 I want to welcome everyone to our zoning administrator meeting, and we're just working out a few more things. We appreciate your patience for, we'll get started shortly. Again, we want to welcome everyone to our zoning administrator meeting, and we are going to get started shortly. We appreciate your patience. Good evening, everyone. We're going to go ahead and get started. My name is Amy Nicholson. I'm a senior planner with the Planning and Economics Development Department, and I will be acting as today's zoning administrator. Kimberly, if you are able to pull up your agenda and you may have done so, my computer screen is reloading currently. Sorry, just a moment. It's up, Amy. Thank you. Are you able to hear me okay, Kimberly? Yeah, you sound great. Thanks. Okay. I'm not sure what's going on on my computer end, but I actually cannot see the Zoom webinar, so actually I'm going to leave for just a moment. So I can see staff's presentation. So just a moment. Great. Thank you all for your patience. This is a special meeting of the zoning administrator for June 15th of 2021. We are holding this meeting in a remote fashion due to the governor's executive orders and also to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Kimberly, if you could scroll down a bit on the agenda, please. So today I am calling the meeting to order. We will move right into the scheduled items. The first item 2.1 is a public hearing. This was continued from the June 1st special meeting of the zoning administrator, and this is for Stoney Oaks Apartments, EIR, an addendum to a previously approved EIR by council and a minor design review. This is for a residential project located at 2542 Old Stoney Point Road. And Adam Roth is the project planner. He will go through his presentation and the applicant will also make a presentation. And we will open the public hearing for the public to provide any comments on this item. So if you are participating on the Zoom platform, you can go ahead and use the raise hand button when that time comes. And if you're calling in, you can press star nine for your comment to be acknowledged. So with that, I will go ahead and turn it over to Adam. Thank you, Ms. Nicholson, zoning administrator. I'm going to go ahead and open up the presentation and get started here. Okay, let me know if you can see that. Yes, I can. Thank you. Cool. Excellent. Thank you. Today, the item is the continued item of Stoney Oaks Apartments minor design review. This is the 2542 Old Stoney Point Road. The zoning administrator meeting the June 1 should be updated at June 15. This is from the previous public hearing. I am Adam Ross in terms senior planner, the project planner for this project. The project includes two parts. One is the director level approval, which means it's ministerial that is the density bonus that is state approved. So by right, there's 132 units for this project. You have, and this proposal includes a density bonus of 7.5% to get 10 additional units for 142 units. This section is fully affordable. And when you get a density bonus that is state approved, you based on your determination or your designation of affordable units, you can have up to three concessions. The applicant has requested one for height. It's an increase of five feet to 50 feet. This section is the density bonus is for information only. And this itself is not under review tonight. That is, again, a ministerial by right. Sorry, not by right. It is a state mandated approval. That's a sense that's not part of this review tonight. So the approval that which is tonight is for minor design review. It's for a modified review authority under zoning code section 20 dash 16.070. Essentially that takes projects in priority development areas such as this, which I'll get into in a little bit from a major designer view to a minor designer view. And just to reiterate, the use is allowed by right. The allowed density is 132 units by right. And the density state density bonus gets them to 142 units. The project is located in the Southwest quadrant of the of the city. This is a general area over here. Sorry, right about here. Here's a aerial image here, as you can see in a look and I'll go over it a little bit more in this presentation but there are some existing trees on site outgrown trees on site. This is the New York project. It's, it's one building four story is four story apartment building. That's, again, that's 142 units that, which is a 7.5% density bonus. One can, and they're requesting one concession. They project has been deemed eligible to obtain this density bonus. Again, that's not under this review tonight. The project includes one two and three bedroom units fully affordable. There are two and three story elements on the end of the lord of the single building, which is shown in the, in this presentation and the applicant team will also go over that in greater detail. The project includes an Oak Grove preservation at the entrance. Again, that was the one that I just referenced in the previous slide. The project is still subject to the tree mitigation, the city code for tree mitigation. So, and that is outlined in conditions of approval on the resolution of this project. The amenities include a child's play area and passive outdoor recreation. There are 185 parking spaces provided that is per government code section 65915 P one. That is the max that the city can ask for for affordable housing projects, and in this case they have provided that and are within code required parking. That is within the prior rosin priority development area and is with, which is part of the Rosalind sabassable road specific plan for which an ER was certified by city council. And that plays into the environmental review for this project, which I'll go over a little bit later in the presentation. Right plan. There are two entrances, one on her and one on old stony point road. There is as much of the preserve of the Oak Grove as the applicant has been able to obtain. And there is a tree mitigation tree construct tree mitigation survey included as an attachment for this project for the public's view. There is it's one building part of that comes from the concept design review here meeting, which was noticed and held with the designer review board. Some of those comments indicated that preservation of the Oak Grove and the onsite amenities are more important than breaking up the building into multiple buildings. So one building is appropriate that also allows the onsite circulation for fire access and and internal access for residents as well. Here's some renderings of the project. Part of the roof and roof lining and elements were considerations for the applicant team given by the designer review board. So those are outlined in the resolution for the designer view permit. Sorry, the designer view resolution. Here's another rendering. As you can see there are there is a proposed six foot good neighbor wood fence surrounding the project site is another rendering as well. Again allowed by right is 45 feet in this area. The density bonus is to increase to 50 feet. So only it. So it is only five feet larger, five feet taller. Here's some materials and colors. So landscape plan was which is essentially the