 Are we ready? Okay, then let's proceed. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call to order the May 27th meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. Before we start, I'd like to read the following statements. Read 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 or practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public, I view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and on the agenda. To speak during item 4, public comment period or during our public hearings, we'll be able to do so by raising their hand and we'll be given the ability to address the commission. Can we do roll call please? Yes, let the record reflect that all commissioners are present except Commissioner Carter. Thank you. I did want to mention for the public that we will be taking a short break between item 9.2 and 9.3. Item 2.1 is study session, and our study session today is a report on the 2020 general plan annual review and Amy Lyall supervising planner will be presenting this item. Good evening, Chair Weeks and members of the commission. This item will actually be presented by Sheri Needs, but I wanted to provide a quick little introduction and just give you a really concise, excuse me, I just didn't meet him myself here. The first item your study session tonight is on the general plan annual review. This is really a report out on the progress we made on our existing general plan from last year. You might remember in past years, this has been heard in a joint meeting with the city council and has been a larger presentation representatives from various different departments coming forward. This year is a little more streamlined, and so I just wanted to provide a quick explanation for that reason. This year we are providing you a presentation and report tonight, and it will be more concise than what you're previously used to, and then it will be moving forward to the city council on June 29th, and it will be on their consent agenda. The reason for the abbreviated streamlined process is really because we are in the midst of a general plan update, and we will be bringing forward more policy discussions in front of you related to that update. We are remaining compliant with state law. City planner sharing needs is really focused on a lot of our reporting needs and has produced an annual housing report, housing community development, and also our general plan annual report goes to the Office of Planning and Research at the state level. Those will continue to happen during our general plan update, but we will be asking the city council on June 29th, if this streamlined process will be sufficient while we're in the midst of our general plan update. The general plan update, once it's complete, which we are hoping will be in early 2023, that will reset this process of reporting out on the progress of the policies and programs, and we expect to have metrics and a lot more information that will be tracked and we'll have a dashboard related to that. It will be a different process moving forward once we get that work completed. For tonight, we know you have an agenda in front of you, and so we want to be as concise as possible. Sherry is going to give a brief presentation, and we'll be available for questions, and we also do have Nancy Adams from Public Works, available to answer questions related to bike and pet or anything transportation related, and then we also have Peter Martin, Deputy Director for our Water Department, who is available to answer questions related to water. With that, I'll introduce our city planner Sherry Needs to give you a brief presentation on the annual report. This is Sherry Needs City Planner. I'm going to do my best right now to share my screen, which see how that goes, hopefully well. First, I have to put it in correct mode. Looks great, Sherry. You're able to see the right one. Okay, wonderful. Thank you so much. Each year, actually, good evening Chair Weeks, Vice Chair Peterson, and members of the Commission. Each year, the Planning Commission reviews the progress made toward implementation of general plan goals and policies, and the growth management and inclusionary housing ordinances during the park. Today's presentation will provide a few highlights of 2020 accomplishments. Now, I just got to make sure I know how to advance. Yay. We'll start by diving into the housing element, and looking at the positive residential development trend we have seen since 2015. In 2020, building permits were issued for 625 residential units, not including the fire rebuild housing. Of the 625 building permits issued, 251 were for single-family dwellings, 309 permits were for multi-family dwellings, and 65 were for second-dwelling units. Despite increased residential development, the need for additional housing for every income level is clear. This table looks at the city's minimum Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG, regional housing needs allocation, and building permit issuance data. In 2020, building permits were issued for 38 units designated for very low-income households, 49 for low-income households, 25 for moderate-income level households, and 513 units are for above-moderate, also known as market rate units. The general plan calls for a positive business climate that includes retaining and expanding existing businesses and attracting new businesses to maintain the economic vitality of business locations in the city. Despite 2020 being marked by the pandemic caused economic crisis, Santa Rosa's diverse economy retained a level of stability excluding businesses that are in or reliant on tourism and hospitality. The city responded to business needs with policy and program development and zoning code interpretations, allowing businesses to pivot and make operational changes while remaining compliant with health orders. Examples of this include a cannabis manufacturing facility that switched to making hand sanitizer, and the creative reuse of a vacant commercial space into a micro-entrepreneurial business site for historically marginalized community members. In late June, the city closed several downtown streets to vehicular traffic in response to public health order indoor dining restrictions. The street closures made it possible for restaurants to set up dining areas and increase accessible takeout options in streets and curbside parking spaces. The downtown street closure program has been scaled back from its initial size, however, some areas of 4th street remain for outdoor dining and recreation purposes only. The general plan declares a vision for Santa Rosa, where complete streets provide safe access for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages and ability, and where bicycle and pedestrian improvements have reduced reliance on single occupancy vehicles. This slide shows some of the transportation department's 2020 highlights, which also to be more specific about some of the projects that they completed, Class 2 and Class 2 buffered bike lanes were installed on portions of West 3rd Street, E Street, Hopper Avenue, Kiwana Springs Road, and Pine Road. Pedestrian-oriented projects were completed last year, including sidewalk improvements on North Dutton Avenue, Bellevue Avenue, and Crosswalk enhancements were made near Franklin Park. Santa Rosa City bus continued to provide service and protect the health of passengers and employees amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Not surprisingly, fixed route and paratransit ridership decreased over the 2019-2020 fiscal year from the year prior. The general plan directs the continuing acquisition and development of neighborhood and community parks and special use facilities throughout the city. In addition to the recreation and parks 2020 highlights that can be seen on the slide, city staff reached out to engage with the community to determine citizens' desires for how to prioritize spending the remainder of Santa Rosa's share of revenue from the Measure M one-eighth cent sales tax. Virtual community meetings and workshops began in early 2020 and finished up just a few weeks ago in late April. Now, this one there's a lot of information for, so bear with me. Hopefully it's interesting to everyone. The general plan calls for expedient police response to emergency calls. The Police Department Dispatch Center handled over 246,000 calls for service last year, with police personnel responding to nearly 112,000 of those calls. Each police department service request is categorized in priority levels, the majority being priority one through three. Priority one calls are for an incident progress that threatens life or property. In 2020, the Police Department's median response time for priority one calls was six minutes and 44 seconds. Priority two calls, which are calls for an incident that has the potential to escalate to a priority one status. Last year, the median response time was 11 minutes and eight seconds. Priority three calls are those for past incidents or which do not require an immediate response. In 2020, the median response time was 20 minutes and 57 seconds. All of those times were slightly improved from the prior year. The general plan calls for the Fire Department to collaborate with other local jurisdictions when it improves service levels and is cost effective. Our fire department is part of the Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications Authority, we know it mostly as REDCOM, which is a joint powers agreement for fire and emergency medical dispatch services for most cities and fire protection districts within the county. The fire department also has auto aid agreements with Sonoma County Fire District and Kenwood Fire Protection to ensure the closest most appropriate fire resources are dispatched to an incident regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, the fire department participates in the Santa Rosa Mutual Threat Zone Operating Plan, which is a joint response plan with Sonoma County Fire and Cal Fire and covers specific wildland urban interface areas. The fire department was busy last year also. They responded to 26,409 calls for service of which 61.1% were for emergency medical incidents. For those who might not know, the department provides emergency services for fire, medical, hazardous material and urban rescue incidents responding with 10 paramedic engine companies, two ladder truck companies from five, from 10 fire stations. Last year, there were 609 fire incidents resulting in nearly $6.5 million of fire last year. And those totals do not include glass fire losses. The September glass fire, which affected the eastern part of the city, resulted in the loss of 38 structures and damage to an additional 27 structures. General plan policy requires the city to ensure that an adequate supply of water is available to serve existing and future needs of the city. The city's water supply consists of water from Sonoma water, groundwater and recycled water. In addition, the city participates in an aggressive water conservation program that reduces current demand. In a normal year, the total water supply available to the city is approximately 31 and a half acre feet per year. Santa Rosa's higher water usage today was approximately 24,000 acre feet in 2004, compared to last year, when it was 18, just tiny bit over 18,000 acre feet. And the city has promoted water use efficiency programs for more than 25 years. The city's cumulative water use efficiency efforts results in savings of over 7,100 acre feet per year. Sewage generated by Santa Rosa's residential and non-residential entities is treated at the Laguna Treatment Plant and it's beneficially reused by the Santa Rosa Regional Water Reuse System. Over 30,000 wet tons of solid are treated each year at the Laguna Treatment Plant. The council adopted capital improvement program includes various improvements to the Laguna Treatment Plant and reuse system so that adequate capacity to treat and reuse general plan anticipated wastewater volumes is maintained. Previous planning and environmental work identified projects to be implemented as growth occurs. These future projects will expand the system capacity to meet general plan projections for Santa Rosa and regional partners. The general plan opens space and conservation element includes policies related to open space, the conservation of natural and biological resources and waterways, the promotion of energy and water efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, the Creek Stewardship Program adapted to the pandemic by developing virtual educational and stewardship activities for school and youth groups. Similar activities were introduced during the city's 11th annual and first virtual celebration of Creek Week. More than 6,500 city residents participated in educational and stewardship activities. Community volunteers contributed more than 1,500 hours towards rail maintenance, care of restoration projects and removal of trash from creeks. 42 socially distanced volunteer creek cleanups occurred on 11 different city creeks. The city has two climate action plans that are incorporated into the general plan, a community climate action plan, which includes measures to reduce city-wide greenhouse gas emissions and a municipal climate action plan, which focuses on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in city of Santa Rosa facilities and operations. The climate action subcommittee in 2020 considered a reusable and compostable food wear ordinance, micro grid feasibility study proposals, conducting an energy and renewable energy and storage audit for city-owned facilities and city bus fleet electrification update. The subcommittee also received presentations about city climate action plan update options and a Sonoma County climate mobilization strategy update. General plan policy calls for preserving Santa Rosa historic structures in neighborhoods by pursuing new designated landmarks and preservation districts, ensuring that alterations to historic buildings are compatible with the character of the building and district and increasing public participation in the preservation process. In November of last year, the city initiated a request for proposals process to select a consultant firm to perform a historic resource evaluation of the downtown station area properties that are not located in a preservation district, but that may qualify for nomination to state or national historic registers or otherwise be of local significance. The historic resource evaluation is a downtown station area specific plan policy requirement and will include the preparation of a historic context statement and completion of a comprehensive historic resource survey for applicable projects, properties, sorry. The project, the consultant firm was contracted and the project is underway with the initial survey work beginning next week. The youth and family element promotes the health, safety and welfare of children, teens, the elderly and their families in Santa Rosa by supporting childcare services, youth and senior programs. One thing I really want to highlight is the recreation division school of rec program which provided a safe place for first through fifth grade students to participate in distance learning as mandated by public health order. The school of rec program served 120 youth daily at Steel A and Vinley community centers where small consistent cohorts of up to 12 youth took part in their virtual classroom sessions as well as arts, crafts and academic enrichment activities. The school of rec program ran the entire 2021 year. The noise and safety element presents an overview of the environmental and man-made hazards affecting the city. The city is currently in the process of updating the 2016 hazard mitigation plan using a multi-jurisdictional planning approach. The process includes collaboration with the County of Sonoma, the cities of Katadi and Sonoma, the town of Windsor, multiple fire districts and other entities and the community. The plan will integrate into the noise and safety element of the general plan and will serve multiple purposes including improving awareness and understanding of the hazards that threaten public health safety and welfare, creating action tools for how to address vulnerabilities to future disasters, ensuring that the city is eligible for grant programs and providing inter-jurisdictional coordination of mitigation related programming. The updated hazard mitigation plan will be brought before the council for adoption later this year. In response to public health order restrictions, the city partnered with the Metro Chamber of Commerce, Creative Sonoma and others to create expanded outdoor space for safe socializing and open-air dining. The public art program contributed funding towards temporary art installations adding to funding from Creative Sonoma and the National Endowment for the Arts. Over 20 art projects were completed ranging from temporary installations and performances to permanent public art projects. Shortly after the pandemic began in early 2020, the public art program worked with the Out There SR campaign to create InsideOutThere.com, a website to bring local arts and culture to the community in an online format. Makers, artists, musicians and local businesses are featured on the site and it continues to be a hub to connect to arts and culture. Okay, let's all catch our breath for a minute. That concludes the general plan annual review and now we will take a quick look at calendar year 2020 implementation of the growth management and inclusionary housing ordinances. The city's growth management ordinance regulates residential growth by allowing 800 new residential allotments per year. Growth management allotments are available from two reserves with each reserve having 400 new allotments per year. Reserve A allotments are for accessory dwelling units, mixed use units, units affordable to very low and low income households, multifamily units, single family attached units and higher development, higher density developments and certain smaller single family or detached units. Reserve B allotments are generally for any single family unit greater than 1,250 square feet. Last year, a total of 732 reserve A qualifying units were permitted, including 495 issued building permits and the recordation of the round barn village final map. City code allows for entitlements which are not allotted in allotments, which are not used in a particular calendar year to be added to new allotments for the next calendar year. In 2020, 232 reserve allotments were used, which had been left over between 2017 and 2019. Of the 400 new reserve B allotments made available, 174 allotments were used, including the recordation of the Stony Village North Final Map. The growth management ordinance sunset at the end of 2020. However, the general plan provides housing allocations through 2035. Staff is currently evaluating amendments to the growth management general plan element considering the city's current and projected need for housing development. Okay. The cities 2016 housing allocation plan seeks to increase development of affordable housing. A key tool in that effort is the inclusionary housing ordinance. The inclusionary housing ordinance requires that housing projects include onsite affordable units or the payment of in-loop funds which are used for affordable housing development. In 2020, $1.2 million was collected in housing impact fees, representing a 57% decrease from 2019 when 2.81 million was collected. A significant portion of the 2019 fees were paid in the second half of the year which may be attributable to the changes to the building code that went into effect January 1st, 2020 and folks getting their building permits in early prior to those changes. The 2020 fee collection was also impacted by the pandemic. Fees in the first half of 2020 were 469,000 and the remainder were paid between July and December. The amount of housing allocation plan fees collected since the ordinance's adoption in 1992 is more than $33 million. More than 1,700 affordable units including 1,040 for very low incomes and 669 for low-income households have been supported through this fee. This project is not a project so it is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and with that is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Planning Commission by motion receive the 2020 general plan annual review report. Thank you, Ms. Meads. Do my fellow commissioners have any questions or comments of Ms. Meads? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I have two questions. The first one is regarding slide seven public services and facilities element. You mentioned that police personnel responded to 111,000 plus calls for service out of 246,000 plus calls. And I'm wondering what's the difference in those calls? 134,000 calls. What was the disposition? Were some of them prank calls? Were they forwarded to different agencies? Were they assessed as not being a severe enough incident to respond to? And I'm just wondering if that, if there's a way to, I don't know, increase awareness and education of the population if they're calling its number in error and they shouldn't be using police personnel to respond to calls that they don't, that aren't serious enough to respond to. So that's question number one. And the other one is on slide eight on the water question. If we're in an extreme drought year this year, if that continues for another year or two, is there any potential that we might go to like a water hookup moratorium or what would the impact be if we have more than one or two severe drought years? I could answer the question about the police, the difference between the two calls. And then I will defer to our water expert who is also on this call. As far as the police calls, some of them were pranked, some of them needed to go to fire. Some of them were to refer to different departments. I can get a better breakdown for you from the chief, if you would like, I would prefer to do that than try to guesstimate where all of the other calls went. I do know that police personnel were dispatched to that number, but that doesn't mean that maybe evidence technicians or somebody else went out. I just don't know. So I would rather get you that information and I'll be happy to share that with the commissioners. Hi, this is Peter Martin, deputy director of water resources. I can answer some of the questions regarding drought response. And I just wanted to talk a little bit about where we are. And yeah, I think it's a good question about what occurs, who we are looking ahead towards potentially another drought year, right? If that's a scenario that we should be planning for too, as well, but right now we are asking citywide for a voluntary 20% reduction in water use. And that is because we've been told by Sonoma water that they are filing a temporary sea change petition to reduce their releases from the reservoirs. And with that, they're expecting a reduction in the amount of water they can divert and therefore deliver to their contractors like Santa Rosa water and the city of Santa Rosa. So once we know what those cutbacks are gonna be and those allocations, we'll be instituting what's called our water shortage contingency plan. And that water shortage contingency plan has progressive stages based upon a desired cutback. And I guess if we were to get to a situation where we had a 30% or above in that water shortage contingency plan cutback, we do have a demand offset requirement of new hookups. So that's the long-term offset. We last kind of revisited this with the planning department during the last drought. And so we're kind of looking ahead to how we would implement that if we got to that situation. We're not anticipating that we'll get to that stage this year, but we'll definitely have something in place soon as far as just coordinating with them on a plan for that. And so the way that demand offset program would work is that typically you have a lot of options and a developer could perhaps invest in things like turf replacement projects, direct install of various fixtures and various homes throughout the city that would essentially offset their future demand contingent with total power requirements. So I think I can add some more questions to you. Does get progressive as you enter further and further stages, but there's a variety of possibilities and we've been very engaged with the planning folks on this particular issue. And we'll continue to monitor the situation as it goes in. Thank you. That's clarifying. Thanks. Are there any other questions before we hear from the public? Okay, with that, I would like to open the public comment period. This isn't a public hearing, so it is a bit, I'm gonna officially open the public comment period. 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 has three minutes. The countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of this countdown. Do we, Mr. Maloney or? Thank you, Chair Weeks. At this time, no one's raising their hand for general public comment. Okay. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment period. One of our callers just raised their hand. Okay. The last second. I'm gonna give them permission to speak and Collar, we're gonna, we'll have three minutes once you start. Let's see if they can unmute. Hello, may I speak now? Yes, we can hear you loud and clear. Thank you. Thank you kindly. I tried three times to get into the meeting for public comment at the beginning and also tried just now for this. I'm calling by phone, so it's a bit difficult. My name is Dwayne Dewitt and I'm from Roseland. It was quite an interesting presentation just now. And I think the current planners need to understand one dynamic, 30 years of inclusionary housing growth ordinances, housing allocation plan. All these other types of activities have not brought forward the housing that people had asked for. So in mind, one has to be concerned that we're not following a successful or efficient plan no matter how well it is presented by a staff member. Essentially, it looked like less than 100 affordable housing units to low and very low income people were built last year. It was said that a million some odd was given in fees. But right now with the house in Santa Rosa costing minimum, half a million dollars, that's two houses worth. So I would ask all of you appointed officials and you employed administrative type people to really look at what's going on and go out and talk to houses that aren't just the typical voices. At the housing authority, we've had the same director, the same guy on there for many decades. It takes years to get a project and they cost millions upon millions of dollars. Whereas if we were to change up the game and set it up so that it was absolutely inclusionary only, you don't get to buy your way out, we would begin to start getting this housing built. Secondary to all that, the water issue. Let's be realistic, we're in a drought for a long time, leading up to this year and after this year, it's not gonna end soon. Yet you folks keep approving new water hookups and it's gotten to the point now where you just let a zoning administrator come in and say, hey, it's all good, away we go. This is not the way you should plan a city as large as ours with these large projects coming in. This needs to be something that's discussed in public also. So please open up your meetings to the public as soon as possible again. This telephone and the Zoom approach is discriminatory and exclusionary and it's actually keeping the people from being unable to participate in the people's business. Please help us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dewitt. Mr. Maloney, is there anybody else with a raised hand? Yes, we do have another one, one moment. And I just wanna clarify that this public comment period is not the general public comment period but the public comment period on the study session. So. Thank you. Next we have a Rick Deniston. Hi, thank you very much. I guess I'm confused when I'm reading on the agenda that the public, this is right now in public comments. Are we not in section four public comments? No, we are not. We are a section two, the study session. All right, then I will get back to you when you get to section four. Thank you. Thank you. Any, Betty else? No one else is raising their hand at this time, Chervicks. Thank you, Mr. Maloney. So I'm gonna go ahead and close this public comment period on the study session and bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Duggan, you have a question? No, I just wanted to know if we need a motion to pass this item along. Yes, we do. And I have a couple of questions of Ms. Mead before we get there. So first of all, I would just like to say that this is a great report. Every year it provides so much information and of everything that's been happening in the city. And I think it's something people who are interested in the community as a whole should read. And I'm glad you highlighted School of Rec. I think they've been doing this tremendous. I have a question on page 34 about the Azawa Fountain and wondered if you had an idea as to when the panel installation would start. That's one question I have. And then the second question has to do with on page 39, the growth management ordinance. And you talk about, and you also said in your presentation that that was going to be amended. And I wondered if you knew when that would be coming to the commission. Well, I feel like I'm going to disappoint you too. I don't know about the fountain. It's a very good question. That's one of the pitfalls when one writes this report on older data and I don't have an update. So hopefully next year's report will have something really good to report or I'd be happy to follow up with you and send you something and all the commissioners because I actually would like to know myself. The question about the general plan, general management policy, we're updating the general plan as you know, so it will be looked at obviously then. And I know we're also working on a package of housing things that it could be part of too. Amy, Lyle, if you might have more information on that, I will defer to you. Yes, Chair Weitz, was your question related to the growth management ordinance specifically in that work? Okay, so we are working on bringing that forward. Most likely a July or August item for that and then there will also be some updates to our density bonus ordinance. So that will be a package of housing related things coming to your commission. Thank you. And Ms. Meads, if you wouldn't mind finding out about the Ozawa fountain and emailing all of us, I think some of us have an interest in seeing that finally put back. So I will absolutely do that and I will respond with better information about the discrepancy, well, not the discrepancy, but the difference between the two police numbers as well. That's great. Thank you. Chair Weitz, I can give you an update on that fountain actually. Oh, okay. I just recently heard an update by Tara Thompson, our arts and culture manager, related to that to the downtown subcommittee. And she said that there was an issue with the preservation of the fountain itself and that some of the art infrastructure was decaying. So they're going back to the drawing board to figure out how to preserve those aspects. And they're working with the family to make sure that it's still representative of what was there originally. So I think that delay, they said was gonna take another six months or so before they were able to move forward. Great, thank you. Okay, so now we're at the portion where we need to make a motion to forward this on to city council. So do somebody like to make a motion? Come on. Vice Chair Peterson. I make the motion to move this along to council. Thank you. All second, all second. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. Do we need a vote on this motion, Mr. Maloney? I'm gonna defer to Ms. Crocker. I'm not aware and I didn't know we were gonna take a motion. So it'll be a moment. I guess if there was a motion, then there could be a second and then a vote please to receive the report and forward to the city council for consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Crocker. I'll have to work with the city clerks later. That's not an action that's available to me for the minutes, but we can go ahead and take a vote and I'll work on it later on the backend for the minutes. With that, with Commissioner Carter being absent, Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Commissioner Calia. Aye. Commissioner Krepke. Aye. Vice Chair Peterson. Aye. And Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with six ayes and one absent, Commissioner Carter being absent. You're before it on to the city council. So we move on to our regular agenda. Item three is approval of minutes. Don't believe we had minutes. If that's, is that correct? So we pass over that. And so now we are open to item for public comment period. So now I'm going to open the public comment period and I'm gonna read the same verbiage. She'll hear a few times tonight. For any, so this is a public comment period for any item that's not included on the agenda. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you're a dialing and via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. At the countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown. Do we have anybody? Sorry, chair weeks. I'm gonna have to ask for a quick second. I need to catch up. I'll just be a second. I won't put the recess slide up. Just I need a moment. Just to clarify, which item are we on right now? Chair weeks, item four. Sorry, chair weeks are muted. Item four public comment period. Perfect, thank you. We are ready. We do have one person raising their hand and it is Rick Winston. Thank you very much. I am not familiar with the EIRs. I tried to take a look at the draft EIR for the El Noca project. It's pretty daunting, 700 plus pages, but what appears clear is- Mr. Dennison, I'm gonna interrupt you because this public comment period is for items that are not on the agenda. The El Noca item is on the agenda. Your website is very confusing to follow. It really looked like it was for this comment period was for items that are on the agenda. No, it is for items not on the agenda. Okay, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Wayne, about what time will the El Noca? I have no idea. I see it's the last item on the agenda. It's the last item on the agenda. Mr. Dennison, I think that probably if you check back in at about 5.30. Okay, I appreciate that guidance. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, are there any other comments for items that are not on the agenda tonight? Thank you, Chair Weeks. No one is raising their hand at this time. Thank you. So with that, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public comment section. We go on to planning commissioner's report and item 5.1 is our statement of purpose and which I would like to read for the record. The planning commission is charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws in the city of Santa Rosa. Duties include implementing of 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 of special planning studies as needed. And now I'll ask if there are any committee reports. Okay. Seeing none, go on to commissioner reports. Are there any commissioners, commissioner reports on any items? I have a couple of things. One is that I just wanted to report that we didn't have a mayor's lunch the last two months. So that's why I haven't reported out on it. And also that I participated in a couple of the Santa Rosa general plan updates, community meetings. And I just wanna commend staff for a great job that you're all doing on that. And it's been very interesting and I would encourage other commissioners to participate at the last ones tonight and we probably won't be done for that meeting. So there will be other ones coming up. But anyway, I really do wanna thank staff for all the work that you've all done on that. So with that, we'll go to item six, department reports and Mr. Chippell, I think you were gonna provide us some info. Yes, good afternoon, chair weeks and planning commissioners. We'll report this evening because I'm sure as you know, you all have had a lot of information to digest over the couple of weeks and we want to be able to get on with the rest of this evening's plan commission meeting. Just to follow up on your comments about the general plan visioning chair weeks. In July, the planning commission will participate with city council in a general plan vision workshop. I believe that's scheduled for July 20th and you'll receive more information about that. And then also a referring to item, the El Noka draft EIR review which was published for a 45 day public review on April 15th. Interim deputy director, Bill Rose and I will have some introductory comments to that meeting item prior to Kristin and Aitumian's beginning her item presentation. So with that, that concludes the department report and we look forward to working with you through the rest of the meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next item six, I'm sorry, item eight, consent items, which we have none. And so item nine is our first scheduled item. Stonebridge subdivision mitigated negative declaration planning project 2220 Fulton road PRJ19-049 and this is an ex parte item. So commissioner Duggan. Commissioner Chair Weeks, I'm sorry. This is actually proper. I'm sorry if I missed it, but did you address seven statements of abstention by commissioners? I am sorry, I did not. No problem. Thank you. Thank you for watching over me. Item seven, statement of abstentions. Are there any abstentions tonight on any of the items? Okay, great. Thank you, Ms. Crocker. Okay, so Ms. Duggan, ex parte. I visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I also visited this site and I have no additional information disclosed. Thank you. Commissioner Collier. I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Commissioner Kropke. I visited the site as well as spoke to a representative of the applicant and have nothing further disclosed. Thank you, Vice Chair Peterson. I have nothing to disclose. And I also visited the site and spoke to a representative of the applicant, but nothing further to disclose. So with that, our presenter will be Mr. Ross. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Members of the Planning Commission. I'm gonna go ahead and start the presentation. Okay, do you see it? Okay, great. Yes. Thank you. So again, thank you, Chair Weeks. Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Adam Ross, interim senior planner with Planning and Economic Development Department. The item before you is the Stonebridge subdivision, which includes a mitigated negative declaration, a conditional use permit and a tentative map. And the site is located at 2220 Fulton Road in Northwest first quadrant of the city. The project includes 105 units. So 95 are to be market rate. That's 3.7% of that housing action plan, regional housing needs assessment goal. 10 units are proposed as moderate, which is 1.25% of the goal. The project includes a subdivision of one existing into 105 single family lots, which will house single family units. The lot sizes range from 3,494 square feet to 8,958 square feet. So again, 95 single family detached units and 10 single family attached. Those are also known as duets, not duplexes, duets. Lots, the duets are located on lots 32 through 35, 68 through 71, 97 and 98. The division also includes three associated parcels. I'll kind of go over that a little bit, specifically parcel C, which is 14 acre parcel is, the total side of the existing parcel is 28.6 acres. It is home to seasonal wetlands. The west side of the parcel is for the residential subdivision portion, that's 14.6 acres. And the east side is to be observed in place for Burke's Goldfield habitat. So here's an image of kind of what I just was talking about. So here is the Stonebridge subdivision. This includes 105 new lots. This is parcel A, this is for stormwater retention. This is not part of the subdivision. You can see it connects to Andre Lane to the subdivisions to the north and south of the project. And parcel B is, I think it's for access maintenance easement. And then here is the parcel C, which is 14 acres of preserve. That would connect to the Woodbridge preserve just north of the site. So the required discretionary approvals, they're all before the Planning Commission today. That's for secret compliance. That is a mitigated negative declaration. And MMRP means mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program. That's part of the mitigated negative declaration, also known as an MND, a conditional use permit for a residential small-out subdivision. So that's when a subdivision for new homes includes lots that are less than 6,000 square feet in an area. And a tentative map that would go with the actual, that would include the actual subdivision of the project. Bit of the project history. So in September, 2019, a neighborhood meeting was held. December, 2019, the project application was submitted on May 20, 2020. The initial study and mitigated negative declaration was circulated for the 30-day public review period. And then in March of this year, the application was deemed complete. So the project location, again, it's in Northwest Santa Rosa. You can see the start to notes, the location in this blue outline is the parcel of 7.19 acres. So it's still within the low-density residential allowable density. So the zoning, again, it's PD04 dash years or seven. It was part of the Northwest Santa Rosa, 3-97 policy, policies document. It was annexed into the city 2004. And then I think finalized in 2007, included in that plan development statement as part of, and as part of the annexation, I'd included the North Village and Woodbridge Developments Project. They're both north of the site. And within that PD, all other developments require a use permit. And so, and then at the same time, the base zoning under that PD is R16. And as I said, lots that subdivisions that include a 6,000 square foot or less than 6,000 square foot lots or homes are subject to a conditional use permit for a residential small lot subdivision, in which case the standards do apply. And this is 20 dash 42.140 of the zoning code is where you can find all of those development standards. Overall, the project applies with all of those standards in that zoning code section, but they do propose alternatives to setbacks and two-story structure design. As far as parking goes, the project complies with all parking requirements, which is one covered parking space and then three additional, which can be in the garage, in the driveway or right in front of the property on the street. Those small subdivision development standards, it requires a four foot side yard, setback for the one story portion and an eight foot side setback for the second story portion of the home. There is also language that allows the plan to prove that alternative under the conditional use permit. It has been done many times before and it's found throughout the city of Santa Rosa subdivisions. And so the requested alternative to the second store is for the second story side setback to be four feet on each side rather than eight. And I'll go into a little bit more of that on the next slide, but that is also allowed within the zoning code section. For two-story structures, it's design standards built into the code. The three requirements, which are also alternatives are also allowed, via approval by the review authority, which is the Planning Commission. But it is the second, the floor area of the second story is no more than 50% of all roof first floor areas of the dwelling unit. 25% of the units in the project are one story or all two-story units have one-story elements. In this case, most single family plan types have a set eight foot second story setback on one side. And I'll show you in the elevations for reference. And as stated before, it's very similar to surrounding subdivisions in the area throughout Santa Rosa. At the same time, there are some single story elements included with some of these plan types. I'll let the applicant team kind of go over that a little bit in their presentation. And then here's a site plan of what that looks like with this development. So it connects to the subdivisions to the north and south. It would be an open wire fence that separates the preserve from the subdivision. This is that Stonebridge preserve. And then the attached duet units are here. If you can see my cursor, it's 32, 33, lots, 34, 35, 68, 69, 70, 71, and 97 and 98, which show all the connected, sorry, the single family attached units. Here's another version of that site plan just without any of the, anything else. This is the, each of the lots as they are proposed. Landscape plan, which includes tree trees and landscaping where appropriate. Here's a zoom in of the parcel A, which is included in the proposal for stormwater compliance. And then here are those elevations for reference. As you can see the three up here have that extra side setback, but this side doesn't. This plan type here does not include that additional setback, but they do include front porches and pop outs and some roof lines on the first floor area. This is the duets plan type that this does not require any sort of alternative to be acknowledged by the planning commission approved. Side yard setbacks don't apply when they're attached housing. As far as issues go, there are none with the project. The environmental review included an initial study, a mitigated negative declaration, which also includes a mitigation monitoring reporting program. It was circulated for a 30 day review that took place between May 29th, 2020 through June 29th, 2020. Comments were received by both outside agents. Comments, responses as those comments are included in the agenda packet. There was an additional comment received outside of that circulation period for which a comment was response was included, was given and is included in the agenda packet. The public comment, mostly about vegetation management, the existing undeveloped site can get overgrown pretty quickly and worry for any sort of environmental hazards such as fire. The applicant did provide responses that there is ongoing maintenance required and vegetation management of the preserve and the existing site which they will comply with. And also questions about the preserve, how long is it in perpetuity? And yes, it is. And with that, the recommendation from the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by resolutions approve the Stonebridge Subdivision Project, a 105-unit residential small and subdivision which includes adopting the mitigated negative declaration and approving the conditional use permit and adopting the tentative map. And with that, that concludes a staff's presentation. I do have some a document to enter the public record which is against presentation. It does not present any new information. It was an error on just that it wasn't included in the agenda packet, it is now. And so I'm letting you know and they will go over that right after this. And I can answer any questions now or we could go through whatever you prefer whether it be now for staff or go through the applicant presentation, just let me know. Thank you. Do you have any questions of Mr. Ross at this point from the applicants? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I have two questions. One is the fence that is gonna be on the edge of the preserve. Is it gonna be conditioned to look like that one that's in the area to the north? I think I can't remember if it would bridge or whatever that development is called. So it's gonna look like that and have similar signage. And also for the small lot subdivision development standards, you need 400 square feet of open space outside. And I saw that on the plan, some of the houses are gonna be offered with an optional covered porch. And if somebody opts for that, does that count? Do you still need 400 feet beyond that if you've covered that porch or is that okay to be in that 400 square foot open space area? That is, those are two good questions, especially the second one. I'll work on getting you a definitive answer on the second one. For the first one, I'm gonna let the applicant team maybe highlight that and answer that and during the presentation and I will try and get that information for you as well. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ross. So can we go ahead and promote the applicant to panelists so we can hear their presentation? Yeah, so they can please raise their hand so we can get there. And Mr. Ross, if you can repeat their name for me. Yes. So we have David Jacobson, Peter Hellman, Deve. Thank you for raising your hand, woman. I have given you a pen and you're able to share your screen and present when you're ready. I will, so the applicant team just tell me when to change slides and I'm gonna open that up for you right now. Mr. Jacobson, you're muted. My apologies. That's okay. Thank you for calling that to my attention. It's always important. Hello and good afternoon members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to present our project to you today. We've been working on this project for over seven years and we're very excited to present it to you this evening. Specifically, I'm David Jacobson of 2220 Fulton Road and we greatly appreciate your time today to review our project and look forward to receiving your feedback. Please let me start by sharing our proposed presentation agenda. We wanted to share three items tonight. And number one is our introduction of the project team. Two is a history of the property and three is a project overview. So let me get started. As I mentioned, I'm David Jacobson and I'm one of the property owners and our families own this since the very early sixties. Peter Howman and he will be presenting tonight the Detailed Project Overview. Dev Gachu, who's from the city will be presenting some information on inclusionary housing. And then additionally, we have all of our architects, project planners and engineers for any detailed questions. Next, I'd like to share a brief history of the property. Our family has been part of Santa Rosa for over 60 years. We came to Santa Rosa in the late fifties. And in the early sixties, my uncle purchased the 28.6 acres located at 2220 Fulton Road to be his home and farm. My father passed away when I was a little kid. And so he's basically raised. I've been part of this property pretty much my entire life. My uncle worked very hard on the property in the early days. He was very loved Santa Rosa and our family has strived to maintain the land throughout the years. Unfortunately, recently he passed away. And so we want to continue his vision of what he thought would be really a contributor to the community. As protected wetlands and speed priority, we shifted our focus to protect the biological resources on the property that were highlighted earlier in the presentation. Later on, as Santa Rosa's needs for housing grew, our family participated in the community process to incorporate the area into the city. And that, as was mentioned, was in the 2004-2007 period where a lot of the development efforts by the city took place in this area. Based on these two community priorities, housing and preservation of biological resources, and a great deal of feedback we received, our family has worked hard for over seven years to develop a project that we hope meets the needs of all the community and resource agency stakeholders. We've worked aggressively with the city to understand their needs with our neighbors and community members and with all the resource agencies to get what their needs and requirements are and do our very best to meet them all. The 28-acre project we're proposing will have two elements. The first, as mentioned, will be at the West Parcel Fronting Bolton Road. It'll be 14.6 acres of housing. And the second piece will be the East Parcel and it'll be 14 acres for biological preserve. So essentially approximately 50% housing and 50% preserve. And the preserve, as mentioned, will be attached to the preserve to the north more than doubling that preserve. It's 12 acres and we're going to have 14, so it's more than 100% increase in the preserve. We believe that this project provides both the goals of housing and the protection of endangered species. And we're looking forward tonight to present more detail about this project. So at this time, I'm going to conclude and I'm going to pass it over to Peter Helman, who's the developer. And he and the team will share with you the details of the proposed project. But most importantly, I want to thank you for allowing our team to present this project to you. And most importantly, I want to thank all the staff, Bill Rose, Adam, and a whole host of people that I've met along the journey. Every one of them has been professional, pleasant and provided me tremendous, first time I've ever gone through this process and I commend them for all their help and education that they've provided us. And so very much a big thank you to them. So I'm going to pass this off to Peter. Thank you, David. And Adam, if you've kindly changed the slide to two. Thank you. I think it would be a good place to start to kind of paint Stonebridge into the planning context of Northwest Santa Rosa City here that Stonebridge is a infill project located between Woodbridge, which lies to the north, and Montage, which lies to the south. The development of this property, as well as the other parcels in the vicinity has been anticipated since the 1990s when the EIR for the Northwest Santa Rosa annexation was first circulated. And as Adam noted, the annexation was completed in 2004. And Stonebridge is consistent therefore with the General Planned Land Use designation and the PD zoning ordinance. And as you can see in this plan here that it conforms to the development patterns of the adjoining neighborhoods. It's a short walk to Jack London School and the Jack London Park. And as I'll discuss in more detail in a few moments, the Stonebridge Preserve is an important benefit, community benefit of the project. Adam, if you could please go to slide three. We've done a considerable amount of neighborhood outreach to the city sponsored neighborhood meeting which was held in September of 2019. We held our own neighborhood meeting in June which was attended by 24 of our neighbors. We had, it was a two hour meeting, we received a lot of feedback and much of it positive, some current concerns expressed. But as a result of the feedback we received that night and in the subsequent city sponsored neighborhood meeting, we did make some important changes to our project. Specifically, we agreed to form an HOA for the maintenance of all the common area facilities of the project, deleting the special tax district that we had previously proposed, which was not popular with