are not a lot of other even if it was opened up fairly wide there there are not a lot of project that have been filed to date

that chunnel couldn't be committed under the current proposal and so there is not a lot of project to take advantage of the pipeline or grandfathering. so why was there a thinking that you would not have child care in the r e d districts? >> i think that is when you are dealing with six or more new district and looking at hundreds of row and is tables of use and is discussing them all one by one. sometimes little things just slip through the crack. i think i don't have a specific recollection of why that specific use was placed that way. >> it doesn't make sense why you could not allow child care this a residential neighborhood. and then the central quarter study and i would clue the language of further studies in that area and leave it at that i don't think we want to

go beyond that in the language. >> mr. hillis? so i would agree with most of that and i would agree to put in the language at the proposed as the new policy to the plan to recognize that western sonoma that the central corridor the fourth street corridor is being done in support of the w m u o along the 11th street with a pro vision to grandfather the pro vision there and as far as the historic with commissioner sag guya and that would clue buildings that are eligible and would be becoming eligible but don't include the contributetory buildings as part of that and so i think that ads some more buildings and i think they both would be very manically the same if you applied for eligibility but it gives that flexibility

before that application is done. and then, i had a question on the grand fathering, the other project which was an academy of art project did we ask them to inquire about the c u? >> i believe that application has been on file for a while it it's waiting completion of er. is there a reason we wouldn't grandfather --. >> it's really up to you, as i understand it the way that sally reads is that educational institutions would no longer be permitted in had a district at all so you could not legalize that in future it would no longer be permitted @at all. at alall. there are other projects that haven't applied but in this

particular case, they did apply. >> and so it's an open application, it's an open application at this point, yeah. and if i might just on the your previous point to clarify and 50 understand it right the difference between autopsies three and four are the two maps between these two maps, this one that shows a handful of buildings that are already listed and this one that shows the eligible building. >> that is the different between 34 and five and five is the third map and that is the difference between option three and option four because the only -- it involves the same properties and if i can get the overhead really quick and it involves the same properties and it's just that we know that the properties are eligible for state and national register listing the different in the autopsies is whether or not we would require them to get listed before --

oh, i see so i would recommend option for which doesn't make them go through the listing process it's not an enormous amount of units. >> do you know roughly the number? can you go to the purple map with the purple property? these are contributetory right? >> right these are all of the parcelels that are eligible for the state and national register the difference between these two maps is that this includes parcelels and buildings that are eligible because of the district and whereas, the other one what is important here is a these are individually eligible buildings. it's three or four just depending on --. >> commissioner wu? so on the issues discussed so far ... so i want to thank

everyone on the work they have done on this plan over the many many years on the areas that we are still discussing, 3b was a grandfather for 35,011th street, i feel like i can be supportive of that. on the historic buildings, let me make sure to follow on the conversation we just had it's the salmon covered lot whether they have applied for the designation or not. it's whether they are listed on the state or national registry. >> it's the additional step of requiring them to get listed. i can support three or four it's procedural but i couldn't not support option five. child care and id that is five fine and i'm supportive of the plan after the charter amendment has passed after prop

c passed and on the objective 1.5 so far i'm happy recognizing that there is a study happening on central corridor because there is but i don't know if i could split hairs like this but this language seems more supportive and pushing towards the plans being proposed for central corridor which i have a problem with and so i'm wondering if there is a way joan to support western sonoma as a whole because i don't know if we are going to get the whole package together before we make a motion. a --. >> that in fact would probably be the easier way to handle it. commissioner sag guya?