same site plan shown earlier. Here's a close up of some of the landscaping. Here's some passive amenity spaces outdoor amenity spaces for residents. Here's some outdoor amenity spaces. A child's play area. Some of what that wood fencing would look like. This fencing would go along the Heron Avenue entrance and the Stony Oaks entrance for vehicles. Part of the review of this project included traffic. It was conducted by W trans the date is actually May 18, 2021 it is included in this packet. It indicated that 51 am and 62 pm peak hours were would be included as part of this project. With that their worst that would trigger a traffic impact study. And in that traffic impact study it it it analyze intersections around the area and how acceptable they would how they would operate on a on a level of service. As well as pedestrian bicycle facilities. Those conclusions indicated that they would all continue to operate acceptably. In addition to pedestrian bicycle facilities being adequate for the site. The project would also contribute 9.3% of the cost of the proportion proportional share of the signalization of Heron Avenue and Burbank Avenue. So that's the cost down indicated down here. The environmental review of this project. Included a thorough analysis. So, with the specific plan EIR. There is sequel section 15183 which are for projects 15182 which are projects pursuant to specific plans for which an EIR was certified. Because there is a state density bonus of 7.5%. The project had to analyze. Could not fall under the consistency determination. However, under sequel section 15164 it 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. Section 15162 includes that the proposed project does not constitute a substantial change that would require major revisions to the previously certified final EIR. And there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed project or Rosalind area, subascible road specific plan will be constructed that would require major major revisions to the previously certified final EIR. And there's been no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the specific final EIR was certified that has come to light and does not show that the project would not have would have one or more significant effects and does not show that the project, sorry, was certified and has come to light and that shows any of the following that the proposed project or Rosalind subascible road specific plan would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the certified final EIR and that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe and that mitigation measures or alternatives, alternatives previously not to be feasible would in fact be feasible or substantially reduce one or more significant effects and that mitigation measures or alternative alternatives considerably different from those analyzed previously would have substantially reduced one or more significant effects. In this case, none of those appeared to be none of those were shown to be as part of the sequel analysis for this project. The analysis included a VMT analysis for which this project has screened out for for vehicle miles traveled which is what sequel would now consider for traffic which has to do with greenhouse gas emissions. In this case, it screens out and doesn't does not have a significant effect, and the addition of 10 additional units, as opposed to the 132 that are allowed by right does not have a significant effect on the environment. And for this an addendum was prepared, and that addendum also includes a mitigation and monitoring reporting program, and is included as part of the attachments to this agenda and included as the first resolution attached to the first resolution for adopting the agenda for adopting the addendum I apologize. And then last two things to go over before I finished my presentation. The first is that there is a condition of approval on from engineering and traffic for this project. So, as you can see here on the bottom section of this her and avenue entrance and exit. There is no. There isn't any adequate sidewalk pedestrian access. There is a bicycle lane but there is not pedestrian access along this frontage. So, the city went through a few exercises with the applicant team. One is to pursue that the applicant on their own discuss with the landowners adjacent to their property to obtain easement rights to provide pedestrian access down to this location, which is arrow would drive and then install a signal on a flashing crosswalk here to connect pedestrians from this exit down here so they can go to a place to play. I'm sorry not a place to play the Southwest Community Park. If that doesn't happen. This is, and just to be clear the city is not requiring this to happen, but are making the applicant go through the due diligence of working with the property owners. And in this case one property owner is not against it, but these things do take time to figure out. And in this case, there is another, you know, they, they could also potentially speak with this property owner to cut through directly through these. It's like an if this than that. And finally, if none of those are able to be obtained by the applicant, not by the city. It would be, and then if those are unable to occur. There would be signs and limited access so that only vehicles could go in and out of this location. And then all pedestrian access would have to go to Old Stony Point Road, where they would connect via sidewalk to the southern portion of her now. And under the going back just a little bit to the final EIR, the mitigation monitoring reporting program for this project does require that the applicant obtain all necessary environmental permits. That is from the regional water quality control board, which are 401 permits and or 404 permits from the US Army Corps of Engineering. And also from the US Department of Fish and Wildlife for California Tiger Salamander mitigations, which is, which is critical habitat for all for nearly all of Southwest Santa Rosa. So these are still requirements that they have to make just just to make that clear. So those are. One aspect of this engineering development services here in the meeting to go over that if any questions arise to discuss that condition of approval. And then one more. And then that would, I apologize that would be it. And with that, that concludes my presentation. This is a applicant presentation for which I can, I will now upload. Thank you, Mr. Ross for that presentation and we can go ahead and move right into the applicant presentation. And I will be saving my questions for after the public hearing portion of the meeting. Thank you. And let me know if you see this presentation. Yeah, Adam, it's up now. Yeah, thank you for your presentation. Good evening, everyone. This is Taylor Rasmussen development director with meta housing. We could probably drop down a slide. So at the initial hearing held on June 1, a few community members asked some questions about the project, mostly surrounding topics of Sequa traffic density for the area. So we're going to go right in the way in which our projects fit into the surrounding community. And that extends to our commitment to addressing specific