our neighbors, North City staff on high down. And we also agreed to stub a water line to one of our neighbors. Adam, if you could go forward to slide four. Thank you. The project Stonebridge has undergone considerable exhaustive environmental review. Over the past 17 months, the initial study and mitigated negative declaration comprises 206 pages and the appendices to it, another close to 1200 pages. So a lot of analysis to go through for a project that's been proposed for development for over 20 years. But we've completed separate analyses of air quality, biological resources, noise, traffic impacts, and a host of other environmental subjects. Adam, if you can move forward. We'd like to spend a moment to highlight the residential project and what we're achieving there. Again, as been previously mentioned, the West parcel is proposed for subdivision into 105 lots, 95 of which are single family detached lots and 10 are due S. Again, the open space will be managed by a homeowners association and the 10 duet homes will be price restricted for moderate income households. And to our knowledge, we're not the first, but we are certainly among the very few projects in Santa Rosa that have proposed the affordable housing to be constructed onsite. And we are proud to be partnering with the Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County, which is going to manage and administer the affordable housing program for us. And as a result, I'd like to turn the program over briefly to Deb Gachis, who is the Executive Director of the Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County. Deb, are you there? Hello. One moment, she's getting new permissions. Deb, you're able to unmute and turn on your camera when you're ready. Good evening. I am delighted to be here. I'm actually on a vacation for my daughter's graduation in San Diego, but no way know how is I gonna miss this meeting. We are just thrilled to be looking at another project in Santa Rosa. I'm Deb Gachis. As Peter said, thank you Director of Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County. We were established in 2002 and we partnered with the cities of Pataluma, Katadi, Brunner Park, Santa Rosa and Healdsburg and Cloverdale. Our first project was actually the Cali subdivision in Santa Rosa where we have 10 homes and we've had six resales already over there. So we've served 16 families to date. We have grown a little bit since our first project. We've got 105 homes throughout the county and 19 resales, which means that people were able to sell their homes and move into market rate homes that we did not lose in our community with the equity that they built. We've got 33 homes under construction, 37 in the pipeline and we have served 124 families. We really feel that our role is to be a partnership, in partnership with the city, the developer and to deliver the inclusionary units as adjunct staff to the city, to know and understand what it is that your housing goals are and to make sure that they're delivered and to lessen the burden for the government to develop those houses and make them available to working families. The developer has the land trust as one of their team members and we do participate in all of the hearings and work with staff directly, your city attorney, et cetera. And the idea is that the program is administered by us while the developer can do what they do best, which is build the homes. Our mission is to provide home ownership opportunities to working families in Sonoma County. And the objective is to keep the homes affordable in perpetuity. We do housing, but what we do isn't really about housing. Housing is a vehicle to something more, which is to recruit and retain our local workforce. We need to create opportunities where people can stop renting, start owning, build that equity and then take that and buy market rate homes. And that is what we're seeing that we're doing here. We house a lot of teachers, medical personnel, first responders, city employees in partnership with our cities. When we house our families, we develop a relationship during the pre-purchase phase because we qualify them based on the city's criteria. We spend a lot of time getting to know that we provide education around financing and all the documents, the paperwork, et cetera. Once our families are in the home, we provide ongoing stewardship. We are in touch with our families every single month. We provide stewardship in the form of counseling. We administer the REFI process for them when we have tough times like the pandemic or the great recession, we are right there connected to our families to talk about budgets and things like that. And then during the period where they decide to sell their home, we step in and the same process was repeated where we do our marketing directly to local employers, to the hospitals, the schools, and other local employers so that employers view this opportunity to partner with us as a benefit to their employees, where they give information about retirement and medical insurance. Housing is now something else that they've added to their list. The program seeks to invest once in partnership with the city and the developer. The land underneath the home will stay in trust through the Housing Land Trust forever. And the only purpose of that land is that the house that sits on it will be affordable to that income level. So it's a one-time investment and that subsidy is recycled every time the home is sold. The price of the home is tied to incomes. And so the home is as affordable to the initial buyer as it is to subsequent buyers. So for example, at the Kelly subdivision in Santa Rosa, one of our homes that is affordable to a family at 80% of my low income has now the fourth family living there. And it has been affordable the first time and three times since then. And each of those families has been able to afford it without additional subsidy. We will not be coming back to you and saying that we need more money to keep a home affordable. It's a one-time investment. Again, we are creating a methodology by which we are strengthening the fabric of our community because we are keeping our workforce here. We have seen a lot of impact from the fires where people have lost their rentals. People are paying close to 50% of their income on housing and through the program, they will be paying about a third of their income for all of their housing costs. And we are providing a safe and secure place to live. At the end of the day, the city of Santa Rosa will be creating a community asset in partnership with us. That will serve as a permanent subsidy perpetuity. We love what we do. We're really, really excited to be part of this project. If you have any questions, I'd be delighted to answer them. Thank you, Dev. I've built affordable housing components in many projects around the Bay Area. And I can't tell you how lucky you guys are to have Dev and her group in Sonoma County. They are by far the best organized and most professional affordable housing provider I've had the pleasure of working with around the Bay Area. Anyway, Adam, if you could move forward to slide seven. I would be remiss if I didn't touch for a few moments on the Stonebridge Preserve, which is, to me, it is a significant benefit of the Stonebridge project. You can see in the middle of the map here, there's a yellow and green area, the yellow representing the development area of the Stonebridge project and the green representing the Stonebridge Preserve. Immediately to its north is the Woodbridge Preserve. And then you can see the other vernal pool in wetland preserves and conservation banks that have been created in Northwest Santa Rosa over the past 20 years. The 14 acre Stonebridge Preserve will be an important addition to the wetlands that have been created, restored and enhanced to assure the survival of rare and endangered plants on the Santa Rosa Plain. It more than doubles the size of the adjoining Woodbridge Preserve. It includes over five and a half acres of wetlands, which will be specially constructed to be ideal habitat for the Berks Goldfields, which is a net federally listed endangered plant species. The Stonebridge Preserve provides nearly all the mitigation required of the Stonebridge Development Site. And it is a product of eight years of effort that has generated incredible support among all the relevant resource agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Adam, if you could go to slide eight. In conclusion, I've got to stop and say staff has been fantastic to work with. They've been intelligent, attentive, responsive and creative with us and have helped us create a far better plan than we came in with. So thank you to staff. We agree with all the recommendations and proposed conditions of approval presented in the staff report and resolutions that have been provided to you. Stonebridge is a great project. It's an infill project that fits into the development pattern of the community. It helps preserve the environment and provides needed housing at multiple income levels for Santa Rosa. We've worked effectively with the neighbors and we've completed thorough environmental studies of the project. We hope and respectfully request that you will support staff's recommendations and approve our applications. And we've got several members of our team on the Zoom meeting tonight. We're here to cover just about any question you have. So please let me know if you have questions for me or any member of our development team. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Hellman. Are there any questions of the applicant before we go to public comments? Commissioner Holton. Yeah, I did have one question for Peter. I did note that he mentioned about the HOA. I was wondering, have the HOA dues been set yet for the low income housing portion? Is there going to be a discrepancy between the low income housing, HOA dues, and the non-low income housing, HOA dues? Thank you, Commissioner Holton. Good question. That hasn't been established yet, but typically you spread assessments based on lot size and the smallest lot sizes in the development are the 10 affordable units. So although it hasn't been set yet, I would certainly anticipate that the lowest HOA dues will be assessed to the applicants. Okay, great, great. Thank you, thank you, Peter. Are there any other questions of the applicant? Okay, seeing none, we will go ahead. Yes, Mr. Ross. Chair Weeks, thank you. Sorry to interrupt, I just wanted to follow up on Commissioner Dugan's two questions. So we've got, the first one was the covered patio the, sorry, the covered patio for private open space. So I was going over the attachments and if it's not fully enclosed, then it doesn't take away from the private open space. So it's just covered, it's still counts as that requirement. At the same time, the project plans show that even with the covered patio, they still achieve their 400 square feet as well as the required dimensions of the project. And then in regards to the fencing, on the landscape plan, which is attachment eight of the project, you can see the front page L1 kind of notes where the wire fence goes. And that's along the preserve where it separates for the preserve from the subdivision. And then it shows what that wire mesh, that it's five foot wire mesh fence looks like on the L4 sheet. At the same time, the commission can condition the project to, in case you wanna specifically see that fencing or whatever is existing on the site be carried over onto this project as well. Great, thank you, Mr. Roth. Yes. So with that, we will go ahead and open the public hearing. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. The speaker has three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. Mr. Maloney, are there any raised hands? Yeah, thank you, Chair Weeks. No one is raising their hand at this time. Okay, we'll wait just a few seconds longer. Still no one. That is correct. No one is. Okay. So with that, we will go ahead and close the public hearing. Are there any recorded comments? Probably not. I'm no longer to do that, but... Okay, thank you. So with that, we'll bring it back to the commission. We'll discuss, even though there are three resolutions, but we'll discuss the project as a whole, as is our typical method. So, would somebody like to enter the resolution? And then we can start talking about the project. Deputy Director Rose. Chair Weeks, I just wanted to remind you, I don't know if you actually formally close the public hearing. So probably should do that first, and then you can entertain the motion in the second. Thank you, Mr.... I formally close the public hearing. Thank you very much, Mr. Rose. So with that, would somebody like to make Commissioner Duggan? I'll move for resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Stonebridge Subdivision, located at 2220 Fulton Road, Assessors' Parcel Numbers 034-030-070, file number PRJ19-009, and wave for the reading. Thank you. I'll second. Thank you. So that will move by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Kropke. So comments, Commissioner Duggan. Sure, I can make all the required findings for the project. I think it's got a lot of real positive aspects to it. It fills out the neighborhood. It adds to the preserved space and the wetlands there, and I think that's really great. It's consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. It's got the affordable housing component and the partnership with the land trust. So I'm in support of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I also can make all the necessary findings and I'd like to commend the team on their preparation for this project. They did a wonderful job and the presentation was really, really well put together. So I appreciate your time and I can make all the findings to support this project as well. Thank you. Commissioner Kalia. Yes, I can make all the required findings for the M&D and the MMRP and for the project as a whole. I think it's a great project and I know it's been a long time in the works and I appreciate everyone sticking with it throughout the years and I look forward to seeing it built the next three to five years-ish. Commissioner Kropke. Yeah, I can make all the required findings for the alphabet soup, the M&D, the MMRP, the CUP. So I will be in support of this project. I like the variety of looks. I think if you take all the models, the different types of models, the different types of elevations, I think there's somewhere around like 15 different kinds of looks that will be able to be going to that neighborhood. Love the fact that the formal is on site and that you're taking that on yourselves and not paying in movies. And I also like the landscaping as someone who had to build a house recently, the landscaping is something that becomes very important since they're drought tolerant. So I approve of the pollinator plants that are in there. And then I also really do appreciate the fact that it's gonna connect some of those streets so that you'll be able to go from pretty much and Fountain Grove all the way through to this neighborhood or our Tedeschi without having to get on like a Fulton, for example, where there's no sidewalks and everything like that. So again, I can make all the required findings and I'll be in support of the project. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson. Well, I think my fellow commissioners have handled this ably. I agree with their comments. I think it's a well put together project, well thought out, meets all the requirements and I can make all the necessary findings. Thank you. I also will be supporting the project. I think all the components really make for a great neighborhood. I really do like the affordable housing component. While you're not the first, you're one of the few. So I appreciate that. And I already said I can make all the findings. So with that, we'll go ahead. I'll go ahead. Mr. Maloney, if you would like to call the roll. Yes, it appears we have three resolutions if we can have a little bit of patience between the three. Sure, no problem. For this one, Commissioner Carter is absent. So we'll start with Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Commissioner Calia. Aye. Commissioner O'Crepkey. Aye. Vice Chair Peterson. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So with that, the first resolution passes with six ayes, Commissioner Carter absent. I'm sorry, Mr. Ross. Yes. Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to add one more bit of clarification to for the commission. As part of the project, we wanted to allow a little bit more flexibility to make sure that they can comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance in the future. So staff is recommending that the condition of approval number 11 be amended to add the language replacement of single family detached units on lots 48 and 49 with single family duet units in order to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance is allowed. I'm trying to find where that is. So that would be under the next one coming up, which is the conditional use permit resolution. It's under item, condition of approval number 11. So it would be adding 11A. Okay. Great. And Chair Weeks, you could or a motion maker could just accept that as Mr. Ross has indicated into the record. And if necessary, he could repeat it again if you'd like that for clarification. Thank you. So one of my fellow commissioners want to introduce the second resolution on this item. I can do it. I'll give the commissioner a break. So I'd like to move resolution of planning commission and the city center is making the findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for the Stonebridge subdivision, 145 unit residential small lot subdivision located at 2220 Holton Road APN 034-030-070 file number PRJ19-049 and wave further reading with the addition of 11A as project planner Ross said into the record. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. And seconded by commissioner Krepke. Mr. Maloney, are we good to go or are you need a little more time? I am. Okay. And can you share weeks also if you could just have each of your commissioners just speak to that they can make the findings or not make the findings on this resolution so that we have a clear record prior to the vote. Okay. So commissioner Duggan, can you make the findings? I can make the findings for the tentative maps and resolution. Thank you. Mr. Holton. I can also make the findings for the tentative maps solution. Thank you. Commissioner Kahlia. I can also make the required findings but also I think we're talking about the conditional use permit not the tentative map on this one, right? But yes, I can make the required findings for the conditional use permit as with the addition that project planner Ross put in. Thank you. Commissioner Krepke. I can make all the required findings for the CUP with the including the additions by project planner Ross. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson. I can make all the required findings of the CUP as amended. And I also can make all the required findings as amended. And I also can make all the required findings for the CUP as amended. Okay. Commissioner Duggan. I would also like to go on the record but I can make all the required findings for the CUP as amended by planner Ross. Thank you. So Ms. Crocker, does that work? Thank you everyone. That is perfect. Okay. Appreciate it. Great. So now, Mr. Maloney, if you would call the roll. Yes. With Commissioner Carter being absent, start with Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Holden. Aye. Commissioner Collion. Aye. Commissioner Krepke. Aye. Vice Chair Peterson. Aye. And Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with six ayes. Commissioner Carter being absent. And then we go on to the resolution for the tentative map. If someone would like to introduce that. Commissioner Collion. I'll do it. I'll do it. I'd like to know resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, approving the Stonebridge subdivision tender map located at 2220 Fulton Road APN 034-030-070 file number PRJ19-049 and waive for the reading. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Krepke. So we move on to the end, Steve. Vic, how the commissioners feel about the findings. Commissioner Duggan. I can make all the findings for the tentative map. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. Thank you, Commissioner Krepke. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. For the second time, I can also make all the findings for the tentative map. Thank you, Commissioner Collion. I can also make all the required findings for the tentative map. Commissioner Krepke. I can make the required findings for the tentative map. Thank you, Vice Chair Peterson. I can also make the required findings for the tentative map. And I also can make all the required findings for the tentative map. So that, as I said, was moved by Commissioner Kahlia, seconded by Commissioner Krepke. Mr. Maloney, whenever you're ready. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Commissioner Carter being absent. Commissioner Devin? Aye. Commissioner Holden? Aye. Commissioner Kahlia? Aye. Commissioner Krepke? Aye. Vice Chair Peterson? Aye. Chair Weeks? Aye. Thank you, everyone. So that concludes item 9.1. We are going to take a break for 10 minutes, if that works for staff or changing staff around, or does that work? Yes, Chair Weeks. 10-minute break would be fantastic. OK. So we will come back at 5.54, 5.55. Let's make it five minutes to six. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Mr. Maloney, are we ready to go? Let me check with staff one moment. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Staff is ready. OK. Thank you. So this next item is a public hearing, the El Noca Continuing Care Retirement Community Environmental Impact Report, PRJ17-040. This is an exparte hearing. So Commissioner Duggan? I visited the site. Let's see. I hiked at Annadel yesterday specifically to see what the visual impacts might be. And I had a brief conversation with Eris. Weaver, who is the executive director of the Snowman County Bicycle Coalition regarding the proposed bicycle facilities on the project. And then that no additional information was found out in any of that process. Thank you. Commissioner Holton? I have no information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Collier? I visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Krepke? I visited the site and have nothing further disclosed. Thank you, Vice Chair Peterson? I visited the site and have no additional information to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. So with that, Mr. Rose and Mr. Triple, lead us off. Yes, indeed. Chair Weeks, Vice Chair Peterson, members of the commission. It's a pleasure to be here tonight and to present to you the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Alnoka Village Project. I wanted to say just a few words and offer kind of a broad context for tonight's meeting. I'll then hand it over to Andrew. He's going to drill down a little deeper into the format for tonight's meeting. And then, as Andrew mentioned earlier in tonight's meeting, Kristen A. Toomey and Senior Planner, as well as First Carbon Solutions, the city's EIR consultant will give you a more detailed presentation. Before I begin, I wanted to say an offer. Thanks. Thanks to the patients of the applicant team. This project has been here for some time. Over the time that we've had it under review, we've gotten to know this site quite well. We think that we have an EIR that is very detailed, it's thorough, and it's adequate, which is the threshold for secret evaluation. I wanted to also thank and acknowledge the patients of the city staff that's worked on this. It's been quite a team effort behind the scenes across all departments within the city. Not just the planning department, but all departments. Also, the neighbors. We've had a very active neighbor community. I've gotten to know a number of them. Enjoyed my conversations. I've learned a lot because of this situation. I know many are here tonight. I want to thank them for their time and effort on this project. I wanted to say a couple of things, just as I mentioned broadly about tonight's meeting. Tonight is part of the public review comment for an EIR. So at its core, CEQA, all of the CEQA documents, not just EIRs, they're public disclosure documents. They're informative in that we do our analysis. We rely on studies. We present that information. We're trying to seek potential impacts to the environment and really more importantly, ways to mitigate or offset those. So it's informative in that sense. But the document is also informed. With an EIR in particular, we go through our public comment period where we take comments from the public, but also from the planning commission, partner agencies, and really any interested party that chooses to provide their feedback. And part of the EIR process is that we are obligated to respond to those items that we receive in writing. And that's what forms the environmental impact report, is the response to comments. So it's both informative and informed. I wanted to also say what tonight is not, because I think that's really important. What tonight is not is a discussion on the merits of the project and the entitlements. So there's no action being taken tonight. The project will not be approved tonight. Tonight, the commission is going to give feedback. We'll also be able to take public comment and get feedback. It doesn't stop tonight. So anybody that has additional items they'd like to present to the city and put on record, they're certainly welcome to do so in writing. They can provide that to the staff planner. And so there will be no construction affectivity because of what the commission does tonight. And I just, I wanted to make sure everyone knows that and certainly for members of the public that are participating. So it's largely a listening exercise for staff. So we're going to be taking vigorous notes. So we can come back with the, as I mentioned, the final environmental impact report, the response to comments and we can conclude with a complete and adequate document. So hopefully that gives a little bit of context to tonight, what tonight is and what tonight is not. With that, I'll turn it over to Andrew triple. Hey, great. Thanks, Bill. So just to follow up on a couple of comments that Bill made, but first, we do want to welcome city attorney Sue Gallagher to this evening's meeting item. Sue will be participating as the legal counsel for the city, for the El Nolka draft DIR. The draft DIR was distributed for 45 day public review in accordance with secret procedure on April 30th, 2021. Kristen and A2 Miens will go through the beginning and end dates and what will happen during and after the public review process. I especially wanted to note and refer to the city code which brings us to this evening's review of the draft DIR by planning commission during the public review period. So the public hearing is being held in accordance with city code section 17-04.180 which states that the decision-making body may conduct a public hearing to review the adequacy of the draft DIR which may be held during or after the public review period. And so it has been traditionally the city's policy and practice to offer to planning commission the opportunity to schedule a public hearing and to provide comments on the draft DIR. So having said that then, it's exactly as Bill said, this evening's public hearing is about the draft DIR so comments and questions should be constrained to the contents of the EIR and to an analysis presented in that document. So with that, I would like to go ahead and introduce Kristen A2 Miens who will lead off with the city's planning staff presentation about the draft DIR and then turn it over to FCS consultant Mary Bean who is the city's PR Yard consultant. Thank you, Kristen A. Thank you, Mr. Triple. This is Kristen A2 Miens, a senior planner. And tonight we're talking about the NOCA continuing care retirement community. And we are reviewing the EIR and eliciting comments from the public and the planning commission. As Mr. Triple mentioned, per 17-04-180, the planning commission may hold a public hearing to review the adequacy of the draft EIR. A notice was sent to every property owner and tenant within 1,000 feet of the project boundary which is more than what the code requires which is 600 feet and more than what SQL requires. And the purpose of this hearing is to receive comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR that was posted and circulated. And the EIR provides analysis on the potential environmental impacts that are associated with the NOCA continuing care retirement community project. So just a brief history on the project. This current iteration started back in 2016. On September 1st, 2016, the designer review board reviewed a concept design of the proposed project. On October 20th, 2016, planning staff held a pre-application neighborhood meeting at the Berger Auditorium. On May 25th, 2017, the current applicant applied for a tentative map, conditional use permit, design review and hillside development permit and EIR certification to allow for the development of 664 senior care units which includes 74 cottages, 528 apartment units and a 62 unit care center. And the inner care units include 12 affordable and play housing units as well as a recreational center and various amenities. On July 12th, 2017, a notice of preparation or NOP was mailed to responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties and individuals beginning the formal seqa scoping process. We used a similar radius for all of our notices, so 1,000 feet. The purpose of the scoping process is to allow the public an opportunity to provide input on the scope of the EIR and that 30-day scoping process began on July 12th, 2017 and ended on August 11th, 2017. On July 27th, 2017, the city held a public scoping meeting at the Berger Auditorium at Oakmont Community Center to gather additional input. On December 17th, 2017, the project was presented to the Waterways Advisory Committee to advise as to whether the proposed ELNOCA project is consistent with the city-wide Pre-Comaster Plan. On April 30th, 2021, the draft EIR was released for public review with a 45-day circulation period that began on April 30th of this year and will end on June 15th. At this meeting, staff is asking for the commission to provide comments regarding the EIR and the adequacy of the EIR. With that, staff would like to introduce the consultant that assisted in preparing the EIR to dive into the document itself. You're muted, Ms. Bing. Good evening, planning commissioners and members of the public. Sorry, I was having some trouble getting my presentation started. I think it's one, I start, I can't see you all, so I'll go ahead and do that. My name is Mary Bean. I am a project director at First Carbon Solutions and oversaw the preparation of the draft EIR. Some of my, I have about 10 minutes worth of slides to present tonight, some of which folks that have preceded me have already covered some of this information, so I may move through a little quicker in places. Again, the purpose of the meeting tonight is to receive public comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR. I'll also provide a little project overview and overview of the environmental process with which Kristin A. already touched upon and an overview of the contents of the draft EIR. So again, we're here to receive public comments on the draft EIR. You're encouraged to provide written comments as well by June 15th. Here's some information about where you can send comments, either by email to Kristin A. or by hard copy. And I have a slide at the end that repeats this information. It's also on the city's website. It's in the draft EIR. If you have any trouble at all, just contact Kristin A. or anyone at the city. We can provide that information to you. Ms. Bean, we aren't seeing your presentation. You're not seeing my slides? No. Oh my goodness. All right. Let's see. Sorry about that. Let's try again. I will share screen two. Start from the beginning. There. You see it now? Yes, we do. Thank you. So this is where I started talking about what I was gonna cover today, talking about what we're here tonight to do. And again, here's Kristin A's information and we can provide that. Again, at the end of this presentation and it's readily available at the city if you need instruction. The project is located on Sonoma Highway in the eastern side of city of Santa Rosa, 6100 and 6160. Here's an aerial of the site. Sonoma Highway runs along the northern boundary of the project site, as you can see. In terms of the project itself, as Kristin A mentioned, there's a total of 676 units proposed, 664 community care units, 12 employee housing units, and a number of associated improvements and amenities. As we said, there's amenities such as private dining rooms and entertainment and activities that are listed along the left side of this slide. There's a number of outside recreational amenities that are listed on the right side of this slide. The next slide shows a site plan of how the property is proposed to be developed. You can see the detached cottages in brown through the center of the site. The larger yellow rectangular buildings are the apartment units. The community care center is a little darker yellow towards Sonoma Highway, which is across the bottom of the screen in this slide. And the recreation center is the dark brown building, also along Sonoma Highway. The project is proposed to be constructed in five phases over a course of five years. As you can see, generally 100 or so units a year with the first phase having more, 200 units plus some of the major amenities to get things started. There are a number of project objectives. I'm not going to read these in their entirety, but I'll give you the highlights of them. They want to contribute to the local economy through capital investment, providing dwelling units and recreational amenities, develop a vacant site within the city and take into consideration the resident's security and safety and privacy needs, and the site constraints to minimize impact to the natural terrain. Create a range of senior housing opportunities to meet market demand in the county. Develop a flexible range of options and cater to local needs of residents to reduce offsite vehicle trips. Provide market rate units for employees, again in the interest of reducing commute times while contributing to the city's housing stock. Provide a number of traffic improvements and that ensure efficient and safe access to and from the site and manage traffic in the vicinity of the site. Focused on clustering residential development to preserve open space and the two significant riparian corridors that run through the site. Again, preserving Oakmont Creek by providing a greenway and setbacks for use by residents and staff, and promoting compatibility with neighboring uses again through the use of clustering, preserving trees, taking into consideration the natural topography and providing setbacks and preserving open space. So in terms of environmental review, Kristen already touched on this. The city is the lead agency. The purpose of the environmental impact report that was prepared is to identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. It's the highest level of SQL review that's prepared for projects providing impartial evaluation of potential impacts. The timeline again, Kristen, I went through this, that the notice of preparation in 2017 released the draft DIR on April 30th. We're here tonight. It's part of step two for the public hearing to receive comments and the comment period runs through June 15th. Following the receipt of all those comments by June 15th, the city will prepare responses to all comments received and will make any necessary revisions to the draft DIR. To clarify or correct information. The contents of the draft DIR is prescribed by CEQA by the state statute, including a project description, environmental topic settings, which we'll talk about in subsequent slides. The EIR includes an analysis of cumulative effects. That's the project in combination with the other known or reasonably foreseeable projects. It includes an alternatives analysis to look at other types of project configurations that could reduce or avoid the impacts that were identified. It includes effects found not to be significant and a number of appendices that includes supporting technical information. In terms of the conclusions, the EIR found a significant and unavoidable impact related to