 All right, commissioners, if you can please turn on your cameras, and we are ready to start when you are chair weeks. Okay, thank you, Mike. Okay, so with this, I will call to order. The December 9th, 2021 special meeting. It's not a special meeting. Is it regular meeting of the housing authority? Oh, sorry. The Santa Rosa planning commission. I'll get this. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. I'm going to start over. I'd like to call the December 9th, 2021 meeting of the Santa Rosa planning commission to order. And before we start, I'm going to read standard. Spiel due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders and dash 25 dash 20 and then dash 29 dash 20, which spend certain requirements of the Brown act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to shelter in place. And to minimize the spread of COVID. 19 the planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and are practicing. Appropriate social distancing members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. And members of the public wishing to speak during item number 4, the public comment period. Or during our 2 public hearing items tonight will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, Mr. Maloney, if you would like to call roll. Thank you, chair weeks, but the record reflect that all commissioners are present except commissioner hold it. Thank you very much. The next item is item 2.1 study session. We do not have one tonight. And then item 3 approval of minutes and there are 2 sets of minutes in your packets. The 1st is. From October 14th. Are there any changes corrections additions. To those minutes. Okay, seeing none. Those minutes would stand as approved and then November 19th. 2021 those minutes. Are there any. Changes on that on those. Okay. Then those minutes are approved also. Now we're on to our public comment portion of the meeting and this portion is for items that are not on the agenda tonight. So if you wish to speak on the 2 items that are on the agenda under public under the public hearing portion, you may do so at that time. So I will now open the public comment for any item not included on this meeting's agenda. If you would like to comment via zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand and each speaker has 3 minutes. 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. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. Mr. Maloney, do we have any raised hands? Thank you chair weeks. It looks like no one is raising their hand at this time. Okay. Thank you. Then with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment portion. And then we'll go on to planning commissioners report and our statement of purpose for the planning commission. Is that we are charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws within 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 special planning studies as needed. So with that, we'll move to subdivision and waterways advisory committee reports. You have any, okay. I see not I see shaking head. So none of those. Then we'll move on to commissioners report and yesterday we had the monthly mayor board. Mayor and board chair luncheon. And a couple of things I wanted to pass on that the city, which you might have read is starting its redistricting process within the city. There are community of interest forms, which is a term within redistricting on the website right now and the interactive maps will be coming within the next couple of weeks. The next hearing on that will be in January and there's a schedule on the city redistricting webpage. We have started the charter review for the city of Santa Rosa and our very own commissioner Cisco is the chair of that. We'll be meeting so far and we will be meeting every other Wednesday. And there's also a webpage on the city's website for that. And when it gets to department reports. Miss Jones, if you could maybe talk about possibility of any hybrid meetings and coming up. So that was it for me. Any other. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners have anything they'd like to add. Okay. So with that, we'll go to department reports. Thank you chair weeks and members of the planning commission. I first just wanted to say hello to everybody. It's been a while since I've seen you. Jessica Jones. I am now back with the city. I have been a member of the planning commission for the past eight years. I have been a member of the planning commission for 18. In various planning roles. And I'm now back as the supervising plan or for our current development team. Taking the place of Bill Rose. So the big shoes to fill. So hopefully I will, I will serve it well. So anyway, I am the staff liaison now for the planning commission and did want to go over. First step is next week's City Council meeting on December 14th. Just a quick note that we have two items on that agenda. First is the appeal of the old school cannabis project. Then we also have the general plan amendment package, which when the planning commission reviewed that package or two items in that package, the 38 degrees item and then also brush creek general plan amendment. At this time, just the 38 degrees general plan amendment will be moving forward to council for consideration next week. The brush creek item is going to be rescheduled and be part of the first package in the next year, 2022. There's some additional information and review time needed related to cultural resources. Then I also wanted to note that this week's council meeting, the council did adopt the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. Although this didn't go through the planning commission, it is a document that we wanted the commission to be aware of. Then a note about the general plan update that's currently under review. As you're all aware, the alternatives workbook has been released and we will be sending an email soon to alert the planning commission about that and engagement will occur between December and February. Then a new cannabis dispensary map has been posted on the city's website, and we will be sending an email update to the commission to alert you of this also. Then the final thing was that just a quick note, I know