questions that residents may have for us as a developer. So again, we want to have that open dialogue to help address misconceptions and are grateful for the opportunity to meaningfully engage with our neighbors here this evening. So I think Adam touched on a lot of the topics. I'm going to briefly address and I think first we wanted to touch on the traffic analysis. So as Adam mentioned, the traffic is not required. Sorry, the project is not required to perform a vehicle miles traveled or VMT analysis for two primary reasons. One, the project site is in an area of Santa Rosa that has a baseline residential VMT per capita. That is more than 15% below the county wide average. And two, as 100% affordable housing, affordable residential housing development. The project qualifies for VMT screening criteria established by the city of Santa Rosa. So according to the city and our consultants as well, either one of these project characteristics establishes a presumption that the project will have a less than significant VMT impact. Additionally, the city's traffic engineer as well as the traffic engineer who analyzed project related traffic are available to address any specific questions surrounding those determinations. You know, next topic was with Sequa. So, I think Adam touched on this one as well but Sequa consistency was analyzed through the addendum process and EIR for the specific plan in this area, analyzed all environmental impacts for this project with the exception of those 10 dwelling units that are being provided via a density bonus. The purpose of the addendum is to address those 10 units to ensure that no additional significant impacts are caused by their inclusion. State Sequa guidelines do not require a circulation of an EIR addendum because these changes are very minor in their very nature. Lastly, state and local density bonus. So those 10 units and height increase are permitted by the state and local density bonus. The city has a mandatory duty under state law to allow both providing it with pretty limited discretion at the city level. And the minor increase will help the community address the housing crisis and need to house residents of the Santa Rosa area. So those are the main concerns that were addressed at the previous meeting, according to our notes. But if I missed anything or that I missed anything, we're happy to discuss further if community members have further questions and comments and are on this evening. That's all I had on my end for the applicant and I can turn it over to the Dolan group, our architect on the project. I would like to briefly go through a few slides here and present to the community. If you could please raise your hand so that you'll go to the top of the participants. Thank you. Great. Did that work. Yes. Oh, excellent. Thank you. Great. Well, thank you again for having us give a brief presentation tonight. If you want to drop down a slide. Adam did, you know, very thorough job going through the project again and Taylor hit the high points of the some of the questions that we received. So I'm just going to keep this very, very short. I can go into more detail of questions arise, but I want to keep it very brief and just hit some high points. As Adam mentioned, one of the things that this this design does is preserves that existing Oak Grove on the page left side of the site the western side of the site. We felt that was really important for preserving the, the interface with the neighborhood the rest of the site is has very few trees on it it's kind of just an open field. And that's the main access point for both vehicular and pedestrians coming into the site is from old Stony Point Road that is a cul-de-sac. And so that is limiting the, the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The access point off of her is a secondary vehicular access. But the main point of entry is through that Oak Grove on the western side from old Stony Point Road. So as, as Adam mentioned, we are fencing the site. We also have a pretty decent tree row all the way around the site in a landscape strip plus additional landscape islands to create a pretty significant tree buffer around this site. And then the building is pushed even further back by the parking area that surrounds it so it's really centered in the site and pushed away from from the neighborhood. Next slide please. The other thing I wanted to show is this is, as you can see in the lower graphic, this is the view, the one viewpoint from Herne Avenue. And what we've done is taken the building and the, the portions of the building that are on that south side are short little wings. We've taken the building and dropped it from four stories to three stories, but this particular wing that's closest to Herne Avenue we've dropped it all the way down to two stories. The building is designed now reflects the designer view board comments and some of their suggestions and so that really helped us sculpt the building in response to their comments. But we wanted to maintain this change in massing and change of form where to address the neighborhood. That's really the very brief presentation I had for this evening. Again, I'm happy to go into more detail if it's needed. Thank you. Thank you for those presentations. Next I'd like to go ahead and open the public hearing so we can hear from members of the public on this item so if you're interested in providing any public comments please press the raise hand button on zoom or star nine from your phone. Okay, so first we have Aaron Reimberg. Can you guys hear me okay. Yes. Thank you for taking my public comment today. I still have concerns about the president being sent the long term residents need to give up their property for this project to have a right away I understand that it's the applicants. It's a great job to speak with these residents and get their permission to do an easement but the fact that that's being recommended by the city and kind of setting the president that neighbors need to give up their land in order to put in a big huge development that's way out of place in this neighborhood is is still a great concern. And noted on the public record there. Another concerning feature about this is that Rosalind continues to be inundated with these housing projects. It was surprising to the developer actually my husband had got to have a conversation with the developer a very nice cordial conversation that was eye opening for both parties. And what was revealed in there is that this developer has no idea that there are four to five other projects of equal size and mass planned within a two mile radius of this area, meaning that our public open spaces are open fields are agricultural traditions are being threatened by this over development of continuing to classify Rosalind as a primary development area. So I really would like the city to be more transparent with that with applicants. It's not just their project that's being put through its multiple projects being dumped in Rosalind and taking away our open spaces and our, our land. It's scary for water rights, it's scary for fires, it's scary for traffic. I'm worried about current and future residents and whether they'll be able to evacuate safety safely if