 audio video check for us please. Thank you, thank you. Great, thank you so much. Commissioner Ocracki, could we do a video and audio check please? Check one, two, check one, two. Thank you so much. Vice Chair Peterson, could you do a video audio check for us please? Testing, testing. Great, thank you so much. Staff Lee is on triple. Could you do a video audio check for us please? I'm going to sell video audio check. Great, thank you so much. We hear and see you. Project Planner Rous, would you like to do a video audio check for us please? Video audio check. Great, thank you so much. Planner Tumian, would you like to do a video audio check for us please? Thank you very much. I'm John. Perfect day here and see you, thank you so much. Project Planner Gustafson, could you do a video audio check for us please? Audio check, Andy. Great, thank you so much. All right, with that, Chair Weeks, staff is ready when you are. Thank you. I want for everybody to get on board. They're bright and shining faces up. Okay, Mike, are we ready to go? Yes, thank you for your patience. We are ready to go when you are. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the November 18th, 2021 special meeting of the Center of Planning Commission. Before we start, I have the following statement to read. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders, N-25-20 and N-29-20, which has been certain requirements of the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to Shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and are 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 item four, the public comment period or during our public hearing items tonight will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. I'd like to ask the recording secretary to do roll call, please. Thank you, Chair. We start the record reflect that all commissioners are present. Thank you very much. Item two, study session. We do not have any today. And item three, approval of minutes. We don't have any of those either. Item four is a public comment period tonight in our meeting. And I will now open the public comment period for any item not included in this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker will have three minutes and a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphones will be muted at the end of that countdown. We do not see any raised hands tonight. But we do, I'm sorry, we do have a couple of raised hands. So I will go ahead. Mr. Maloney, will you? Sure, I just want to remind members of the public with their hand raised that this is for items not on the agenda. With that, first person, the one we have with a hand up is as an F, if you can speak your full name for the record. And once you start talking, we'll give you three minutes. We've given you permission to unmute yourself. Yes. OK, so I'm going to hear me now. Yes, just to confirm this is an item that's not on the agenda tonight. Yes, correct. I'm sorry. So I was not understanding that part. I just so that I'll just go ahead and wait till it's on the agenda. So thank you. Is that OK? Sounds good. Thank you. OK, so we don't see any other raised hands. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public caring portion. And item five is planning commissioners report. Before we start with that, I will read our statement of purpose. The planning commission is charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws in the city of Santa Rosa. Duties include implementing a plans, ordinances and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps and undertaking special planning studies as needed. So with that, we'll move to five point two, the subdivision and waterways advisory committee reports. Are there any reports on those two? No, OK, we'll move then on to item five point three, commissioner reports. Are there any reports from my fellow commissioners? OK, seeing none, I will report out that last week we did have a mayor's and board chair lunch, virtual lunch. We were all in our each in our houses, not all together. And it's always a great opportunity to hear what's going on in other departments. And so if you ever have an opportunity to attend one of those, I would highly recommend it. Item six is the department report. Mr. Triple, I believe that's you. Yes, it is. Good afternoon, Chair Wakes, members of the planning commission. Thank you for your participation today in your service to Santa Rosa. And regarding services, this has been a busy week for you because I believe you all participated in the joint planning commission city council study session that was held on Tuesday, the housing element study session. And we do want to thank you again for your involvement in that study session. Following the study session, senior planner Beatrice did give her equity priority work plan presentation. And if you didn't have a chance to experience that, we do encourage you to consider doing so by watching the video of the meeting. We will also be doing a mini presentation to the general plan community action committee in December. So that's another opportunity to experience that. Next, the general plan community advisory committee and technical advisory committees will meet in December to review the general plan alternatives. There will be a series of public engagement opportunities during December 20, 21 through February 2022 with another joint council planning commission item in March of 2022. So just to give you something to look forward to. And then our house hazard mitigation plan is going to the council on November 30th. This will also help to inform the general plan safety element. The density bonus ordinance that was reviewed by planning commission a few months back was adopted by the council. And that ordinance will go into effect in late December. And then zoning code amendments that were also reviewed by the commission a couple of months ago were adopted this month after a second reading by the council. Finally, we wanted to let you know that should the commission be interested in an end of year gathering to close out the year or perhaps even a gathering in early 2022 to welcome in the new year. Planning staff would be happy to help you organize that event. It does seem like the end of year might be coming up on us awfully quickly. So perhaps give ourselves the benefit of time and look forward to gathering in early 2022. But regardless, we'll be happy to support you in those efforts. And then speaking of looking forward to the year's end, we do want to remind you that the planning commission will meet just once in December and that will be on December 9th at 4.30 p.m. And so chair weeks with that, that concludes the department report. And we look forward to this evening's public hearings. Thank you, Mr. Triple. And I think you're right. It seems like the first of the year is right next door. So I think the vice chair and I will talk about putting together something. For the beginning of the year. And also a question for you and you may not, and I should have asked you this before. Do you happen to know if the Sonoma State Planning Conference is going to occur this year? I know it had been in December and then they moved it to February. And I just, I mean, that's such a valuable educational opportunity for us all. And I wondered if you knew if that was going to be occurring again. Sure. I don't know. We, I don't believe we have received any word about that yet, but we can certainly check on that and get back to you probably in the upcoming few weeks. Great. Thank you very much. Absolutely. Okay. So then we'll move on to item seven, statement of abstentions. Do any of the commissioners need to abstain on our items? Okay. Seeing none. Move on to consent items of which we have none. And then on to our item sketch, item number nine. 9.1 is the fall 2021 general plan amendment package. And it's divided into two. So the first one is 9.1 a. It's a public hearing 38 degrees north phase three apartment homes. Addendum to the previously adopted mitigated, mitigated negative declaration planning project to 6, 6, 0. Pendlam Hill Road, PRJ 21-011. This is an exparte item. So we will start with Commissioner Carter. Do you have anything to disclose? I have nothing to disclose on this item. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I visited the site and nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan? I visited the site and had nothing further to disclose. Thank you. And Commissioner Holton. I also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Krapke. I've nothing to disclose on this item. Thank you. And Bisher Peterson? I also visited the site and i have no additional information to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, I believe it's Mr Ross tonight on this item. Yes, thank you chair weeks and members of the commission. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen with staff's presentation. And then if you could just confirm that you see the presentation. Yes, we did. Again, thank you chair weeks members of the commission. My name is Adam Ross project planner for the 38 degrees north base three project. This is part of the fall 2021 general plan amendment package. The item before you tonight includes a general plan amendment. That should say amendment and rezoning application. There is a major design review application as part of this project but that is reviewed. This is considered by the designer view or the site location is at 2660 Petaluma Hill Road. So the 38 degrees north face phase three project is a 30 unit multifamily residential development consists of 120 unit building and 110 unit building on a 1.29 acre portion of a 10.87 acre parcel. The 38 degrees north phase two site phase three is designed to operate with phases one and two as a single community. I should preface that there are three phases. This is the third phase of 38 degrees north. And the total units on the site if approved would be 322 units. The phase three of 38 degrees north project is a general plan diagram and text amendments. So the diagram amendment would change the sites retail and business services and medium density residential land use designation to medium high density residential, which would increase the allowable units and remove the star symbol from the site's location. The star symbol designates the site as a community shopping center location. The text would kind of back up that general plan diagram amendment. It removes reference to the community shopping center on pages 2-12, 2-22 and 2-30 of the general plan. The zoning map amendment, which is the rezoning application would change the site's current zoning district from CSC, which is community shopping center and PD 96-001C to R330, which is multifamily residential, allowing up to 30 units per acre. Again, the major designer view is subject to designer view board approval due to it being larger than 10,000 square feet of new construction. Here's the aerial views of the project site. As you can see, it is in on the left image. It kind of shows you that it's in the southeast quadrant of the city. And here is the green outline of the entire project site. This is phase one. This is an older aerial image. Phase one is constructed and currently fully occupied. Phase two is was the entitlements were approved in 2019 and are going through public improvement and grading plan applications with the city. This is how phase three would fit into the overall site. This, as you look right, that's looking north on the site. So it's kind of flipped as it normally would be. But again, here's phase one currently built phase two of the site. This area in between is a two and a half acre open space preserve. And then here's part of phase two, the other side of that open space reserve for phase two. It does build out a portion of the farmers lane extension part of the, their half of the Franz Kafka Avenue, as it goes through and then public improvements along Petaluma Hill Road as well. And here's the site would take access off of the existing access that was approved under phase two to access these two proposed buildings. So here's a kind of a blow up image. So, again, here's that, that already approved dry vial, and then they would take access off that the idea is that this project would work harmoniously between all three phases. So here's the history phase one was approved in 2017. That was 120 units, a 120 unit multifamily housing development with on-site amenities and that also included a state density bonus. That total acreage was approximately 5.03 acres. The units were dedicated to very low income residents. 12 of the units were dedicated to low income residents. There was a mitigated negative declaration adopted for phase one as well. That is fully built and occupied. In 2019, the designer view board approved phase two. It was a plan for 172 unit multifamily housing development with on-site amenities. So it is a market rate project on 10.87 acres. 2.54 acres were preserved as an open space preserve as I kind of previously mentioned. And that left over 1.2 gross acres for a future 21,000 square foot community shopping center. A mitigated negative declaration was adopted for that phase two project. That did include the entire phase two site, which also incorporates this phase three location. Again, that was, that did receive entitlement and it is in plan check review with the city. In the district history, there was a neighborhood meeting held. Concept designer view is held. The applications were submitted to staff. There was a tribal consultation meeting held pursuant to SB 18. There is one more meeting scheduled for December 1, that first, shortly after this, obviously in two weeks from now. That conclusion would have to be done prior to city council ruling on the item, but not for planning commission to make a recommendation. So here's a blow up of the general plan diagram. As you can see, here's the project site. So it currently has retail and business services and medium density residential and a star symbol. So we're identifying the site as a, as a, as a community shopping center site. And the, under the retail and business services, you could allow up to 30 units per acre under the CSC zoning, but the are the medium density limited to 18 units per acre. Here's what the general plan diagram amendment would look like, which is part of the agenda packet. So here's the project. So here's the phase one and phase two site with the star symbol. And this is what it would look like. Should the project be approved, it would no longer have the star symbol and be designated as medium high density residential. So the general plan text amendment, what that does is it cleans up the text to support the diagram amendment. So it removes reference to a community shopping center at the site on page two dash 12 of the general plan. It removes reference to a community shopping center in the southeast portion of the city and table two dash four on page two dash 20 under the general policy LUL E one, and it removes reference to, to the community shopping center at Petaluma Hill Road at Yolanda Avenue on page two dash 22 policy LUL G one, and it removes reference to community shopping center on page two dash 30 policies LUL W and LUL W one. So on the right is kind of what that looks like for reference. It's crossed through so it would be removed from the text. As part of the general plan amendment application, the applicant team provided a market analysis for a grocery and retail component for the site. That market research analysis was done by Zonda. It was done by market research and consulting firms specializing in the real estate industry. That study concluded that the 38 degrees north side does not support any anchor retail uses and does not support a grocery store anchor in particular. And that is also part of the agenda packet for you tonight. Here's