as mentioned at the last planning commission meeting about a potential holiday party for the planning commission, unfortunately due to COVID, all city sponsored holiday parties are being canceled. So perhaps we can look at something in the new year to celebrate together. Then I know Chair Weite had a question about hybrid meetings. The city is looking at moving towards hybrid meetings for the boards and commissions. I think you guys are all aware that the council is currently doing hybrid meetings. We've not been able to do that for our boards and commissions due to staffing issues, but we are actively working on trying to figure out how to make that work in the coming year. So stay tuned and we will let you know as soon as we're able to move to those hybrid meetings. That is all. Thank you. Related to the hybrid meetings, one of the things that was discussed yesterday with the mayor was proof of vaccination or testing for board and commission members. So it sounded like some information will be coming out from HR, the city manager's office related to that. So any questions of Ms. Jones? Okay, then we'll move on to item seven, a statement of abstentions. Mr. O'Cruppke. Yeah, I'm going to be abstaining from item 9.1 as I have a fire and natural relationship with a member of the applicant team. Thank you, and then we will see you at 9.2. Okay, so with that, we don't have any consent items tonight. So we'll move to our first public hearing. It is 9.1, Hearn Veterans Village Tentative Map minor 2149 Western Avenue, MIN 21-001. This is an exparte item. So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter. I did visit the site and I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Sisko. I also have no new information to disclose. Commissioner Duggan. I visited the site and have no new information to disclose. And Vice-Chair Peterson, I also 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, we'll go to Ms. Shikali and you will lead us off. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Beks and good afternoon, members of the planning commission. So I'm going to share my PowerPoint and turn off my camera right now. Okay, as you mentioned, the project before you today is a Tentative Parcel Map for Hearn Veterans Village, located at 2149 Western Avenue. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.01 acre parcel into four individual lots. In compliance with the RR20 zoning designation, the four proposed parcels would range in size from approximately 20,000 to 25,000 square feet. The future developments of each parcel would include a detached residential dwelling unit with an accessory dwelling unit, outdoor amenities, and associated on and off-site improvements for permanent supportive housing. The review authority for a Tentative Parcel Map is the subdivision committee. However, to facilitate a more comprehensive review of the proposed subdivision, the planning director elected to elevate the discretionary review of the proposed subdivision from the subdivision committee to the planning commission tonight. And tonight, the planning commission will only review the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, which is a discretionary action and subject to environmental review on their SICWA. Per our zoning code, single-family dwelling units are permitted by right in rural residential zone. And zoning code defines single-family dwelling as a building designed for or occupied exclusively by one family. Also, code definition for family is an individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or a group of unrelated persons, which if numbering five or more persons must be living together as a group in a dwelling unit. Using common cooking facilities and as a group bear the generic characteristic of a family as relatively permanent households. Additionally, since 2011, supportive housing has been and allowed use in all residential zones that allow single-family users by right. So therefore, I want to make it clear that the planning commission review of the project is limited to the Tentative Parcel Map application, not any potential future land uses. And the project site, as you can see here, is located in the southwest quadrant and was annexed into the city limits as a part of the Roseland area annexation project in 2017. Here is an aerial view of the project site. The existing users on the site include a 15-bed transitional housing facility and a permanent supportive housing duplex for veterans. Also, the project site has an existing 20-foot wide emergency access pathway that extends between Western Avenue and Park Meadow Drive and does not allow for vehicle access. And general plan and the zone for the property. As a part of the annexation process, the general plan designation of the Western Avenue area was changed from low-density residential, which allows two to eight units per acre to very low-density residential, which allows maximum of two units per acre. The zone for this parcel is rural residential with rural heritage combining the street. The rural residential zone is the primary zone for the slot. This zone is applied to areas of the city intended to accommodate residential neighborhood with compatible agricultural uses, but where the primary uses are for residential. And the rural heritage combining the street is intended to recognize, preserve, and enhance Santa Rosa's rural communities. The standards of this combining the street only applies to the properties located within the Western Avenue neighborhood. This zone allows some special land users that are not allowed in other residential zones, such as animal keeping, indoor harvesting, and pen fancier facilities. Also, as a condition of annexation, the Santa Rosa Innerim Street standards shall apply to new developments in this area. Western Avenue currently has no sidewalks and the proposed tenancy map would not include any frontage improvements along that street. And this slide shows the existing two parcels for the site. The applicant has submitted an application for a lot line adjustment which proposes to adjust the eastern property boundary for APN ending with 01 tree to surround the existing transitional housing facility. This