there is a fire, let alone the environmental impacts of all of this development, especially in this area. So, having that conversation with the developer just highlights all the more how the city is really covering up. So I think the first development is going in and kind of using that as a way to say oh no this is just one project and really play on the heartstrings of everybody here. Another thing that was eye opening with that was the traffic study comes into play then with four or five potential developments going in in a two mile radius. The traffic study is in an adequate. You can see a ton of congestion on her and it's already a dangerous street and Old City and Point Road has a ton of traffic overflow from the current apartment complex just north of this proposed site. So I just asked for more transparency from the city. Take a big picture look at all the development going on in Roseland so that everything's done fairly and that we're not just inundating Roseland, especially this quadrant with housing projects for the sake of approving things as Roseland's development area. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, Aaron for your comments. Next we have Larry McCauley. Mr. McCauley, can you see the timer. Yeah, can you hear me alright. Hello, we hear you. Yeah, so I wanted to echo a couple of things that Aaron had said definitely traffic is terrible on her and Avenue and the impact reports that have been done I don't think clearly. I haven't taken a consideration all of the different projects that are being put in I happened to live on her and Avenue and I can tell you now that that there's quite a few people that walk in the street. Right where this project is going in, even though we have a sidewalk across the street, and the concept of putting a sign in at a driveway where cars are going through that that's going to keep people from walking is laughable. I don't, I don't think I've ever seen a sign stop somebody from walking or having to turn around and walk another 100 yards out of their way. So, another thing that comes to mind is I didn't hear anybody mentioned visitor parking, we have 142 units and 185 spaces, and it's not unreasonable to think that out of 142 units there's going to be an average of one and a half cars per unit. You know so that equals 213 cars. Now there's no room for any overflow parking as there is now an extra 28 spaces. And then visitors, a five to 10% of visitors stopping by. So where is this overflow going to go they're going to go down arrowhead and then be parking 30 cars in front of the residents there. So that's something that hasn't been considered and nobody's mentioned at all the. Let's see also, last two weeks ago when we had the meeting and I was there. My wife brought the mail in to me and right there we had from the water district telling me I need to cut back 20% on my water as a reasonable measure as a resident here and then we're talking about putting 280 people right across the street and that makes me wonder am I cutting back 20% so that they can have water for this development here. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me there. Additionally, one of the things that occurs to me to is that preserving the Oak Grove comes at a cost for all of the neighbors here of obscuring their view their skyline view lines with this two, three and four, a story construction going on. I think I can't recommend that this project even go forward and I want that to be considered the impact that it'll make on all of the pedestrians that are going there unsafe, we already have conditions on her and Avenue where people exceed the speed limit on a regular basis and it's unsafe for people pedestrians there. So, I don't have any other comments thank you for your time. Thank you Larry for your comments. And next I see Lorna McBain. Hi, thank you. I want to echo the previous public comments. I am a long term resident of Roseland and I'm seeing as the other two public speakers have noted that our land is being absorbed by projects that are not fitting of a rural area. My major concern at this point. I have been hearing a lot of sirens. We are in a drought situation and fire hazards are extremely common in Santa Rosa. I want to know what kind of hazard mitigation report has been done to evacuate approximately 2000 more people in a very small. I think about two square miles. It doesn't make sense to me that there is only one egress and one ingress on one project we've already been exposed to. And this is a sizable project where you're expecting people if there's a fire to egress on only two streets, Herne and Old Stony Point Road. If anybody has gone in this area during the first fire evacuation, you will note that it was bumper to bumper. It was very scary for a lot of these residents. If the city does not look at the fact that this could impact people's lives. Certainly property without a proper hazard mitigation report and traffic study about how to flow people out safely. Then it's on the city if there's loss of life and property. It's very disconcerting to me as a resident here. So I don't know if anybody has looked at that. As a developer I would be very concerned that my project could potentially interfere with somebody's safety. So I want to know what kind of traffic study was done to incorporate any kind of evacuation issues. The previous person said that's not just one project in this area. There's four or five. That is a lot of people and a lot of cars. I hear that some of the developers believe that not everybody has a car or that there's less than two cars when in fact the Sonoma County standard for cars is 2.4 per household. There's really no place to have overflow parking that needs to be considered. There's nowhere to park on Stony Point or North Point Parkway. So please, as Miss Reinberg said, consider the holistic approach instead of one project singularly. Thank you. Thank you, Lorna, for your comments. Next I see Nick Reinberg. All right, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Well, you know, as stated by some of my predecessors who have spoken earlier. The big issue here I think is just the overdevelopment of Roseland here and the fact that we've got 150 unit one roughly here going in 50 units, going in two parcels north of it, plus another 80 unit give or take going in. Two miles away on Burbank Avenue. And further down you've also got development going on in Dutton Meadows. So you've got a high concentration and a high volume of people that are going to be moving into this area moving through this area. And I don't think that the traffic studies are going to adequately provide sufficient information for this massive influx of traffic that's going to be coming through here. Maybe really is poor planning by not having sufficient infrastructure here when planning they're just you guys are just going build build build without having any proper infrastructure. Additionally, I think that it's important that the block issue be addressed. I don't think that it's right that the city potentially has the potential to eminent domain of I discussed this with the developers earlier that they don't plan on having eminent domain and they plan on just having discussions