aesthetics and visual character. And that means even with the mitigation included, it was not able to reduce that impact to a less than significant level. In terms of, there are a number of impacts that mitigation could reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. They're listed here, their quality, biology, cultural resources, et cetera. And then there were a number of topical areas where the impacts were just less than significant and no mitigation was required. Largely, this is a result of state or regional or local requirements that are already in place so we didn't need to reinforce that with mitigation measures. A good example is hydrology and water quality. The regional water quality control board has a number of measures that are imposed on any new development project and do a great job of addressing construction period, water quality and operational. So that's an example. As we said, there's a number of mitigation measures. I'll just run through these briefly. In terms of aesthetics, we're focused on reducing the potential for glare and reflective glass as well as using sensitive materials and colors on the exterior of buildings. Again, to try and foster compatibility and fitting in with the surroundings. In terms of air quality, there are a number of construction period mitigation measures. These are all pretty standard. They're applied to every project. There's a list from the air district and so these things help control the amount of dust and other emissions from construction vehicles during the construction period. It continues on to the next slide, additional construction period mitigation, including you'll see in the third check mark, there's a sign that would be placed on the site that would provide contact information for the general contractor in case there are complaints related to dust or other effects related to construction. And the final check mark is about tier four engine equipment. This is becoming a more standard thing that all projects are utilizing. Tier four equipment has a very low level of emissions in terms of their operation and use on a construction site. My machine is trying to start something that I think will interfere with my presentation. Sorry about that. So there is a mitigation measure to require tier four construction equipment on this site. In terms of biological resources, there are a number of species that could be found on the site listed here. So there are construction period protections which in general relate to pre-construction surveys. And if any of those species are found, there's different avoidance or protection measures that can be put in place to ensure that no significant impacts result to any of these species that might be found on site. In terms of cultural resources, the applicant will prepare a cultural resource management plan to protect both archeological and tribal cultural resources. And that will ensure avoidance or preservation of known sites, as well as protection in case of inadvertent discovery as the site is graded and developed, you may come upon resources that weren't previously known. So there are state and local requirements that come into play in that case to ensure that the resources are considered and protected appropriately. In terms of geology, a number of best management practices exist, including a requirement for a design level geotechnical investigation. And that'll identify best practices that need to be implemented for both design of the buildings and for construction practices. We'll also be monitoring by a paleontologist during initial ground disturbance. And if needed, there'll be subsequent spot checks during construction if the paleontologist believes that's required. And again, that's to protect against inadvertent discovery for paleontological resources. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy. The city has some new requirements that came into place starting in January, 2021 to require offsets for greenhouse gas emissions that will be produced by new development. So we've incorporated those requirements and tried to quantify the amount of emissions that are likely to need to be offset based upon the number of units, the number of trips that would be generated, et cetera. So this is to ensure compliance with the city's requirements as of 2021. Again, more about high solar reflectivity materials. This is to reduce the potential for heat island effect that you don't have dark materials that will grab and hold solar heat. We'll rather reflect it back into the atmosphere. So, and then in hazardous materials, there's some soil sampling and testing that would need to happen on the basis of previously identified drums and railroad ties that were on the site. Noise, there's standard construction noise reduction measures that are applied to any project, as well as additional requirements for mechanical ventilation for units within 200 feet of Sonoma Highway. And that's to ensure they can meet the interior noise standards for new construction. Public services, the standard city requirement for annexation of newly created parcels into the special tax district to help fund public services. And then because of the nature of this particular project as a senior care facility, there will be installation of external defibrillators within the development. So just to provide an extra measure of emergency response. So number of transportation improvements that will be required that goes on two slides here. And that's in recognition of just ensuring that they can have adequate circulation and to make improvements in the local area to improve circulation for the community as well as residents here. So that includes a traffic signal at the project entrance, a control plan for construction traffic, dedication of right of way for widening of Sonoma Highway, landscaping requirements of only three feet in height to preserve site distance. So that relates to safety and effective circulation. A number of traffic calming elements along Malita Drive between the highway and Los Alamos Drive, construction of a portion of the Sonoma Valley trail along the project's frontage, relocation of bus stops to facilitate mobility, and then a number of signal optimization and additional turning lanes at Sonoma Highway at Calistoga Road and Malita Road, again, to help improve circulation. And then finally, payment of proportional fair share fees to fund larger scale improvements. So this project, in addition to other projects in the area, would contribute towards these last three check marks. Again, it's about adding right turn lanes, a westbound, widening westbound Sonoma Highway to provide another westbound through lane and right turn pocket, and relocating the pedestrian crossing at Oakmont Drive and adding a right turn overlap signal phase. So a lot of things will be done to improve circulation in the area and ensure that people can move around safely and efficiently. In terms of wildfire, the project like all will be required to prepare an evacuation plan and a map for review by traffic engineering and the fire department. And the plan will be provided to all existing El Noca residents as well as new occupants as they come to the facility. As I mentioned, the EIR included a number of alternatives. The no project alternative is required by CEQA, then under that scenario, no development would occur and the site would remain in its existing state. A second alternative looked at what could be built on the site under the existing general plan designation. So there's a number of units that were evaluated as well as a potential for additional density bonus units that would be allowed by state law under certain circumstances. A third alternative was a reduced density alternative that looked at 460 units with some of the same cottages and apartments and residential care and fewer employee housing units. And finally, a reconfigured site plan that would maintain the same 676 units, but the layout would be reconfigured to provide more of a buffer around biologically and archeologically sensitive areas. So again, we're here tonight to hear comments from the public on the draft EIR. There's Kristinae's information again and just a reminder that no decisions are being made tonight about the project as a whole. It's just to receive comments on the draft EIR. Thank you, Ms. Bean. That concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Yeah. So what we will do is receive the comments from the public before I bring it back to the commission for comments. So I will go ahead and Mr. Rose. Yeah, Chair Weeks, we do have the applicant available tonight. I don't know if they may be interested in saying a few words and then certainly we would suggest going to public comment and then that can obviously help inform any questions or comments that the commission might have for us. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make any comments? Yes, my name is Steve McCullough and I'll keep it brief. As I've been hearing, the true reason for this meeting tonight is hear comments from the community. And our application was submitted back in 2017 and the city officially declared a complete application in 2017. I believe it's fair to say that four years is ample time to study the environmental impacts of our proposed development. We believe the draft EIR is thorough, well-written and adequate and sufficient. We have reviewed the public comments received today and we'll be listening to all the comments tonight. Before we will respond to those comments, obviously we'd like to review any additional comments that are submitted up to June 15th and at that time we will be responding accordingly. And thank you. And I look forward to hearing the comments and yours. Thank you, Mr. McCullough. Okay, so we will, I will go ahead and open the public hearing. 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 two minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown. So, Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Chair Leakes. Yes, we have quite a few hands raised. So, I'm gonna go from the top, starting with Sarah Reed. Just one moment. And again, the timer will start once you start speaking. And if you could please state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Sarah Reed and I am a resident of Santa Rosa. And I have a couple of questions too. One is during construction, will there be access via channel drive? This would severely impact park visitation and park staff and the safety of neighbors. And my second one is, has the post-1850 historical elements been reviewed as well as pre-1850 historical cultural resources? I'm thinking specifically of the quarrying that happened around 1900 and the existing railroad resources that are historical as well. And thank you for taking my questions. Thank you. All right, next is Rick Deniston. Good evening. I'll try this again. This is Rick Deniston with Santa Rosa. A couple of things about the draft EIR, what really bothered me is it's based on public responses, the last of which was given in August of 2017. Our rules changed a couple of months later. Basin and draft EIR on the situation in August of 2017 is like Hiroshima planning an air rate plan based on a situation in June of 45. We've gone through major fires and Highway 12 is a nightmare and a potential death trap in evacuations. These evacuations are going to continue and putting a thousand more residents in that area is important to work. We've got to stop packing that area, that fire escape with people. There's plenty of room in the West side. I listened to the previous presentation about the housing project there. There's affordable housing being built up in the city. Most of the workers will require affordable housing far beyond the 12 units they're discussing. So I would like that discussed. A couple of specifics on the draft EIR in the summary, the water. I don't understand given what the situation we're in with water right now. I can say that there's no significant impact in water usage even in series of dry years. I'm not an engineer. I'd like to be enlightened on that. And I definitely, I can't see how adding a thousand residents in an evacuation zone will not impact draft. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have Ken Tam. Good evening commissioners. My name is Ken Tam. I work for Sonoma County Regional Parks Department and I'm also the project manager for the Sonoma Valley Trail, which is a plan trail that runs along Highway 12. It starts in Sonoma and runs along Highway 12 all the way into Santa Rosa city limits. What my purpose of commenting is the proposed development as it relates to a proposed trail. In the city's 2018 bicycle plan, it does identify a multi-use trail that goes through the Onoka property from the Highway 12 connecting to Anadolsey Park. That is an important trail connection because it will provide public access to the park as well as the residents of Onoka will also benefit from that connection as well. It's currently the proposed project does not include that trail connection. So, for instance, if the residents want to access Anadolsey Park, they would need to actually need to get in a car, drive around the block, then get to Anadolsey Park. So by having a trail to connect from Highway 12 through the property to Highway, excuse me, to Anadolsey Park, provide a great public amenity as well as public access as well as for the Onoka residents. By providing a trail access, you can also help offset any traffic impacts and mitigations as well. And you can also as well as reduce the greenhouse emission because you reduce the number of vehicle traffic that would be coming out of the development to go to Anadolsey Park. And one final comment in the document, it identifies the Summit Valley Trail as a class two in some sections of the document. So I just want to clarify the proposed Summit Valley Trail along Highway 12 along the frontage of Onoka is actually a class one, not a class two. So any commissioners have any comments from any questions? Feel free to connect with me. Thank you very much. Thank you one moment. Next we have Aris Weaver. I'm the Executive Director of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. I spent quite a lot of time reading through the ERR, particularly the transportation element turns into questions. Echo those that Mr. Tam just made that the class one shared use path is happening along Highway 12 and the plan calls for a trail connecting Highway 12 with Channel Drive. And the bike path feasibility study that's part of the ERR's appendix J also recommends an alignment for such a path that's consistent with the bike and ped master plan. And this is such an important key connector in realizing our long-term vision for safe bicycle access across Sonoma County. We just had another bicycle death this week. We need to create this safety. But page 2.39 of the ERR states that a public trail through the project site would conflict with senior resident needs that planned alignment through the project site was removed per court order. So a desire for privacy can be accommodated with good design and fencing on the edge of the property. The applicant's desire for a gated community doesn't absolve them from responsibility for accommodating these community needs. Second, I have done some research and called several folks and I cannot find any record of this court order that's referenced. So please could somebody provide the commission and the public with a copy of this order if it does exist. And as Mr. Tam said, again, also on page 2.39 when it talks about the project proposes a publicly accessible class 2 bicycle pedestrian trail along the Sonoma Highway Frontage. And this term gets used quite frequently in the document. And it makes me wonder if the author of the document understands the difference between class one and class two. And when I see errors like this, it makes me wonder what other errors are in their class. One, separated from traffic and used by bikes and pedestrians. Class two is the typical striped bike lane that is used by bicycles and not used by pedestrians. So please clear that up. Thank you. Next, we have a Joe Bowden. Enjoy the ability to unmute your mic when you're ready. Mr. Bowden, if you are speaking right now, we are not able to hear you. It's possible that your microphone needs to be turned up or on. It does show that you have one plugged in but we're not able to hear you at this time. Mike, could we maybe go on to the next speaker and then come back to Mr. Bowden? Definitely, yes. Mr. Bowden, it appears that if you are speaking right now it shows that you unmuted but we are unable to hear you. You might need to leave the meeting and come back in and set up your audio settings. For now, I'm going to disable your speaking ability and move on to the next speaker but I'll keep your hand raised. Next, we have Jean Kapolchok. Chair Wheats and members of the Planning Commission, Jean Kapolchok, 843 Second Street, assisting Oakmont Village Association and their review and comments on the draft DIR. The analysis and recommended mitigation measures in the wildfire section appear insufficient. The draft DIR confirms that the property is sandwiched between a very high fire hazard zone to the northeast and a high fire zone to the south. The property itself burned in the 2020 class fire, including the three homes on the site. The draft EIR also stipulates that the project could require relocation of a large elderly population and yet the draft DIR recommends only the preparation of an emergency evacuation plan after project approval. The draft EIR says that the emergency evacuation plan will ensure that the project is adequately prepared to respond to a large scale emergency, such as a wildfire and prevent interference with emergency response plan. However, there is nothing in the draft EIR that supports this declaratory statement. There are two ways in and out of the property and the existing plan has about 200 units from the ridge of the property back to Ingedale State Park. The closest access to this area would be Maleta Road and given that residents need to go up and over this area, it is likely that this access point could be clogged in terms of at the time of the evacuation. The reduced density alternative removes the development from the south portion of the ridge line back to Trioni Ingedale State Park. It