>> yeah, i'm going to make a motion, i guess the easiest is to headache a motion are we going to take these all together? commissioners the recommendation from the city attorney and actually the appropriate course of acwould be before you consider any of the individual item to adopt the sequel findings. move to adopt the sequel findings? on had a motion, commissioners to adopt the sequel finding for the western gnoma community -- commissioners wu. so most commissioner that passes unanimously seven to zero. in terms of the owers we have in the past taken them together and if a make a motion to adopt all of them, and leave

then the opportunity to amend it that the direction that we are going? well, high my understanding was since there so many different components and if you take each individual amendment action separately then commissioners could suggest what amendments to include for that specific action. >> my recommendation is to act on the amendments first and then on the overall. all right i'm just since i start off with it, i'll make a motion to make an amendment with respect to historic resour and is that we adopt, i guess it would be option four, it would be buildings that are currently listed in the article ten as land marks buildings that are currently designated as categorize one 23 and four in

article 11 and that individually eligible for listing in the national or state register and is buildings that are currently listed in the national register or the california register of historical resources. >> second. and do we have to deal with the types of uses at this point? that currently the way the planning code is setup for historic resources outside of this area for example, if i am a historic building let's say on california street in pacific height which we did grant a k u to which was a residential building it referred back to a particular code section a use section or -- right and so that is one option, is to say this historic building is to have think of the uses permitted in this other district the way that

we have it proposed right now and you would have to make a motion to cave change that is instead of doing that is kept it specificoffice and said, that these buildings just you know-and not within the sally of it but the other districts if you meet the thresholds which proposed change then the eligibility that you would receive is to office and the caveat is r e d and allows more retail. >> without making an amendment to that, then i guess my current amendment is what i'm proposing. i have a question about that. yes. >> commissioner morgan your time -- yes, we are in the middle of motions and i want to primarily express my support for what the majority of planning commissioners said. building a

complete neighborhood and dealing throarlly with the issue of compromise is what this is all about and it deserves support and it's acceptable what we are doing and according to the motion i want to make sure that i'll be supporting the pipeline grant specifically in the 340 street residential building and i am not prepared to look at education uses on 601 because that was never discussed that need to be considered separately in a different package and it will relate to all of the other outstanding issues relative to the applicant who's listed here as the owner of that property. child care and oversight -- which, is kind-of fun given how many young children we have in the planning department right now but again, i think that makes me chuckle what else was it i'm still

concerned about the central corridor overlap area, i do feel that proposed verbal additions were too strongly pointing towards an outcome and far from having discussed yet and so i would basically support what commissioner wu said and stay away from including that at the moment other than perhaps a reference to acknowledging the process of a plan in the making and a respond at it's appropriate time which, is not now. air force couple of quick comments and we are in the middle of a motion. >> commissioner antonini. yeah, air force question for mr. tig, in regards to the individually eligible -- individual properties now two questions first of all,, i

heard you say something about north of harrison it seems it to me, that they should be eligible anywhere in the district including the area south but most of them are north and north of hair south but it it would seem to me that the whole point is allow them the flexibility to develop what they need to be viable and if they happen to be in a district that is more restricted than it used to to be i'm to the sure what you are saying in your proposal. >> sure so again, that the s o i and to a even greater extent sally even though's not a pd r district it's designed to function as a pd r district and to a great end decent the neighborhoods were not granted the same fleck act for historic

buildings because of competing goals and the preserve thing the competing goals in that district went out and that was the proposal in had area too is that one of the incidentses between s o i and sally is that the small caveat for offices and housing with removed rebe removed and the other differences is on the map and i will show you that again and basically everything south of harrison street is sally accept for for the town send street and you have a number of property aiming town send street that are individually eligible. most of the other individually eligible sites are in r e d mix and i don't know the exact number but there is relatively few buildings in the sally. there is a handful and but those are

the few compared to north of harrison street that is eligible for auctions three or four in the planning commission today. so this is the area that we are talking about and the area that would be accepted that does not have the flexibility is between harrison or the ally between half building and town send and so this is the sally district and so it's a block and-a-half. >> so there is not too much it's a block and-a-half two, i think. and there are a few in the residential enclaves. >> which we would not want to do that anyway. and i think you have already answered the second second part of myer question in the rest of the east eastern neighborhoods then you are allow

the flexibility in creating office. >> not exactly. so in each neighborhoods, it only requires that you be eligible for the state or national register not individually eligible and that is really -- that is why we have the difference between this which, is individually eligible sites and just eligible. and even those, in the sally area, south harrison street you don't see a lot of purple added even with that but the reason, the east eastern neighborhoods it's a little more permsive it's not because it's neighborhood wide but because of the district here in sonoma and a lot of these property are contributors to this distributes and they are not all in eastern neighbors that you can take advantage of it and so you cannot compare