adjustment would result in a 2.01 acre vacant lot proposed to be subdivided with the tenancy parcel map application. Here I want to show how the proposed layout of the parcel will look like after the slot line adjustment. And a brief project history. On February of this year, the project application was submitted. A pre-application neighborhood meeting was held in April. And on May 7th, the notice of public review and intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the project was circulated through June 7th. And on June 10th, we had the planning commission meeting, but it was continued to date uncertain. And on November 29th, the public hearing notices were mailed out for today's planning commission meeting. And above the tenancy map. And here is the proposed tenancy parcel map. The access to the project site is proposed at the southwest corner through an existing driveway. Each lot would include covered parking with 24 uncovered parking spaces along the new private access easements. And four accessible parking spaces for the total of 28 off-street parking spaces on site, while our zoning code would only require 20 parking spaces for this four single family lots. The four foot wide private access easements would serve as, let me show it to you here, as a red color here, emergency fire access. So the 24 foot wide private access easements would serve as an emergency vehicle access extending from Western Avenue to the northern property line and would be close to vehicular access from the north with the swing gate. We have received, I just want to mention here that we have received public comments regarding the emergency vehicle access stating that the proposed project would result in removal of this emergency access. However, as you can see here, the emergency access is going to be improved and stayed at the same location. So it will not be removed from the site. And also the access easement would extend in east-west orientation toward the site with a hammerhead to allow for more vehicular turn around. And this slide shows the four parcel configurations with the proposed single family units and accessory dwelling units. The project site will continue to provide pedestrian access between Western Avenue and Park Meadow Drive, which will be achieved through, I'm showing here, okay, which will be achieved through dedicated of an easement and construction of the four foot wide sidewalk pathway. Here is shown on the left side with the green line above noticing. So this map shows how far the public notices have been mailed out. The notice for tonight's planning commission meeting has been mailed out to property owners and tenants between 1000 feet of the project site, while our zoning code only requires 600 foot mailing radius. And about public comments. So staff has received several emails and phone calls since the notice of pre-application neighborhood meeting was sent in April of this year. The concerns and comments are mainly regarding the proposed supportive housing. There were also three comments received in support of this project. Questions related to the operation of supportive housing were referred to the applicant team for response. New emails were also received yesterday and this morning and were provided to the commissioners as late correspondence. I have also received a comment, a video this morning from Lenny Moore. Lenny in his comment says that the proposed project does not, is not consistent with the city unique zoning code for Western Avenue and will change the character of this neighborhood. The project will have significant environmental impact on biological resources. The project require an EIR and there has been no engagement with the residents over the last five years to create a reduced proposal scale to reflect the character of the neighborhood. Lenny asked the planning commissioners to deny the approval of the project and the addendum as it stands and send it back to the staff to prepare an EIR and also ask planning commissioners to direct the applicant and the city to engage with the residents on the legitimate concerns and revise the project accordingly. Also Lenny has provided emails that are included in your package for today's meeting and I have received an email from Dr. Johanna Wienbeck about an hour ago. She provides comments and concerns over the biological resources in this area. So here in this slide I'm going to give you a summary of the main comments and concerns received since April. So comments are about loss of a neighborhood character. The permanent supportive housing for 32 veterans is too dense. One-story buildings are preferred instead of two-story buildings. The future housing would increase the traffic, noise and population. Also drainage affecting the properties on Western Avenue, disturbance of local wildlife and wetlands in the area and on the project site and concerns over the emergency fire access. So the city understand the concerns and express by the neighbors and residents and has provided responses. I will try briefly to explain some of the responses that we have provided. So the proposed four single-family residents are consistent with the general planned land use density and the accessory dwelling units are not subject to the density requirements per the state regulations. The rural heritage zone does not regulate the height of the building and the maximum height allowed in rural residential zone is 35 feet and the proposed two-story buildings cannot exceed this height. A single family dwelling unit would have six individual bedrooms, a great living room, dining room and one kitchen as well as accessory dwelling units would have two bedrooms with one kitchen. The project would not propose any frontage improvement along Western Avenue and would maintain their rural street standards. Also no trees would be removed from the site, actually trees would be planted on the site. The traffic division has reviewed the project and has indicated it will have negligible trip generation. Also based on the project sites and characteristics, trip generation will be well below 50 peak hour trips and the project screens act from vehicle miles traveled. About the concerns received