an image of from taken from that report. So the red. The radius is within one mile the green is two mile and the blue is three miles. So this site is within half a mile of the Santa Rosa marketplace they have the target is their groceries are sold there. You know, retail amenities there, Trader Joe's Costco and Costco, and then what's not listed that I may or may not see is Lola's market, which is also half a mile from the site on pedal in the whole road. So in addition, in addition to that support for the general plan findings identifies commercial vacancy rates. So in Sonoma County, based on Keegan and Copenhagen real estate firm Sonoma County has a 7.7% vacancy rate that also translate to about 189,845 square feet Santa Rosa has a higher vacancy rate for for commercial vacancies at 8.4% or 672,301 square feet and the Santa Rosa marketplace itself has a 6.1% vacancy rate or 34,294 square feet. And again that is within, you know, a half mile from the project site. So one of the project would so allowing should this project go through, it would add 30 units, which is 1.17% of the market rate goal for the housing action plan from the regional housing needs assessment. So some of these general plan policies are implemented. This project implements some of these general plan policies. It promotes a livable neighborhood by requiring compliance with grid and building programs, and it ensures new construction needs high standards of energy. It doesn't allow new development at less than the minimum density, and it requires it coming at the midpoint or higher for medium and medium high density residential categories. It does do that. It does foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel energy land and materials consumption while promoting greenhouse gas emissions. And it also continues to meet the housing needs of all Santa Rosa residents. So for the housing application, the project site is, again, CSC Community Shopping Center and the tip portion right here is PD 96-001C. The requested zoning is R-330 multifamily residential. That is the R-3 is multifamily and the 30 dictates the amount of units allowed per acre. Here's some proposed elevations for reference that this again would be reviewed by the design review board, but it does show kind of what the project would look like. It matches what phase two looks like and would just continue that design. Under the, as far as environmental review for the project goes, the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15164 provides that an addendum to an approved EIR is appropriate when only minor technical changes or additions are made, but none of the conditions described in section 15162 has occurred. The addendum to the 38 degrees north phase two mitigated negative declaration concluded that the proposed project would not cause new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase in the severity of significant effects beyond those previously identified as part of the environmental review process and none of the circumstances under SQL Guidelines section 15162 were triggered and therefore no additional analysis required and an addendum is appropriate to the previous MND. Several comments were received, public comments were received. There is a concern that changing the site to no one require a commercial component, a community shopping center would negatively impact the site. And one of the more vocal concerns were about construction impacts to the surrounding area for regarding fugitive dust and noise. So with that it's recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Planning Commission recommend City Council adopt an addendum to the phase two 38 degrees north phase two mitigated negative declaration and recommend that City Council approve a general plan diagram and text amendment resolution to change the land use designations to medium high density residential remove the star symbol designating a future community shopping center remove reference to a community shopping center at the site. And that concludes our presentation on page two dash 12, again on page two dash 20, and again on page two dash 22 and two dash 30, as it is read in front of you and recommend that City Council adopt a rezoning ordinance to amend the zoning map to R3 30 for the entire project site. That concludes staffs presentation. Again, my name is Adam Ross, the city planner and project planner for for this application. The applicant is prepared to give a presentation. However, they do not have a PowerPoint presentation. So, I can just keep this on if preferred and go to any sort of images that are directed towards me. Thank you. Thank you, Adam Ross. Are there any questions of staff before we hear from the applicants? Okay, seeing no questions. Can you promote the applicant? And can the applicant, before speaking, at the beginning of your speech, or getting of your talk, can you give your name for the record please? We're currently getting permissions to all of the applicants. Thank you. They just need to unmute themselves. Hi, I'm muted now. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Good evening, Chair Weeks and commissioners. My name is Dave Edie. I'm the applicant speaking on behalf of Kennedy Wilson tonight and for the proposed project. Before I get started, I just like to say on behalf of everyone on Kennedy Wilson, we really would like to express our appreciation to the staff, namely Andrew and Adam for the great presentation and guidance and the staff report. It's been very straightforward and professional. With that, just I'd like to start by saying that the staff report together and its attachments are quite comprehensive. So I'm not going to take up your time with a real clinical discussion of the project details. Rather, I'd like to expand on a few points already voiced by staff. And talk about why the general plan amendment, the text amendment and the rezoning is both necessary and appropriate. To begin, you know, this as Adam stated, this project is in combination with phases one and two intended to be seamlessly integrated. It's purposefully designed to do that. There are things that are utilized between the properties. They will be in the future year in terms of open space and that sort of thing where a cohesive community is developed and you have eventually 322 residences. And I'd be happy to elaborate on the city's housing needs and Rena requirements, but I think staff touched on that thoroughly enough and imagine you discuss that topic a lot lately. With respect to the star designation and the prospects of accomplishing some sort of a commercial development on the site. So many times soon I underscore the research that Zonda did Zonda is formerly Myers research, they are a nationally recognized firm. They have been in the business for decades and have produced many market studies. And I've read many of them over the years, just in context with other projects as well as following projects were not involved with. This study revealed that a community shopping center and a grocery store are not supported at this location, as Adam has said. And as an aside, I would say that personally in over 40 years and actually going almost on 50 years in the business and having read many market reports over those years, I would say that this one is as compelling as it gets with respect to its findings with every metric. Anyway, Zonda notably concluded, as you've heard from staff that since the general plan was adopted, the three new grocery outlets have been at the market and are in within walking distance certainly within a half a mile. Trader Joe's target and smart and final. The model and findings illustrate that any anchor retail use and in particular grocery store anchor is not supportable in the near future or anytime soon. The reports findings on household spending household growth income projections through 2025 and other factors, especially within the one mile radius