also lightens the density in the north and the northwest section of the property. The overall reduction of 216 units lightens the demand on the site, including the ability to evacuate, making the reduced density alternative the most environmentally superior project other than the no project. Thank you for your consideration of this. Next, we have Walter Schilt. Walter, if we can hold you first, we are able to hear your audio but if you can get a little closer to the mic, it's really low. We'll start your timer over so we can hear you. Go ahead and start when you're ready. Page five identifies 16 areas of controversy as potentially controversial, among which the traffic is higher and all are considered to be insignificant. Although the EIR does go into state that careful consideration of potential cumulative traffic impacts will be needed. The traffic realises in the DIR is based on old data and even that shows the current situation on Highway 12 to be unacceptably congested on a regular basis. Fire risk in this part of Sonoma County has materially increased in the past several years with multiple fires, including the glass fire last fall that burned the three buildings on the El Nolka property. An up-to-date assessment of overall impact of the planned development of fire should be a minimum requirement to be proposed to El Nolka project. In addition to analyzing any changes to the risk of wildfire spread, the assessment needs to include a detailed description of evacuation plans for the planned development. This analysis must also reflect the impact of evacuation realities which were demonstrably demonstrably unacceptable during evacuations in both 2017 and 2020. Further stressing our inadequate evacuation routes already a severe problem will increase the threat of injury and death during wildfire events. It is incomprehensible to me to find a track of some significant of the revised DIR for El Nolka. Even more astounding is the lack of addressing fire safety traffic, arguably the single most important aspect of the El Nolka project. This factor alone should be caused to deny this DIR. Thank you. Next we have Cindy Reese. Hello, my name is Cindy Reese. I live at the end of Channel Drive and this proposal will actually surround my property on two different sides. When I read the draft EIR and read things like that there was going to be a significant unavoidable adverse impact to the scenic vista and visual character of the state park. And that it was aesthetically inconsistent with surrounding areas. I truly felt like one of those little red nutes in the road in the winter who gets squished. The project site is primarily zoned very low density currently. And yet they're going to be approximately 700 units built, 92 buildings. And let's not forget there are one to three in the area. My concerns, it's too dense of a development. It will have a detrimental aesthetic impact on one of Sonoma County's jewels, which is Anadale State Park, in addition to substantial noise. There will be an increased burden on fire evacuation, which I have lived through twice in Anadale. That's going to affect the roots of Highway 12, and I'm going to be working with the Oakmont community. There'll be five years of construction noise. And I looked from 7am to 7pm, Monday through Friday, plus Saturday. I can personally vouch that sound travels down the ridge to Channel Drive horribly. I am concerned about Channel Drive with the additional impact of the bicycle path. I love bicyclists, but there's never a plan to provide support for that. So with that, I also have a question about the wells at the top of the hill for the three homes that burned. Will they be disabled? What will happen to them? And will the developer have access to them? Thank you very much for listening to my comments. Thanks. Next we have an M Hill. If you can please stay here for me for the record. Okay. Hi. Thank you. I also was taking a look at the traffic supporting information. And realize that. The traffic. Speed assumptions are completely inaccurate. It's dating 55 mile an hour. Speeds. When anybody who lives out here. Knows that it is standstill almost every day. It's from 2012 to 2016. The noise impacts are extreme. If you live on that stretch, you already get to listen to fire engines and emergency vehicles. From Oakmont. All the way from Oakmont to Melita. It is a parking lot. Often every day, actually. The collision history is totally outdated. It states that it's from 2012 to 2016. That is not accurate. The traffic. The traffic signals. A high volume of them. Serving Oakmont every day. They turn off their emergency sirens. When they make a right on Oakmont, but we hear them all the way from. Calistoga, believe it or not. So the degraded traffic and noise nuisance. and I think it needs to be. I also understand that we have over five miles of senior housing from Spring Lake all the way to the end of Oakmont. And I think that's an over-concentration of development. And I just think that that's really should be addressed. It's an over-concentration of senior housing. And like someone else mentioned, it can be better put someplace where they're closer to markets and closer to hospitals and doctors. Thank you very much for considering my comments. Thank you. Next we have a Michael LaPell. Hi, can everybody hear me? Yes, we can. Well, thanks for allowing us to make comments that are really important to each of us. I concur with everything that's been said previously. So I'll narrow my concerns with the D-E-I-R. And for me, the most disheartening thing is in the project they state that they're going to save 75% of the standing trees. Well, what that relates to is the project is slated to remove 439 trees, 30 which are unprotected and 409 that are protected. And this is in your appendix by your project arborist, Becky Duckles. And among those protected trees are valley oaks, coastal oaks, blue oaks, madrones, willows, pines, popcorn, cedar, bay laurel, manzanita. And it's so inconsistent with the climate emergency resolution and action plan that Senator of the city council unanimously signed. So this is a concern. We need trees to help us mitigate climate sequester carbon and maintain our hydrologic cycle in the process. So I'll leave it there. Thank you. Next we have a Mark Mortensen. Thank you and good afternoon. Yeah, my name's Mark Mortensen with Friends of the Climate Action Plan here in Santa Rosa. And I just think that the proposed Onoka development places senior citizens at their greatest risk in the location at the end of town in one of its most fire vulnerable locations. The project is an example of suburban sprawl and the city of Santa Rosa declared a climate emergency and stated that it would look at all of its actions through the lens of climate change. I see this development proposed development as where the rubber hits the road. Are we really doing that? I understand the intent here is to provide input on the draft EIR and I'll do some written form. My comments also do include some points around the draft environmental impact report. When fully built to the proposed 628 units and 975 residents, it's likely that there will be many more employees than the 34 listed by the applicant and the 88 used for transportation modeling. I only look at the emissions and energy section of the draft EIR so far. I'll be looking at more. It has a large section on climate change. However, most of that is just instructional background on climate change. But the section does not, it notes that Santa Rosa has a climate action plan, a 2012 plan, but it does not note the declaration of a climate emergency and the attendant language. So the draft EIR misses that one. I can see I'm running out of time so I'm off here. One example of how the draft EIR appears to not meet the measures of the climate action plan is just in doing a community garden. It just refuses to do it. So there are many areas where it does not, does not meet the requirements of the climate action plan. Thank you. Thank you. And next we're gonna test Joe Bowden again. If you have permission to speak, please go ahead and unmute. Joe, I can see your microphone moving, but I cannot hear you. If you'd like, you can also call into the meeting. If you call the phone on the screen, 888-475-4499. It might be an alternative because right now we cannot hear you. Mr. Maloney, other than Mr. Bowden, is there, are there any other public members wanting to make comments? Yes. Steve Spillman. And Steve, you can unmute it, your leader. Thank you, commissioners and staff for your dedication and commitment to the city of Santa Rosa. I too served on a planning and transportation commission for six years, twice as a vice chair, twice as a chair, but please know with full disclosure that I am a member of the Santa Rosa Board of Community Services and a member of advisory committee, committee updating the general plan, but I'm here only as a citizen, retired architect, retired real estate broker and retired developer with concerns about this project as it's proposed. I know that a far better project than one proposed or simply a 25% reduction in density can be created. Previous evacuations made of Highway 12, a parking lot for folks stuck in their cars. If a fire from any direction, folks are sitting ducks without the ability to escape. They couldn't drive away from a fast moving fire and they certainly couldn't make a run for it. Onoka would make the situation even worse by putting additional vehicles on Highway 12 while adding fire enhancing wood structures adjacent to Oakmont and the planning commissioners. Please don't put our seniors at risk at an even higher rate of injury and deaths by supporting this project. There are better solutions available. Please engage a creative community to find a better solution than the one that's presented. Thank you for your services, Santa Rosa. We appreciate everything you do for us. Thank you. Thank you. I'm at Chair Weeks. I'm a new-handed raised Teresa Deniston. Teresa, if you can unmute your microphone. Can you hear me? I just want to emphasize globally what other folks have said and not trying to be too emotional over a business decision. This project is at this point on Ludacris watching a draft EIR report from August, 2017 to what happened to our community, my friends that lost home and life to now deal with a huge, highly dense population project on the east side of town needs to be paused and started over and do an EIR report draft for an area that can handle this type of influx of employees and clients to give them a well-deserved senior citizen population location but not on this east corridor. We cannot have more traffic on a two-lane highway. I would also love to have the press Democrat and the city planning commission openly put more information in the PD so the general public can hear. I understand there's comments available online. Our lives are busy, they're stressed with the pandemic. We need to have this as transparent as possible. So the public, general public community has the opportunity to understand the negative impact of what this project will do for our town. Thank you. Thank you. And Chair Weeks, I'm gonna try one more time with Mr. Bowden. Mr. Bowden, I've again, I'm giving you permissions to speak if you can unmute your microphone. And Chair Weeks, just here where there's nothing I can do on my end and then we'll turn it over and just call in for Mr. Bowden. But Mr. Bowden, we can't hear you. Thank you, Mr. Maloney. I would encourage Mr. Bowden to write email in comment since we're not able to hear you. So with that, is there anybody else with the hand? Thank you, Chair Weeks. No one else is raising their hand at this time. Okay, thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission. And just did wanna reiterate that if you have other comments to make, be sure and send email or email to Ms. Tumians with her email was on the screen earlier. And I know that staff is taking copious notes during this time so that they have your input. And so what I'd like to do now is bring it back to the commission for comments on the draft EIR. And I would like to start with Commissioner Deggan. I'd like to start with a couple of questions for staff and I don't know if I have questions for staff but I'll ask mine and then let anybody else ask their questions. So for staff, so EIR typically gives you alternates to the project that's in the project description. And who or what determines what version of the project which if the alternates are close in impact, how does the preferred alternative determine like who gets to decide that if it's a close call? So that's my first question. And the second question is an appendix J which is the traffic study. There's a sentence in the traffic study that because there's a trail feasibility study closed in the traffic study that just the preparation of that fulfills the applicant's obligation about the trail connector, is that true? And there's also a mention on page 313-10 in the recreation section that the pursuant to city code chapter 19-70, the city may require dedication of project land in order to accommodate trail connecting channel drive to the Sonoma Valley Trail and who makes that decision if that's something that's implemented? So those are my two questions and I'll let the next question. Thank you. Does anybody else have questions of staff? Vice Chair Peterson? Sure, I think mine may be a little shorter than Commissioner Duggins. So kind of two questions and a comment. In section 3.16, the wildfire section, a lot of the footnotes reference maps, the wildland urban interface from Santa Rosa City, the Cal Fire map of very high fire hazard severity zones, both 2009 and 2008 respectively. So I'm wondering if those are, if there's any more recent versions of those? That's one question. Two, it also references in that same section the Santa Rosa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which I believe is in the process of being updated. And I'm wondering, this is kind of a nebulous question, the interface, I think it's supposed to be done this year and how will that interact with the EIR process? So for instance, if this draft is done on the earlier version, it gets updated, does that updated version then get integrated into the new, potentially the final EIR? So that's question two. And then just a comment that at least for me, again in that same section, footnote one, referencing the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the URL listed there did not work for me. I couldn't find anything in the reference doc there. So I'll turn it over to my fellow commissioners. Thank you. Any comments from the other commissioners? Mr. Calia. Just one kind of more macro question for staff. In looking at the project timeline, I just think, and this is also just for other projects that come in front of the Planning Commission. You know, like we see the date of like July 27th, 2017 of the public scoping meeting and then the draft EIR was released for public review on April 30th, 2021. So it would be really helpful to kind of understand a little bit more of what kind of happened in that timeline. And I'm sure obviously there's probably a lot that happened in that timeline, but I think it would be beneficial not only for the commission, just but for the public as well to have a more clear idea of what's, what happened in that space of time. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. Yeah, so essentially my fellow commissioners have pretty much addressed most every concern that I also have, but there is one real brief semantic. I just noticed some discrepancies between some verbiage throughout the staff report and the EIR. I noticed on page four of the staff report it makes reference to affordable housing, affordable employee housing, but then throughout the rest of the verbiage on page five and then actually throughout the EIR, it only makes reference to employee housing. It says nothing about affordability. It says nothing about anything else. It might just be semantics, but I just implored you to have some more consistency with the verbiage across the board. Thank you. Commissioner Acrepti, do you have any comments? No, I think my fellow commissioners and then some of the comments from the public have pretty much covered any concerns or questions I would have, so I'd like to get those answers. Okay. I do have a couple of questions and some of it has to do with what other commissioners have said about updating information, what some of the public said about updating information. So for example, on 3.14-42, it talks about building that's going on in the area and it doesn't include the building that's gonna be going on the old Pricot site. And so that's kind of throughout the document about updating it. And also on the trip generation, my question was why is the trip generation lower on Saturday and Sunday is also not included in that? And just wondered with the nature of the type of housing it is, shouldn't you also include Sunday and why is Saturday lower? On 3.14-41 on the traffic light, installation, I was wondering how close that is to the other traffic light that's on Melita and I weight 12. And I'm sure there's some determination as to how those traffic lights can lead to each other. And then 3.15-7 about landfill with the recent information about the landfill site, not going forward in Sonoma County, should that also be updated? So those are my comments. And I did wanna, before you bring it back to staff, I did want to mention that, that they, like I said, they've been taking notes on the public comments and so we're not gonna reiterate what the public said during the public hearing because they have that information. Commissioner Duggan? I just wanna be clear that I actually have extensive comments on the document itself, but those are only my questions for staff. Oh, okay. Thank you. So if you wanna hear my comments, I've got comments. Okay, so let me go to staff and say what, how do you wanna handle this? Do you want to hear Commissioner Duggan's comments now? Or do you wanna address her questions and then hear her comments? Well, I'm wondering if that might be a more constructive conversation to consider questions and comments together since we have a variety of people who would be providing information and providing responses. And so in essence, we may