with the residents that easements might need to be procured for a walkway of some kind. But, you know, really, the city should have had those kinds of plans in place well before the developer came along, and had to, you know, make these negotiations, in my opinion, further it's really just, I just really think it's just over development for over development sake, the design itself to is not conducive to this area. You know, it's a modern building in the middle of a rural area with no consideration for the meshing of the two aesthetically, and it's, and it is important to I think, consider having additional open spaces here in Roseland considering that we are deficient in parks per, we're deficient in the park per population ratio that is upheld elsewhere in the city. And we really, and really four stories is way too big for the location of this area when there are no other buildings anywhere near this size. So I really think that the city needs to roll back a little bit and think hard about this project and maybe redesign aspects of it both through infrastructure and the actual design of the property. Thank you. Thank you, Nick for your comments. I'm not seeing any additional hands raised. I'd like to just give one more opportunity if anyone is interested in making a public comment on this item please press the raise hand button or star nine from your phone. Okay, I see Elisa pastor. Hi. Sorry. So my name is Elisa pastor I am land use council for the applicant. So I actually like a chance to respond to some of the comments that were raised. I don't know if this is the appropriate time or if you want to have staff respond first and then I'll jump in for the applicant. I think we can have staff respond first and then after we close the public hearing and then you and the applicant team will have a chance to respond as well. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm not seeing any additional hands raised so with that I am going to go ahead and close the public hearing portion and bring it back to staff to answer some questions and perhaps the applicant team might be able to speak to some as well. So I will direct it back to Mr Ross, the project plan to speak to some of the planning issues that were raised. Sure, give me. Thank you I'll be happy to respond to what I can and then anything that I miss please. You know remind me and I'll and I'll do my best to respond to those as well. I'm going to share my screen one more time just this site plan is so there's some form of reference. So give me one second. Thank you. So. Okay, so in response to just a few of these I'm going to go down the list. I did forget to mention that the condition of approval regarding the easement for access to provide the to provide the pedestrian access over in this her and Avenue exit area. There is a final one that that requires an in lieu fee in case these in case the neighbors are in the applicant team cannot come to an agreement on it. And then that would be held by the city until future development of the site would go in here obviously that you know there's no timeframe for when if and when that would ever happen. And as far as some of the other infrastructure responses is, you know, the the public improvements as new development comes in that's when the city can get the public improvements required for this area. There's also, as far as, you know, Rosalind goes it was it's a it's a pretty comprehensive specific plan, but at the same time there is a general plan update going on right now and that's a, you know, multi year process, I think three more years are left. And I, you know, I want to let any members of the public here know that there is an opportunity to participate in that if there is a, you know, some, some of the concerns for the density and zoning in the in the Rosalind area. Second, the traffic study does include multiple projects as does all of the traffic studies for other projects. So it's, it's, it does consider nearby developments, and that is reviewed and approved by the traffic engineering division. And planning, you know, reviews that and and in planning would kind of take the authority on that as a traffic engineering division. So if they have to review it and vet it and go through a process and it's not just submit and accept there is there there are there are requirements of that and it is it does have to be done by a professional traffic engineering firm. I do believe the the applicant team does have a traffic engineer in attendance here that could possibly add on to this. As far as parking goes, you know that that may be a management thing for visitors for visitor parking. There's only so much that the city can ask for for parking for affordable housing projects. There's also a shift in, you know, kind of an overall for for in in the city of Santa Rosa Sonoma County in general is to get out of single occupancy vehicles and in cases where parking is required takes up so much space when the potential future seen by the city doesn't really envision that I think that's that's more of a policy statement but it's it's kind of there's truth there. And for pedestrian access here, I mean, you can only mitigate or you can only kind of do so much to get people to to to deter people from doing something so you know that is recognized that signs and no pedestrian actual pedestrian gates would be included here if it comes to that where they couldn't provide pedestrian access here. And that's the fact of that's a that's a factor that that comes into play and that's not lost on on the city and that's why, you know, staff had many conversations with the applicant and this at least this property owner here on on the reasoning behind it and and what that looks like. But you know, and whenever visit parking public improvements. There is also a pending development report that's updated frequently by the city that includes all development throughout the city and you could break it down by quadrants and areas you could request that so, it is, it is pretty transparent on the city side of what's being proposed what's approved what's and what's being, you know, currently developed at the same time. And as far as water supply goes, you know, just a couple highlights is the city of Santa Rosa has actually seen its population double since 1990, while total water use has decreased by 14%. And, you know, new development is required to be extremely water efficient. And they have to comply with the city's efficient landscape ordinance and the Cal Green Building Code which requires new developments to be 20% more water efficient than existing developments. And a lot of times more often than not new development often exceeds that 20% target. And, and then, you know, all proposed development reflects general plan policies and zoning, and to change development pattern requires policy change. You know that's that's right now policy change would be the general plan update and you know policy change is not a function of current planning review at this time. And fire is joining is joining the meeting to or is in the meeting I should say to answer evacuation questions. And that is pretty much it from me if there's anything else that you need me to cover please let