apples to apple and is so this is an eastern neighbors methodology here but because its a potential district here it creates all of these potential contributors that ads a lot of purple to that map. >> and you are talking about the district outlined in blue? the one in blue is the existing district and that is the article extended conservation district and so when we see article 11 buildings is in blue the article 11 buildings is a very small subset of the overall plan area and but really primarily we are talking about article ten. and if there were district established in some of those other areas under our proposed amendments are not eligible because even though they are eligible in a district as established they would not have the eligibility in the

future. not sure i followed that -- exactly. >> but so the reason is that there is the purple is create a lot more property in a new district that the survey already happened and recognized the two districts is it so i don't think that is likely to happen. okay so it's probably not going to happen anyway and so any of the pick up epioutside of there are not individual lie eligible then would be there would be restricted in their uses. some of those are individually eligible because you can see -- the purple in sally convert to and because there is not a district down there it's basically one for one and if you are purple and most of the sally there is a little bit south of west street as a contributor but most of the sand colored eligible for national or state register in the sally east

of seventh are individually eligible also. >> okay thank you. sure commissioners there is a motion and a second on the floor emperorsing option four and historic preservation amendments as indicated by commissioner sag guya. >> on the motion commissioner antonini. commissioner borden, commissioner hillis, commissioner sag guya, commissioner would? and commissioner president fonl. >>a. and so moved that this amendment pass passes unanimously accept to zero. commission irantonini. yes, the next part, going in order is going to go ahead and try to go into our next item which, is the grandfatherrings grandfathering and it would be item 3b on 11 it is

stories which turns it into a pvment w m o district and if i can combine this may be with the grandfathering of the property at 34,011th street and 601. well i can make the motion. >> brennan and if you want a date of approval and if you have or if you feel we should have one as part of the this motion or amendment it could be today if we do approve this today but you would have to have a project on file and i don't know if there are any others that would fit that description. and may be you can enlighten me on this but would that be a good way to -- i'm sorry can i ask you you to repeat the question? >> well i was going to say selecting option 3b for 11th street which turns it into a w m o district and then i'm

grandfathering in 34,011th and 601 plenipotentiarien aian and abrennan and any other projects of the date of approval of the western sonoma plan which, is the sixth of december 2012. and so you are asking me that i'm not sure if i understand. >> so they would be grandfathered. yeah, obviously if you said the parameter for the grandfathering as seasonally grandfathering essentially when the client commission adopts the plan and if that was today or whenever, anything that came that was on file before that would be grandfathered and then we would have to address those as well as far as how we are grandfathering those projects in terms of are they fully grandfathered under can you repeat zero zoning and crops and impact fee and is everything or as earn neighborhoods depending on the age of the project and

some of them were required to pay the impact fees because they were so close to the impact times or at least fall into the current or land use controls or not land use but design use controls and are some of the details that we would neat need need to work out to some degree unless you wanted to blanket the grandfather project before a certain date. i think they should be responsible for the fees in the district and probably subject to the design controls although the one project that may be designed already i don't know if it would fit in that is the other question that i have about the housing project. >> yeah and so eastern neighbors and their pipeline policy the way they addressed that said that pipeline policies are subject to the new building

design codes and if a project could not meet had a without altering the original design and they have the option of coming to the planning commission use and allow them to modify those conditions whether it's yard or parking or whatever and so if you want to add that kind of pro vision, you would definitely be within the profession. pro vision. >> so that is my motion as far as that is concerned. do you want to rephrase that. >> yeah, i'm choosing option 3b for 11th street which turns it into w m u o district and calm projects that are do not confirm is 34011 are the street

but 601 brennan is the other one that was brought up and in fact, i don't know if we even have to list that one because the other part of it would be that any project that is on file at the date of approval, would be grandfathered in, but they if they are designed did not fit into what our controls call for then they would have to come before the planning commission for k u for the adjustments to their design as opposed to what our current zoning will be. >> is there a second? commissioner sag guya? yeah, i'll make an alternate motion adopting 11 right lane street three - and grand fathering in only the 11th street property andwe