not go in order of questions, but we can kind of, we're all aware of the questions and then to be aware of comments as well, we can kind of respond to those then. Would that be acceptable for commissioners? Yes, I think so, that worked. So Commissioner Duggan, you wanna go ahead and make your comments? Sure. Okay, so these are on the document itself. So I'm gonna start with a few minor comments because everybody knows that I'm kind of picky about typos and types. And then I'll get into the more the other detailed comments. So on page ES-35, mitigation measure wild number one, Montgomery Drive should be replaced with Malita Drive. I know public commenters have commented on class two, class one bike lane, bike path distinction that happens on page 239. Also on page 39-30, page 314-36, there's a discrepancy on class one, class two on all those three places. Page two-43, the senior housing combining district is noticed as dash SH and then it's sort of used interchangeably with dash SR, which is also scenic roadway. So that's on 243 and 3.9-9. So it should be changed to SH. Let's see, 3.9-39, the PD zoning district revisions. There's an error reference source not found in the sentence and the sentence does not read completely without with that error reference in the sentence. And page 3-3.15-30, the last paragraph references a winery project. So this paragraph should be revised. Okay, so now my general comments. So appendix J, the trail feasibility study. So state parks was asked and they commented in 2017 regarding the notice of preparation and have they weighed in, made any comments, said anything about what their feelings about this trail connecting from channel drive since then. Because it said state parks would be required to assess the connection to channel drive. And section 2.6 of appendix J in the trail feasibility study mentions other trails to connect to Oakmont and generally towards Highway 12. The existing trail that connects that is bikeable and walkable is near the water treatment plant. It's gravel. It's not IDA accessible and signage on the trail. It's noted that it's private and can be revoked. Passage can be revoked at any time. So that is not a good alternative. Just wanted to point that out. Okay, and then general comments. ES-34, mitigation measure trans for A and B are those which phases of the project build out are these mitigation measures going to be constructed and the first one and the fifth one under aesthetics 3.1, 3.1-23, the first paragraph, who or what determines what maximum extent feasible with regards to structures aligning with the natural contours of the sites who makes that call exhibit 3.1-8 viewpoint number five. And I think it's in the appendix, but it's also in the document. It seems to show single story cottages that are adjacent to channel drive, not buildings. I think it's PNN that are 39 feet tall. It looks like single story houses instead. Okay, biological resources 3.3, wildlife movement corridors. I know that these are not endangered species, but I know that there are coyotes, wild trophies, deer, and mountain lions in this area. I have friends at Oakmont who've filmed mountain lands multiple times and they're all known to sort of traverse in this area. And it's not unforeseen because of Hood Mountain and Sugarloaf State Park. And it was Anadel contacted about to see if they have any critter cams showing other wildlife that might move in a corridor across this parcel. And are there thoughts about what could be done to minimize interactions with residents and things like, you know, with these kind of creatures on that parcel? See. And mitigation measure MMBio1A through E. And this is the construction windows are put in these measures for all the endangered species. And when you take the construction timelines into account, construction in the areas that might harbor these endangered species limits construction to between June 1st and October 1st to avoid disturbing any of the animals. So how feasible is a construction timeline of that duration? And what are the penalties that the applicant chooses to build during those outside of those timelines? Okay, geology and soils, 3.5, page 3.5-9, the top of the page. Portions of the site are described as being susceptible to slope failure and landslides as well as soil creep. And what's the mitigation measure to protect against this? Page 3.6-50, mitigation measure GHG-1, this is greenhouse gas emissions and energy section. The mitigation measure requires the city's review for compliance. And does the city have an existing program for this sort of annual monitoring? What is the penalty for non-compliance as their framework for finding if the owner is out of compliance? Who determines the performance standard is being achieved if the applicant opts to purchase the carbon-free electricity instead? Greenhouse gas mitigation measure two, who or what determines what a feasible mitigation measure is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Okay, page 3.6-53, measure 3.5-1, checklist measures mentions that unbundled parking for property costs is not applicable for this project because the project's residential in nature and we actually have had residential projects that used unbundled parking and it's not unheard of. I don't know why it's not applicable to this project. So please to describe that. Let's see, 3.7-19, HAZ-4 notes that there could be potentially significant impacts with relocating the population of the site during a disaster. And we know from the nuns and glass fires that Highway 12 was gridlocked during the glass fire evacuation. What's the plan to evacuate the facility? And saying that it's adequately served by police and fire is not probably gonna be true during a disaster of that kind of magnitude. The project needs to have a plan in place and maybe on-site vehicles with trained personnel to assist in evacuation, to transport people and including people who require gurney transportation off-site, let's see, that was kind of a B. Okay, on the hydrology and water quality section, 3.8-21 and throughout the chapter, the site's not noted to be in a flood zone and yet I couldn't remember at least one time when the house is a long channel drive that are quite different elevation than channel drive itself were flooded because of high rains. And it seems hard to believe that that area, if it's built upon, will not potentially be flooded during the high rainstorm events. The section also notes that the on-site stormwater retention capacity is designed for our historical rainfall rain patterns. And we know from the last several years we kind of tend to be shifting from a pattern of more rain days and less rain per rain day to fewer rain days and more rain per event, more atmospheric rivers that produce more intensive rainfall events. So will the on-site treatment retention capacity be designed to manage heavier rainfall totals and shorter duration storms? Page 3.9-7, under land use and planning, the bike head master plan notes that the site has been identified in both the center as a bicycle pedestrian master plan and the Sonoma Valley feasibility study as the location for this trail to connect from channel drive to the Sonoma Valley trail. The trail was evaluated and yet the project applicant has gone to court apparently to remove the trail from the project. So if it's not consistent with the city and county bike plans, is the city going to require that the trail be a condition of approval anyway? Let's see. Page 3.9-14, the first paragraph, the project is not consistent because of that same reason, just because of the feasibility study, okay. Let's see. The general plan consistency analysis, page 3.9-26, policy PSF-A1, if the project is not going to provide the bike head connection to the Sonoma Valley trail, the last sentence of the consistency determination should be removed. Recreation section P3-3.13-9 and 10, the impact REC1, the section talks at length about the Sonoma Valley trail and the potential channel drive trail connector to it. The trail is not going to be on site. The section can't use it to demonstrate that there won't be an increase of the parks and recreation facilities. Transportation 3.3-14-13, the general comment. Can you provide an exhibit showing the locations of the nearest bus stops along Highway 12 and the safe pedestrian routes to the bus stops? Exhibit 3-14-3, this is the exhibit with the potential of the future and existing bike facilities in the area. And this exhibit is pretty unreadable. It needs to be clear and labeled as to what paths go where with the existing imposed future facilities. 3.14-21, the vehicle miles traveled analysis. Are the miles shown in this paragraph miles per day or per person? And that should be made clear. And does the BMT analysis take into account a staff traveling from offsite to the work site? Household members of staff living on site who work off site and residents who work full-time off site. 3.14-28, does the National Household Travel Survey include people between the ages of 55 to 70 or so who still work full-time? I think we all know that that age group, a lot of people still work full-time. And does it make assumptions about their vehicle miles traveled? Okay, 3.14-30, Sonoma Highway Friendage and the mitigation measure trans 26, no 2B, sorry. And 3.14-34, the description mentions Sonoma Valley Trail Mitigation Measure. This one doesn't make sense to me. I'll have to figure that one out. Okay, hold on here. I'm getting ahead of myself. Okay, so page 3.14-55, mitigation measures, improvement measures IM-3C. It mentions that pedestrian crossing at Highway 12 is going to be relocated. I'm just wondering why it's relocated. I might not just add another crosswalk. The wildfire chapter, it's nice to see a chapter on wildfire hazards now that we all know that there's something that's our new normal. But I think that this section is pretty inadequate for what we've experienced in the last couple of years. Let's see. And it said that the area is not considered to be in a wild land, urban interface area, wooly area or very high fire hazard zone. And I think the map has been updated since the map referenced here, which was from 2016, which predates all of our wildfires. So I'd like to know if that's still accurate, but it's not in those kind of fire zones. Also this area, it seems to people who live in Santa Rosa that the conditions could be similar to what happened in Coffee Park, the hillsides funneling the fire across the big flat area and kicking out an entire neighborhood. Why could that happen here? Why or why not? Like to see a discussion about that. 3.16-3, the paragraph on Santa Rosa needs to add a glass fire before the glass fire happened last year, but it's happened and it affected that area of town. Let's see, 3.16-11, the second paragraph notes the project would be adequately served by police and fire. And I think during a catastrophic event like a wildfire, that's not gonna happen. That's not, you're probably either going to get stuck in traffic on the way to this site or they're gonna be elsewhere. 3.16-12, impact wild-2. I think anybody who's been in Santa Rosa during one of our fires, even if your house isn't threatened by the fire, you're exposed to pollutants. And I think that the site would be no different than that. So even if you could shelter in place, you're gonna need to have a ventilation system where the windows can stay closed, the thing that can be runged, that filter out as many pollutants as possible. So I think there should be a condition that requires that. And also, there's no mention, there's mention elsewhere in the document about the, it's a gated community. There'll be gates at Malina and Highway 12. There's no mention about in the event of a disaster and a needed evacuation, what if the power's out? Can the gates be manually operated? Can they be manually operated by an elderly person? So somebody can get out and not be trapped on site. And P5-21, talking about the reduced density alternative. The conclusion maintains that because the project would provide fewer residences, it would not meet the project objectives. To note that nothing in the project objectives includes a quantified goal for the number of housing units or as to how to use the infill site efficiently. Since the objectives don't include any numbers for any of the types of housing included, how can this alternative be dismissed as not meeting the project objectives for number of units? And I think that's, those are my comments. thorough as usual, Commissioner Duggan. Thank you so much. Any other comments from staff before we, I mean, sorry, from commissioners before you turned over to staff. Okay, Mr. Triple. Great, thank you, Chair Weitzing and Commissioner Duggan. Thank you, extensive comments. We're going to turn now to Mary Bean. Mary is first going to talk about how comments will be incorporated into the final EIR that will be presented for consideration. And then from there, we are working on responses to a couple of specific questions that were asked about some of the decision making that might happen with different aspects of the project or of the EIR and what it entails. So, Mary, I'd like to go ahead and invite you to enter the conversation and share with us that process of how you will work with the questions and comments and respond to them. Sure. Thanks, Andrew. Can you guys hear me okay? Yes. We appreciate all of your comments. We want to take the time needed to digest them and to provide comprehensive and thorough responses, which will come through in the final EIR, both in responses to comments and then any clarifying or enhancing discussion or edits that can be made to the draft EIR in response to your comments to address the issues that are raised. So it takes a bit of time. We want to gather all the comments that will be submitted through June 15th and then we spend time through the summer making the edits and updates. And that includes checking links. Thanks for pointing things out where the footnote links weren't working, updating information where it's appropriate if plans have been updated and new information is available that can enhance the analysis that's in the draft EIR. That's absolutely what this process is for and what the final EIR will record for the public and for the decision makers. Andrew, were there specific things you wanted me to... I was trying to take notes and you were going so fast you gave so much information. I don't think I caught some of the stuff at the end but if there's specific points I can try and answer something here tonight. Although we do want to take the time and provide a considered and comprehensive response to the points that were raised. I just want to chime in for the public. This meeting is recorded and so Steph and the consultants can go back and listen to the recording and gather all the comments. So I just wanted to mention that. All right, that's great. Mary, thank you. Thank you so much for those comments in that direction about what we can expect for next steps. I do note that our commissioner, Kalea had a question about what has happened between the scoping meeting and then today's meeting. And I think that's something that if you can give us a in highlights of what has transpired in development of the draft EIR during that period of time the work that your team's been doing inside. Sure. We've worked very closely with city staff in preparing various drafts of internal drafts of the EIR. And that has taken time and things have changed. I think the city has had discussion. We're not party to that. So I think there are things that have transpired in terms of project development and then the draft would be updated to reflect things. So yeah, it has taken longer than perhaps is normal, but I think it's just the way this project has unfolded. So again, we work for the city. We provide updated versions in response to requests for us to do so. And it goes to the date of April 30th when we finally got the document published for public review. Great, thank you, Mary. Commissioner Peterson, you'd asked about the Cal Fire Hazard Zone maps and local hazard mitigation plan and how those updates might be incorporated into the final EIR. We will respond to those questions as part of the responses to questions and comments. And likely similarly, Commissioner Holton, we do have your comments about the discrepancy related to references to housing that will be reviewed and also found with FON. And then finally, I do want to recognize that there were some questions about, Commissioner Duggan, you'd asked about essentially who gets to decide if the preferred alternative would be adopted. And that will be part of the review process as the entirety of the project comes forward for review. So at this point in time, the final EIR would come back to planning commission for review. And I know that we kind of glossed over a lot of things we do as Chair Week said, we do have record of this conversation of all of the public comments and commissioner comments and questions. And Mary and her team will be working on those responses and we'll see those reflected and responded to the EIR. So I think with that, Chair, we would like to turn it back to you if you feel that we're missing anything. Okay, well, let me ask my fellow commissioners, were there any questions that could be answered today that you would like answered before we finish this item? No, okay. So, Andrew, is there anything else that you need from us today? No, Chair, I believe that would conclude it for staff today, thank you. Okay, thank you all for both my fellow commissioners as well as the public for all of your comments. It's really appreciated. And with that, unless there's anything from either you or Mr. Rose, we can go ahead and adjourn the meeting to the next regular scheduled meeting which will be the second Thursday of June. So Mr. Rose, is there anything? No, nothing for me to thank you Chair Weeks, all the commissioners, thank you for your comments. We definitely were taking copious notes. We have the recording of tonight's meeting. So we will look forward to compiling the final EIR and bring that back to you at some point in the future. So thank you everybody and have a wonderful evening. Great, thank you. So with that, we are adjourned. Thank you everybody. Thank you all. Have a good evening.