me know. So Adam I like to hear from fire about evacuation concerns and then there were a few points that you may be able to touch on the applicant might be able to as well so I'll turn it over to Ian. Thank you Amy. As far as our review of this development we we didn't see any evacuation issues I'm here to address any concerns the community or project may have. I'll tell you lessons that we've learned here in Santa Rosa since the tubs fire in, you know the value of early warning and getting people moving early on before, you know, imminent threats are within the vicinity and we have seven different methods of doing that now Nick soul so calm, you know, lots of different ways Noah radios that we've been handing out. There are ways to get people the needed information to get them moving long before a hazard. This property site or project site isn't in a wooey area nor would it ever be considered a wooey area so the threat of a large scale while that we experienced in the wooey areas of Santa Rosa between Santa Rosa and Napa counties is not likely incident here, you know, but that doesn't mean there aren't other emergencies such as earthquakes because I don't see floods being an issue here but earthquakes. Again, we have the ability to provide as early warning as possible you've got multiple major thoroughfares out of here yes her and can be congested during certain times of the of the day. I don't know what the link can to, but those periods of time are manageable from an emergency response standpoint, because during an emergency what we're able to do is take control of traffic flows and redirect traffic out of the area, and get in and get those that need to get out out. And that's just a quick overview of the philosophy and the mechanisms in the process that law and fire have to facilitate emergency evacuations. And again, that's usually not a that's not an enforceable condition that we can put on from a building and fire standpoint because we regulate building standards. Evacuation planning is something we've done successfully with other projects in Santa Rosa up in the wooey and that's a project driven and designed emergency evacuation plan. It's not something the city provides we provide, you know, most likely evacuation routes, you know, in and out of the city, but we don't plan to pick you up in a city bus and move you out. So within a project management team puts together their plan. It's their people. It's their community their buildings their structures, you know that they have to take responsibility, and the city will partner with those projects that do so, and providing the needed information to put those plans together and working with them to put together the best plan moving forward. And I'll just open it up for questions and see where those take us. Awesome. Thank you so much. You're very welcome if there's anything else please let me know I'm here. Great, thank you. Do we have either city staff or the traffic consultant, who might be able to respond to the traffic study and some of the concerns raised regarding what was studied and generally new projects in the area. Yeah, there is. The applicant team does have their traffic engineering consultant here. Good afternoon, Miss Nicholson this is Zach Matwee from W trans in Santa Rosa we completed the traffic impact study for the report. I guess I'll touch on a couple of components. One is that from the sequel perspective and the supplemental ER that was completed. VMT is really the key component now level of service and traffic congestion is no longer considered in on the environmental side. And from the VMT side, the project performs well and and actually screens out because it's considered in a low VMT area and is affordable. So that said, traffic is still considered the city center as it does have level of service standards congestion standards safety standards still have to look at pedestrian bicycle circulation and the like. So the traffic impact study does still do that it's just handled outside of sequel. So the traffic analysis looked at what the impact of the project is when added to existing conditions as one scenario. Then it also looks at the impact of the project in combination with other approved projects in the area and those are pulled from as Adam mentioned the pending development report the city of Santa Rosa makes available. So in this case that was 10 different developments in the area that were included in that scenario and looking at okay, when we have those projects in addition to this project what is the traffic situation. And then ultimately, you know, working back the area is within the Roseland Sebastopol Road specific plan. And so that EIR and project included a fairly exhaustive traffic analysis which looks at build out of the entire Roseland Sebastopol Road specific plan itself, and in a long range condition, you say your 2040 in combination with other cumulative growth happening through the city. And so that also looks at what is the traffic situation there. So for each of these scenarios particularly for that long range scenario the city of Santa Rosa has identified infrastructure improvements that do need to happen, and that will happen over the coming years. These are getting programmed into the city's capital improvement program and the like in the area closest to this project eventually there will be an extension of North County Parkway which comes in real lines with Turn Avenue that will help to reduce traffic volumes on this section of Turn Avenue as well as just better serve that part of Santa Rosa as it develops. There is a fair amount of development envisioned in that specific plan that will occur over time. But there's also a lot of infrastructure improvements to accommodate it. So specifically with this project, its own impacts with respect to traffic level of service were analyzed consistent with the guidelines and procedures set forth by city of Santa Rosa traffic division. And there were generally there were no impacts from a traffic analysis perspective, level of service perspective that are attributable specifically to this project there are some cumulative impacts and that specifically comes out at the intersection of Turn Avenue and Burbank Avenue where is there is a need for a traffic signal that was identified in a Rosalind specific plan. And this project is having to contribute towards the cost of that improvement, as well as traffic impact fees in general so that's sort of a broad brushed overview of the near term mid term long term BMT and impacts and I'm able to address any more specific questions if you have them. Great. Thank you so much Zach. That was very thorough and helpful and I appreciate your response. I don't have any follow up questions at this time. Looks like Lorna's hand is raised I'm seeing some hands come up but we did already close the public comment a little bit. I don't know if this is a particular question, but I'm going to go ahead and let the rest of city staff and the applicant team respond to the questions that have already been raised at this time. Let's see here. Is the project engineer able to just provide a little bit of follow up on the, the right away dedication and the question about the