that is key to retailers and grocers. Is very telling there are, there's more supply than demand for nearly every retail category. Local brokers that were interviewed concur with these conclusions traffic levels at the side are insufficient to support the commercial use. The highest vacancy rates on record for retail right now and nationally trends indicate that, you know, brick and mortar type of establishments are continuing to decline over time because of higher retail sales realize through online activity. So in substance this is a really weak opportunity for new development. And I should mention that real estate in the commercial end of things retail is an endeavor that Kennedy Wilson's involved with with elsewhere. So we looked at these opportunities for this site. We were convinced that the property is not suitable and I guess most telling was when we bought the property from Winco foods, their grocery developer and operator. We sold the property because the company had no longer considered this the area that site to be have a demand for a grocery store. You know so that was a pretty big indicator to us. In conclusion I'll just touch on the project timing for a minute. We recently executed a construction contract with Brown construction to build phase two. And in a perfect world. This project phase three which is a very small addition can be integrated with the construction of phase two development is imminent on phase two. But I think phase three can catch up pretty quickly if approved tonight and with the city council approval in December. So we've got the site preparation and development for phase two and three can overlap. And if you do that, if we do that, then we don't have the aggregation to the community and us to move equipment off site and restage it on site again and virtually do a separate small project of 30 units. The construction time will be minimized with a two phase program if you will rather than a three phase, assuming that phase three can catch up. And I would say that we totally concur and support in the, the staff's recommendation. What I saw in one of your draft resolutions was that the statement that seeking the highest and best use of land is an established and essential community planning principle. That goes way back and what the urgent need for housing contrasted against a weak market for retail. We believe sound planning principles will be furthered by your action tonight to approve the requests. And for that reason, we respectfully request your favorable support of the project. I can take any questions now and if necessary, after the public testimony, I'd be, I'd like to have a few minutes for rebuttal if that's appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant before we go to the public hearing portion. Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing portion of this item. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone, please. Please dial star nine. To raise your hand each speaker will have three minutes and a countdown timer will appear on the screen. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown. Are there any. I do not see any hands raised. Do you, Mr. Maloney. Correct. No one has raised their hand at this time. Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. And bring it back to the commission. So, would somebody like to enter the first resolution commissioner Cisco. I will do it. Thank you. The resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommend. Will adopt an addendum to the approved. For general plan amendments zoning map and then. And development of 38 degrees north is three. A 30 unit by family development located at 2, 6, 6, 0. Hello. Santa Rosa. For general plan amendments zoning map and then. And development of 38 degrees north is three. A 30 unit by family development located at 2, 6, 6, 0. Hello. Hello. Santa Rosa. Zero, four, three, seven, zero, two, zero, four, three, seven. Zero, one, zero, zero, four, four, that's zero, five, one, that's zero, seven, three. And zero, four, four, that's zero, five, one, that's zero, five, five file number. One, one and we further reading of the text. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. That was moved by commissioner Cisco and seconded by commissioner crepe key. And I think, unless there's an objection, what we'll do is talk about the project as a whole. At this point, and then. Read the remaining resolutions if that's all right with everybody. Okay, so we'll go around alphabetically. Commissioner Carter. Any comments? Not excited. The staff that report made the sound case for the change in land use and I think I can make all the necessary findings and support the resolutions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. Yeah, I'll be able to. The findings as well find the addendum adequate. What was really interesting to me. And commissioner Doug, and you probably remember this was. You're removing the community shopping center. It's kind of a big deal because we're always having. A lot of people that are doing that. We're always having a lot of difficulty. The sort of the relationship between achieving density in order to support. That kind of. Retail or grocery. And it was only, I don't even know how many years ago, but it wasn't that many years ago that the only reason smart and final was able to be put in was that there was a report declaring that area of food desert. How things change that now there's an abundance and just very interested to see how our general plan update will be treating these kind of centers, how our planning was in the past was really trying to have a shopping center as a focus of the neighborhood and and then to see that now there's an abundance. It's unsupportable when it was a food desert, not that long ago. So I think that's what I found to be a fascinating part of what is that we try to do here with planning. So that said, I'm definitely in favor of all of these general plan zoning code amendments and can make the required findings. Thank you. Commissioner Beggin. I'm in support the project. I can make all the required findings for the zoning code amendment and the general plan amendments and the addendum to the mitigated big deck. I also I thought it was interesting when I drove by the site I went down Yolanda, and right now there's housing metric instruction right there. And, you know, I had the thought that yeah they've got all these opportunities for for grocery shopping already built in that they can use as soon as it's occupied. And I'm also a favor of this particular projects I've driven by 30 degrees north since it was first constructed and it's a handsome project and I think the rest is going to look very nice on that site. I'm in favor of it. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I'm also in full support of this project. I believe right now, especially Santa Rosa really need more commerce than we are more housing than we do commerce. So for me, this is a no brainer. I'll keep it short and sweet and just say I'm also going to be in full support of this project and the changes to the zoning code and the amendment. Thank you. Commissioner Krupke. Yeah, I don't have anything further to add to what my fellow commissioners already said so I can make all the required findings to support all three resolutions. Thank you, Vice Chair Peterson. I think staff and the applicant have made a solid case that this is an appropriate change. You know, it's it's just as it's related aside, it's going to be really hard for me to vote against housing in general. I mean, speaking of Yolanda, you can see the problem right there. There's plenty of unhoused people right in this area and the more units we can get online the, you know, better the situation is going to be so. I think there's an adequate amount of grocery stores in the area. It seems an appropriate change and the reasoning seems sound. Thank you. And I also support the project and to make all the required findings and will support the addendum to the adopted MND. I think that's it. Thank you, Vice Chair Peterson. The re-zoning and the General Plan Amendment and with that, Mr. Maloney, that was moved by Commissioner Sisko and seconded by Commissioner Krupke, will you call the roll please? Yes, thank you, Chair Weeks. Let's start with Commissioner Carter. Hi. Commissioner Sisko. Hi. Commissioner Duggan. Hi. Commissioner Holtun. Hi. Vice Chair Peterson. Hi. Chair Weeks. Hi. So that passes with seven eyes and we'll move on to the second General Plan Amendment. Does staff need a break between items or are we good to go? Yes, figure it out in 30 seconds. Okay. Well, you need to read the other resolution. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, yes. And if I can just remind everyone to please make the findings for each resolution. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Gosh, I'm sorry. Okay. The second resolution. Would somebody like to read that? Do that again. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to move a resolution of the planning commission of the City of Santa Rosa recommending that the city council amend the general plan diagram and text for the 38 degrees north phase three project from retail and business services and medium density residential to medium high density residential. And remove the star symbol at the project site. center on pages 2-12, 2-20, and 2-30 for the property at 260 Petaluma Hill Road, Santa Rosa 044-370-002, 044-370-010, 044-051-073, and 044-051-055, file number PRJ21-011, GPAM 21-001. I'll wait for the reading of the text. Second. Thank you. That was moved by Commissioner Sisco, seconded by Commissioner Kruppke, Mr. Maloney. I'm ready. Commissioner Carter. Hi. Commissioner Sisco. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Do we need to make the findings? Miss Crocker, can you? Yes, please. Okay, thank you. You can just state. So, okay. Thank you. Each one. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll go ahead before the roll is called and sorry, I don't know. I'm off my game tonight. Commissioner Carter. I can make the necessary findings and support the resolutions as proposed. Thank you. Commissioner Sisco. You can necessary findings for the general plan amendment resolution. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. I can make the necessary findings for the general plan amendment resolution. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I can also make the necessary findings for the plan resolution. Thank you. Commissioner Kruppke. Make all the necessary findings for resolution too. Thank you. And Vice Chair Peterson. I can make all the necessary findings and vote aye. Thank you. And I also can make all the necessary findings for the general plan amendment on this resolution. And with that, I think we can go ahead and call for the vote. That's good. Thank you, chair weeks. Start with Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Cisco. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Commissioner Kruppke. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Vice chair Peterson. And that's another aye for me. Chair weeks. Aye. So that is passed with seven eyes and then we have the third resolution. Commissioner Cisco, will you do the honors? I move a resolution. Planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, recommending that the city council rezone the property located at the top of the city of Santa Rosa. And the city council rezone the property located at the top of the city of Santa Rosa. Also identified as assessors parcel numbers. 044. 0402. 044. 0. 010. 0451. 073. And 044. 051. 0551. 0551. 0551. 0551. 0551. 0551. 0551. 0551. 0551. 0455. 0 aiming to help the city council rezone the property located at the top of the city of Santa Rosa. So I wish to agree. This is passed to family residential district file number PRJ. 21702. And waited for the reading of the text. Thank you. Thank you. So that was moved by commissioner Cisco, seconded by commissioner crept key I can make the necessary findings to support the resolution recommending rezoning of the subject property. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I also can make the recommended findings for the rezoning for this project. Commissioner Deggan. I too can make the required findings for the rezoning resolution and support the project. Commissioner Holton. I can make the necessary findings for the and support the rezoning of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Krepke. I can make all the required findings to support resolution three for rezoning. Thank you. And Vice Chair Peterson. I can also make all the required findings for this resolution. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings for the rezoning and this resolution. So with that, Mr. Maloney, will you call the roll or will you take the call the vote please? Thank you Chair Weitz. Commissioner Carter. I. Commissioner Cisco. I. Commissioner Deggan. I. Commissioner Holton. I. Commissioner Krepke. I. Vice Chair Peterson. I. Chair Weitz. I. So with that, we will move on to the second item and we'll give staff a couple of seconds to get things set up. Thank you, Chair Weitz. And I believe one of our commissioners, Commissioner Krepke, may have to leave early. Is that the case, Commissioner? I do. So with that, I think that we, if you're not able to vote on the item, correct me if I'm wrong, Ashley, that we want to head on now. Thank you for coming in. Appreciate it. Okay. Chair Weitz, we are, staff is ready when you want. Thank you so much. So the second item tonight is 9.1B to public hearing Brush Creek minor subdivision, mitigated negative declarations, planning project 2210 Brush Creek Road, PRJ 20-008. And it is an expert K item. So we'll start with Commissioner Carter. I did visit the site. I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I have nothing to disclose on this item. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Holton. I also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. Vice Chair Peterson. I have nothing to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, our staff tonight on this item is Ms. Chumians. So take it away. Thank you, Chair Weitz and members of the Planning Commission. Let me share my screen. So the item this evening is the Brush Creek minor subdivision project, located at 2210 Brush Creek Road. And the project involves three items tonight. So for tonight, there's a mitigated negative declaration, a general plan amendment from very low residential to low residential, and a pre-zoning annexation to our one-sixth single-family residential. There is also a tentative map on file with city staff, but that tentative map will go before the subdivision committee for review at a future date. And it involves splitting the rear portion lot into four lots. The project is located in the northeast quadrant of the city off of Brush Creek. And here's an aerial of the project area. The grayed out parcels indicate parcels that are still in county jurisdiction, so not within city limits. And as you can see, the parcels to the north, immediate north and east are within the city limits. The parcels to the north are part of a plan development, a plan development, and are divided into a similar configuration as what the applicants were proposing to do with the SWAT. So the general plan and zoning, so the general plan designation for this project site is very low residential. And there is no zoning assigned as far as city zoning, but the county has it listed as RR, which is very similar to the city's RR zoning designation, which is rural residential. And very low density residential allows for up to two dwelling units per acre density. And what the applicant is proposing is low density, which allows two to eight dwelling units per acre. And they're also proposing an R16 single family residential zoning designation. So