city potentially asking for property owners to dedicate their property I know that was touched on I didn't have anything else to add. Jesus. I'm sorry I had to find the unmute button there. This is the cake staff engineer. I don't have anything further to add at this moment. Okay. Great and then I believe the Mr Ross I'm not sure if you spoke to height and the concern about hi I know you did in your presentation. I'm talking about the density bonus and also the city zoning which does permit. I believe it's 45 feet in height. By right that's allowed by the development standards. The city has requested a concession through their, their density bonus, which would allow for them to have the increased height that is proposed currently. There was also a comment made about the project design being perhaps incompatible with the neighbor, the neighborhood I'm not sure if the architect might wish to respond to that. I don't know if staff would like to respond to that comment. So, I can add a little bit but first I think the applicant team wants to has a has a few to respond to. And then if it's missed in that I'll I'll I'll jump in and add some more. If that's okay with you. Thanks. My name is Lisa pastor. I'm legal counsel for the applicant and, you know, thank you. The city staff and the technical consultants have been a really good job of responding to the technical questions. So I really appreciate that. With regards to, you know, I think it's important to remember right that the Roseland specific plan allows the proposed development here and we are only asking for an additional 10 units than the density that was already approved by the city in the plan and analyzed in the EIR for the Roseland specific plan. So, I understand that there may be some concern about the level of development but what this project is actually asking for. And what the city really has a mandatory duty under the density bonus law is to allow the additional 10 units and the five foot in height. So, I'm hearing a lot of concerns that I think maybe unfairly are being placed on this project and and I think staff has really done a good job of also highlighting this and you know making sure that that they're, they're fulfilling their duties under the state density bonus law with regards to compatibility so with regards to the height so there is a 45 foot height limit that's already permitted by the plan. Under the state density bonus law we're entitled to actually a much taller building and we're only asking for an additional five feet because we needed to have some of the mechanical equipment and some other things. We, we don't believe that it is incompatible again 45 foot is the allowed standard and so I think just by the city's own codes and plans that is already compatible. That is already what is allowed that is already what is planned for in this development. We have set back the building quite a bit into the site and so one of the things that we did talk about and you could have the architect talk a little bit more but you know we only needed like a quite small setback I think it was only a 10 setback and we've set the building back quite a bit more and we have it stepped down because we understand that there is some concern about the height. With regards to the parking that is also something that is mandated by state law that has extensive experience in terms of the amount of parking that actually happens in their development and on a pretty consistent basis. We have fewer cars that are required are sorry few. We don't use all of the parking, essentially, and so there will be spaces for gas and we don't think about it. I believe I addressed the last two points. Ms. Nicholson, please let me know if there's anything else that I can assist with. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. I think that that is that is a great response to those last two comments that I raised. Adam, did you have anything to add. Yeah, as far as neighborhood compatibility goes. As part of the resilient city development measures, why this project is a special VA meeting, it has to go to concept designer view with the designer view board which I mentioned previously. At that time, the designer view board reviews the project and makes recommendations and considerations for the project moving forward. And then that is those comments are implemented and required for, you know, the city basically makes or the city essentially makes applicant teams respond to those to those comments and considerations whether they adopted the comment or consideration or an explanation as to why they couldn't or, you know, the design difference here. As part of the resolution for the design review permit, not the, the, which is the second resolution tonight. There are bullet points of those comments from the designer view board. And one of them says, depart from neighbor neighboring architecture, create more urban architecture, possibly shed roof styles avoiding 1980s and 1990s design. Next, you have consider avoiding half hazard shed roofs, pick up kick ups in contemplating a more urban architectural design. So those are, those are considerations provided by the designer view board themselves. And I think, you know, just just to reiterate that those are for neighborhood compatibility, those are things that the designer view board asset the applicant consider as well. And so that's why, you know, some of the comments that it's a, it's a rural, and this is more contemporary modern contemporary style. Those are those were considerations that the applicant took in from direction from the designer report. Thank you, Adam that's helpful to understand the process and the feedback from the designer view board and how it was incorporated into the design. There is a just a quick follow up point regarding the configuration of the North Point Parkway. I saw that as a question that was raised and the North Point Parkway and Jesus may be able to speak to this more or. I'm at least on the call as well but I'm the North Point Parkway configuration is shown in the Roseland areas Vestple Road specific plan. It's also shown in the general plan. And this was a design that was studied as part of the traffic analysis for that specific plan and I believe W trans was involved in the traffic analysis done for that specific plan so there there was at one point in application in to reconfigure the North Point Parkway, but I, the application is no longer in process with the city and so the preferred and planned configuration of the North Point Parkway is in the Roseland area specific plan at this time. So that's just a point of clarification there. Okay, so I really appreciate everyone's responses and going through these various items as soon as did you want to add anything. That was something that the alignment of North North Park Parkway, as shown in that in the plan that you refer to was looked at versus this project and it doesn't conflict. And based on there not being any proposed change to that there isn't any impact to this project. I do want to go ahead and move on to some of the questions that I have. One relates to a public comment that I received by way of phone and I didn't hear the speaker on today's call but she lives