the RR rural residential is implementing zoning district for very low density residential. It allows for a minimum parcel size of 20,000 square feet. And it restricts development to one dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit per lot. And the general plan designation of very low residential restricts the max density to two dwelling units per acre. So it's fairly restrictive. The general plan, the low density residential general plan designation allows for a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre. And the applicant is requesting R16 zoning designation. And R16 refers to 6,000 square foot minimum watts. So it would be a standard suburban lot configuration. This is the proposed tentative map that is currently on file, the property on the lot to the very left front onto Brush Creek Road is an existing dwelling. The applicant is currently proposing that as a remainder. And a rear portion of the lot that is adjacent to that Lyric Lane cul-de-sac would be divided into four. The lot to the very rear backs up to a creek. The parcel ranges would range from 9,665 square feet to 16,702 square feet. And that resulting density is approximately three dwellings per acre. And as I mentioned, the rear portion of the lot backs up to Rinccon Creek Reach One. And Rinccon Creek Reach One is in the city-wide creek master plan. And it's designated as a natural creek. And because lot five is directly adjacent to that creek along the rear property line and is more than 30 feet from the creek setback. On May 27th, 2021, the Waterways Advisory Committee concluded that the proposed setbacks for the proposed lot adjacent to the creek is consistent with the city-wide creek master plan. So that's the rear most lot and adjacent to the creek. And again, here's the proposed tentative map. As you can see that the PD directly to the north has a very similar lot configuration. And both projects would share access of Lyric Lane. I received one written comment in late correspondence. The respondent voiced concerns regarding traffic impacts to Brush Creek and the fat and grow of Brush Creek intersection as a result of poor visibility. The city traffic division so far has concluded that the proposed subdivision does not generate an amount of traffic that would be a concern in terms of level of service. Additionally, it is below the 110 vehicle trips per day that would trigger a VMT analysis. Any necessary public and onsite improvements will be determined at the time of the tentative parcel map that would go before the subdivision committee at a future date. An initial study was prepared and the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts, but those impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of the recommended mitigation measures contained in the MMRP. There's one other item that I'd like to clarify. There was an issue with the resolution for the pre-zoning. An incorrect resolution was unfortunately uploaded in a second revised version of the resolution was uploaded earlier this afternoon. And I just wanted to share what the differences are with that resolution. And if I could read that specifically, it has to do with finding D. And let me read that for you. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the zoning code. The R-16 single-family residential zoning district implements the low density residential land use of the general plan and any new development on the subject copies would be required to be in compliance with any standards listed in the zoning code. With that staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the mitigated decorative decorations, the general plan amendment and pre-zoning for the brush creek minor subdivision. The applicant is here as well as the environmental consultants that prepared the M&D. And I'm available for questions also. Thank you, Ms. Chimians. Does the applicant want to do a presentation? Or is it just for questions and answers? I don't believe they have a presentation prepared, but they are available. Mr. Wellen is the property owner and applicant. Okay, thank you. So are there any questions for staff? Are there any questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Carter. Yeah, Ms. Chimians, just out of curiosity, why was a PD done for the properties immediately adjacent and we're going to a straight R-1 on this one? Is there a difference? The plan developments have somewhat fallen out of favor in the planning world. They're challenging to keep track of and manage if a project can fit into a straight zoning that's preferred. And there's no reason to add any additional restrictions on top of what the R-1-6 zoning district would impose on the property. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Okay. So with that, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. And if you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And each speaker will have three minutes. In a countdown time, there will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are told when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of the three minutes. So with that, I see one hand raised. Yes. Thank you, Chair Weeks. We have Jerry Camarata. You're welcome to correct my pronunciation. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yes. Hi. Thank you for taking my comments on this. I'd like to just briefly read a letter that was written by myself and some undersigned neighbors concerning the project, which I'd like to get submitted to the public record for this minutes on this commission, if I could. We'd like the committee to address two concerns we have as neighbors to this project. I live at 2345 Brush Creek Road across the street from Lyric Lane. Firstly, we'd like the committee. I know that the planner did address somewhat the issue of speed limit, but we as the undersigned neighbors feel that the current hazards of a 40 mile an hour speed limit at Lyric Lane and Brush Creek Road, this intersection is currently has poor visibility looking south for the people leaving Lyric Lane onto Brush Creek Road. We feel that the danger, the current speed limit will only become more of a risk hazard should this proposal development be completed with no adjustments to the speed limit for increased traffic. We're proposing that the Planning Commission recommend a reduction in the speed limit on Brush Creek Road at Fountain Grove Parkway intersection north of that to 25 miles per hour for the first 350 feet followed by 35 miles an hour until at least past Lyric Lane. This would reduce significantly the hazard risk of collision at this intersection. I don't know if any of you know the area, but the speed limit is 40 miles an hour, but I can tell you and I'm soaking all the other neighbors that that's rarely obeyed by people going up and down Brush Creek. It seems like it's very often 10 to 20 miles an hour faster than that. Secondly, we'd like the commission to address the concerns of hazards to wildlife at this intersection given that it is an established wildlife corridor leading down to Rincon Creek. The corridor has already been threatened by closed access to the creek following the Lyric Lane development. There was a fence that was put up and the animals cannot get through to the creek from there. There has been growing incidents of roadkill at and around this intersection of Lyric Lane and Brush Creek due to limitations of access to this creek at the end of at the end of Lyric Lane and as well as excessive speed and increased traffic on Brush Creek Road. There have been documented to Fox, Deer, California Quail and other species have been killed in this spot and ever increasing numbers over the past several years due to the increasing development north of Fountain Grove Parkway and result in increased traffic density and excessive speed across the corridor. It is our hope that this that should this project go ahead, a wildlife corridor access to the creek should be included in the final plan. It is another reason why we think the speed limit should be lowered at this section in review of the environmental impact statement published online. I did not see any reference to mitigation of this risk hazard at this area and it's our hope that adequate environmental care. Thank you, Mr. Kamarata. Did you get okay? So hopefully yes, thank you. Thank you. The next speaker? Yes, the next speaker is Azenith and if you can please state your whole name for the record. So it's Azenith Gregoire. Hello. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I'm Azenith Gregoire. We live in the cul-de-sac and my address is 5933 Lyric Lane. So our concerns is what was just stated, the animals is one the wildlife to the access to the out of Brush Creek. With there being another access, accessing to our road is a big concern, especially with the first fire that came out. It was very short notice. We were not able to get out and onto Brush Creek being that there's only two ways out of Brush Creek and everybody was coming down that road. Everybody has multiple cars, so everybody was trying to pile up and people are going without letting us have access. So my concern would be with more houses and more people with more cars in each house, how much more visibility. Also our houses are in the million dollars and they're building little town homes and multiple small homes and more people are going to live there. So that's one of the other criterias that we are questioning. Just the coming and going on that little street is not ideal for us to be getting out and the fire truck to be getting in. So that was just my concerns. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any other people who would like to speak on this item? Okay, do you see two more? Mr. Maloney? Yes, one moment. Next we have a Dan and if you can please state your whole name for the record. Yeah, my name is Dan Hoyle. I live at 5921 Lyric Lane. I also have some concerns with the size and scope of the project. In addition, what's the previous two residents commented on with the wildlife and the fire issues. With the R16 designation, the 6000 square foot lot, is there a chance of, I'm hoping we don't have a chance of this in getting cut up into smaller lots. The previous development was three homes that were equivalent to the size and I guess the style of homes that are on the court. The fact that we're cutting it up even smaller. I'm afraid that our home values are going to one diminish and it's going to create two separate neighborhoods. One with smaller, not so affluent homes and one with multimillionaire homes. I don't, is there a chance, if it does change, R16 that they're allowing more homes to be developed because that would really change the nature of the neighborhood. I think that we should probably review, I'd prefer that we review back the original plans of three homes on there instead of the proposed five and potentially more given the fact that you're allowed 6000 square feet. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else who would like to speak on this item? Thank you. Yes, Chair Weeks, another hand raised. I believe he is the applicant so we can have him address some of these questions when the public hearing closes if that's all right with everybody. So any, okay, so I do see one more hand. Yes. Edward, if you can please speak your full name for the record. Yeah, my name is Edward Gregoire. Yeah, I live at 5933 Lyric Lane. I just want to reiterate what I think some other people have already said and in terms of changing the character of the houses that are on Lyric Lane, the density that's proposed across the street will seemingly be quite strange where you have a number of houses built across the street of where we live on Lyric Lane. And again, you have much larger lots and much larger houses on the other side. It seemingly will look quite strange. And in addition, I'm worried about the density, you're going to increase density across the street on Lyric Lane at a time that isn't an area with very high fire danger. And to get out, it just seems straight, there's only one way out of Lyric Lane, seems strange to increase the density of building on a lane like that with such high fire danger just doesn't seem like a very smart idea. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on this item? Okay, I do not see anyone else raising their hand. So with that, I will go ahead and close a public hearing and bring it back to the commission. So, Ms. Tumions, a couple of questions for you. The concern regarding the speed limit in traffic. Can you address that? Or do we have somebody from traffic engineering here? No, we don't. I don't believe we have anybody from traffic other than the comments that I received from the traffic division regarding not needing a traffic study. I don't have any further comments from traffic at this time. And any onsite improvements that would be or offsite improvements that would be necessary for the tentative map would get resolved during the tentative map process. Can you, for the edification of the public, can you talk about the tentative map process and how that occurs? Sure. So the tentative map would rely upon your actions, your actions in the city council's actions regarding the general plan and pre-zoning. But if those entitlements are successful, then the project, the tentative map, once it's, once the applicant and the city have reached an agreement on the conditions of approval or tentative map, it would be scheduled for a public hearing at the subdivision committee. So there would be a notice that goes out to the public prior to that meeting. And the focus would be strictly on subdividing the property. Thank you. Do you know how a neighborhood can get a speed limit changed? Or if you don't, does somebody else in staff that's present? Hi, Chair Weeks. Yes, they can request that through Deputy Director Rob Sprinkle and the Traffic Division. And then Traffic Division would be able to manage that request and work with them. Great. Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant before we enter the first resolution? Okay. So with that, would somebody like to read the first resolution of the MND? I'll read the resolution. I'll move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa, recommending that the city council adopt a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Brush Creek Minor Subdivision, located at 2210 Brush Creek Road, Assessor Parcel number 182-050-004, file number PRJ20-008, and wait for the reading. Thank you. And is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Mr. Holton. Okay. So with that, and I will remember to do all three resolutions this time, I hope. So with that, for comments on this item, I will start with Commissioner Carter. Thank you, Chair. As other commissioners have expressed, it's hard to say no to housing in Santa Rosa, and this appears to be a reasonable housing project. It's single family houses in a neighborhood of single family houses. I am concerned about the issues raised relative to speed, but I don't think it's the purview of the Planning Commission to, nor have we had analysis to require a speed limit change. But short of making a condition, I would also like to see some recommendation that the situation be looked at as it comes to the subdivision committee by our traffic department. Other than that, I can support the make the necessary findings and support the resolution for the amendment. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco? I echo the comments of Commissioner Carter hoping that this neighborhood can, they can take the avenue with Mr. Sprinkle to deal with the speed limits. And we just had a joint study session on our housing needs and bringing up our housing element. So I think agreeing with most of the commissioners that nodded and certainly what Commissioner Peterson said, they know the housing, especially a really reasonable one as this one is. So with that, I can make the, anything necessary and find adequate, the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigated monitoring reporting program for this item. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan? I too can make all the findings required for the mitigation, mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. And I think the project, the proposed tentative map is only adding four parcels to the Lyric Lane side, the other parcel fronts on Brush Creek Road. I don't think four new neighbors is going to significantly change property values or impede traffic in a huge way. And I think it's totally appropriate for this location. So I can make all the required findings and I'm in a favor of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Holton? I'm also in full support of this project. And again, I'm not going to just keep repeating the same thing that everyone else is saying. I'm in support of this project and I can make all the necessary and required findings for the mitigated negative declaration resolution, as well as the mitigated monitor reporting resolution. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson? I can also make all the required findings necessary for the mitigated negative declaration, this resolution. I think this is an appropriate kind of overall to step back and be on the MND. I think this is appropriate for this area. As the fellow commissioner has already said, this isn't putting in high density apartments or something in the area. I understand the concerns about traffic and the effect on wildlife, but this is the kind of thing, this is kind of the areas of development that we want where it's already surrounded by housing. There's already the existing roads. So we're trying to avoid the sprawl that has kind of defined California in the past. So I think in that sense, it's appropriate. And again, I can make all the required findings for this resolution. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings for this resolution, the MND. And I would hope that the neighbors would take the opportunity to contact Mr. Sprinkle, the traffic division, that's rsprinkle at srcity.org. All right. You can also find his information on the website. So I believe that this is appropriate and reasonable for this neighborhood. And as commissioner Cisco said with the study session we just had with the council, it brings it even more close to home than need for this type of housing. So with that, Mr. Maloney, will you call for the vote? Thank you, Chair Weitz. Commissioner Carter? Aye. Commissioner Cisco? Aye. Commissioner Duggan? Aye. Commissioner Holton? Aye. Vice Chair Peterson? Aye. Chair Weitz? Aye. So that passes with six ayes with Commissioner O'Crepkey absent and we'll go to the second resolution if someone would like to read that. Commissioner Duggan, will you? Thank you. I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending that the city council amend the general plan for the Brush Creek minor subdivision from very low density residential to low density residential for the property located at 2210 Brush Creek Road, assessor's parcel number 182-050-004, file number GPAM20-003, PRJ20-008, and wait for the reading. Thank you. Commissioner Holton? Second. Thank you. So comments, Commissioner Carter? Once again, I can make the necessary findings and would be in support of the resolution recommending the amendment. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco? I can make the necessary findings for the general plan amendment on this item. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan? I can make the necessary findings for the general plan amendment on this project. Thank you. Commissioner Holton? I can also make all the necessary findings for the general plan amendment. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson? I can also make all the required findings for the general plan amendment and one comment that I forgot to make earlier, which is that for the audience, we can't consider the effect on property values as part of the criteria that we're looking at. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings on this. So with that, Mr. Maloney, will you call for the vote? Yes. Thank you. Chair Weeks. Commissioner Carter? I. Commissioner Cisco? I. Commissioner Duggan? I. Commissioner Holton? I. Vice Chair Peterson? I. And Chair Weeks? I. So the third resolution, Mr. Duggan, will you do the, Mr. Combs, do we need to stop for a moment? Yes, thank you. Regarding the pre-zoning resolution that you're calling for, although it was uploaded and made publicly available earlier today, out of an abundance of caution, we would like to have Senior Planner Tumians read those amendments or revisions to the resolution into the record that would then allow Commissioner Duggan to introduce the resolution and then just say as amended by Senior Planner Tumians. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Tumians? Thank you, Chair Weeks. Staff would like to amend the third resolution. Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa, recommending that the City Council prezone the property located at 2210 Brush Creek Road into the R-16, single-family residential zoning district, Assessor Parsons number 182050004, file number PRJ20008. The specific revision staff is requesting is finding D. And let me read that for you. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the zoning code. The R-16 single-family residential zoning district implements the low density residential land use of the general plan and any new development on the subject properties would be required to be in compliance with any standards listed in the zoning code. That concludes the changes. Thank you. So Commissioner Duggan? Okay. Do I need to read the header again? Is that what we're after? Yes. Why don't you go ahead and do it just to be safe? I'll move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa, recommending that the City Council prezone the property located at 2210 Brush Creek Road into the R-16, single-family residential zoning district, Assessor Parsons number 182-050-004, file number PRJ20-008 as amended by Senior Planner Tummians can wait for the reading. Second. Thank you. Thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Holton. So we'll start with Commissioner Carter. Comments? I'm sorry, you're muted. Commissioner Carter, you're muted. All right. I will be able to support the necessary findings including finding D as amended and support the resolution recommending rezoning of the property. Thank you. Commissioner Sisko? I can also the findings for the prezoning as amended that resolution. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan? I can also make all the necessary findings including the amendment to the prezoning resolution and in support of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Holton? I can also make all necessary findings for the prezoning to R-16 D as amended and we'll be in support of the project. Thank you. And Vice Chair Peterson? I can also make all the required findings to this resolution as amended. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings on this resolution as amended as read by Planner Chumian. So with that, Mr. Maloney, will you call for the vote please? Thank you, Chair Weeks. Commissioner Carter? I. Commissioner Sisko? I. Commissioner Duggan? I. Commissioner Holton? I. Vice Chair Peterson? I. Chair Weeks. I. So that passes with six sides with Commissioner Okrepke absent and I believe unless Mr. Tripple has anything else for us tonight that is it? Do you have anything else, Andrew? No, ma'am. We do not. We wish on behalf of Planning Division we wish all of you a safe and peaceful Thanksgiving weekend and we'll look forward to seeing you next month. Can't believe it's going to be December at our next meeting. We'll see you all in December. Thank you for your service.