on the property directly east of the site and I wanted to acknowledge that I had a phone with her. And she was concerned about noise and light from the parking lot, specifically on the Herna Avenue driveway. So I see on the plans that there's a proposed six foot solid wood fence. I'm wondering if someone from the applicant team or perhaps Adam can speak to maybe the potential to have something that might help to buffer any light trespass or sound, whether it be a slight increase in height or perhaps landscaping or something that might help to alleviate the easterly neighbors concerns. So I can speak while maybe the applicant team will need to consider it, but there is some landscaping there. I think, you know, there is some to be considered a site distance obviously but there's I think there's some pretty easy conditions that could potentially be added such as a double sided wood fence that that helps maybe some more landscaping or potential for a sound wall in that location. I wanted to let the, you know, let the applicant team respond with maybe they have another suggestion or, or something like that. From a security standpoint, I believe we will have CCTV cameras on the end of that building on the Eastern end. So if there were any intruders, which very low likelihood we should be able to identify them via video. I guess I have some concerns about the sound wall just, I just know how costly those can get very quickly and I don't want to push this into infeasibility. I do think as Adam mentioned we have, we have landscaping in the area. Again, that'll get more mature over time and, and hopefully buffer some sound and then to address a security concern, those cameras will be in place on that end of that building. You know, I don't know if our architect has any additional thoughts there. Sure. Thanks. Thanks, Taylor. You know the, we do have the tree buffer all the way around the property line in the, in the landscaped area. And so as those trees grow and mature, that's going to give the best visual buffer of anything you'd never want to fence or a wall that tall. So that's really going to soften those edges in conjunction with keeping the outgrowth and then there's a couple other large trees that we're, we're keeping on the perimeter towards the west end as well so I think we've, we've, we've got, you know, significant increase in that vegetative layer that's going to grow and really create that, that soften buffer over time. In response to the, you know, potential likely the project does have to comply with the city's light ordinance. All lighting shall be down lit. There's a 16 foot light pole maximum. Lower is encouraged. They do have to provide lighting for safety as far as the parking lot goes that at night. I believe it is one candle foot. Lumin here that that's that's identified in the in the during the building permit phase, as far as you know that if there is additional as to what would be what's included on the designer view. I think, you know, maybe some, maybe some talk on the a double wood wall where it's just a little bit thicker and then maybe a two foot trellis with some vines there or because I heard the applicant speak on, you know, the west side a little bit more of the oak side but I think the concern was on the east side of the right next where the Herne Avenue entrance and exit or ingress and egress location would be. So I think I think that that would be something that sounds maybe a little bit more amenable by by the applicant team and maybe conditioned as part of the product of the designer view resolution. That way it's not cost prohibitive prohibitive and you know and then it's only a certain portion of the east side along the the neighboring residents location I think that you know that's something that that maybe I'll let the applicant team respond to one one more time but and then I guess go from there. Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand the the suggestion so I'm not following the two foot trellis element if you could explain that a little bit further. Yeah, so you have a six foot good neighbor fence which is a you know would a wood fence and just proposing that it's kind of like the double sided sorry and not trellis lattice. I apologize for that. And it's just you know two additional feet of lattice that is a little bit more. It's not completely solid but you can potentially grow some some vine. Some some vines on it that that maybe that maybe be a little bit more sound protective. I'm sorry, sound buffering. Lori concerns about the structural integrity of a lattice like that being adhered woodwall. I think before we don't really need to get all into the detail here. We could also just add a condition that the landscaping and fencing should be designed to provide an adequate buffer for the site for the property to the east, and then that can be verified as a part of the building permit plan check just so that you can see what's what's feasible, and then Adam can can review it as a part of his planning review. I think that sounds reasonable. Okay. So Adam if you could add that condition to the design review resolution. That would be great. And then I, I don't believe I have any additional questions. I appreciate all the responses that people gave in the public comments that we heard today. So I, you know, recognize that this is part of the Roseland area, which is a priority development area for the city and that's based on the proximity of high frequency transit so there are some more dense residential areas that are planned and allowed within this area so it is an area that is certainly changing and as Adam suggested earlier we are updating our general plan general plans and specific plans are where we set the land use designations and residential densities and building intensities for parcels within the city so I really encourage everyone to be involved in that process, because that's what dictates what type of development can later be approved on properties within the city. I do appreciate that the applicant team considered and integrated a lot of the design review board's comments. I appreciate that the, a lot of the oak trees will be preserved on site I think that that provides a nice, a nice buffer. And also, I appreciate the two and three story elements of the building which help with the overall massing of the project. I appreciate that it's 100% affordable as well. And also the location of the trash, I think is in a good spot that won't really impact a budding neighbors so I feel that a lot of thought went into the project design. And because this item has two resolutions I just want to acknowledge that I will be approving the resolution for the environmental impact report addendum. This is an addendum to the Roslyn area's best forward specific plan EIR and it really just qualifies and quantifies that the addition of the 10 units is allowed by the state density bonus. So I'll go ahead and sign that resolution and then after Adam adds the condition regarding the fencing and landscaping for the eastern property line I will sign the design review board resolution. Thank you all for attending this evening and I'm going to go ahead and close that item and adjourn tonight's meeting.