for storm drainage issues, city and county storm drain standards and city policy require developers safely collect and convey storm water to the nearest public flood control facility. The city engineer division has reviewed the project and has conditioned to meet the required storm water drainage standards. Also our city engineer is available tonight and can answer questions related to the storm drainage issues. And as I mentioned in one of my previous slides, the emergency vehicle access would not be removed from the site but it would be improved. In response to comments received about the local wildlife and wetlands in the area, several technical studies were prepared, including a biological resource assessment which analyzes impact to biological resources resulting from the project. Also the site is within the Santa Rosa Plain conservation area and is identified in the Santa Rosa Plain conservation strategy study area as an area for potential future developments. The Santa Rosa Plain conservation strategy plan, recovery plan and the initiation plan provide regulatory guidance to protect listed plants and animal species within the Santa Rosa Plain. Conditional approval have been added to the project to mitigate impacts to biological resources. Also the applicant's biologist today is available and can answer questions related to wildlife on the site. And SIKWA, the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance California Environmental Quality Act and an addendum to the Roseland area, Sebastopol Road specific plan and Roseland area annexation project final environmental impact report was prepared. The document was reviewed and was determined that the project would not cause new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of significant effects beyond those previously identified in the 2016 final EIR. An initial study mitigated negative declaration was previously prepared for this project. Upon publication of the public draft through the response to comments review process it became apparent that all of the identified potentially significant environmental impacts of the project were previously considered and analyzed as a part of 2016 Roseland area, Sebastopol Road specific plan and Roseland area annexation project final environmental impact report. Based on the findings that the previously prepared EIR identified and mitigated potentially significant environmental impact it was determined that an addendum to the specific plan EIR was appropriate and was prepared to identify any new or more severe impacts resulting from the project. This addendum incorporates substantially the same information as the initial study mitigated negative declaration with augmented discussion to address comments received during public review and to address impacts relative to what was previously identified in the specific plan EIR and with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission by resolution adopt an addendum to the Roseland area, Sebastopol Road specific plan and Roseland area annexation project final environmental impact report and a pro eternity map for the Hernes veterans village project located at 2149 western avenue and that was my presentation. The applicant has only verbal presentation not the power power points and we are all available to answer questions if you have any and thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mr. Colley before we hear the presentation from the applicant? Okay seeing none then if we could go ahead and promote the applicant for their verbal presentation. Hi this is Barbara Towner can everybody hear me? Okay I will hand this over to my employer Craig Meltzner he will be presenting for us tonight so if we could unmute his microphone please that would be very helpful. Thank you so much. Thank you Barbara. I'm Craig Meltzner I'm Craig Meltzner Associates Consultant Project Manager for Community Housing Sonoma County. I'm joined online by my colleague Barbara Towner members of the Community Housing Sonoma County Board of Directors and our development team including architect Paul Fritz BKF civil engineer Andrew Desirek, secret consultant Crystal Rizzi with M group, attorney Mike Ziske, our biological wildlife consultant Trish Baterian and James Larius and Mary Haynes and Chris Cabral from Nations Finest which operates veterans housing throughout Sonoma County and Northern California including the Hernes house at 2149 western avenue. Community Housing Sonoma County is a local leader in the development of supportive housing communities where people find not only a home but also services to assist them to a meaningful health healthier lives in a supportive environment. Since 1995 community housing has worked to create housing opportunities for veterans people living with disabilities and individuals experiencing homelessness. Community Housing Sonoma County purchased 2149 western avenue in 2008 with the goal to provide housing with supportive services to low-income veterans including homeless vets. The first step was to rehabilitate the vacant Hernes house just to transitional housing for veterans. CHSC has owned and Nations Finest has operated Hernes house successfully since 2013. This second phase of Hernes fed village will provide affordable permanent supportive housing for 32 vets helping to fulfill our goal to end veterans homelessness in Sonoma County. Besides safe secure affordable housing community housings Nations Finest and our community partners will provide a high level of supportive services. The subject of today's hearing is the approval of the tentative map and agenda to the final environmental impact report. We keep in mind however the community goals and policies embedded in the general plan housing element and elsewhere provide housing for lower income households including supportive housing. We are proud of Generation Housing the local non-profit housing advocacy group has endorsed hernes fed village. Community housing began planning the development of the second phase of hernes fed vets villages permanent supportive housing when the property was still in the county prior to annexation into the city. As part of the annexation the property was down zoned. We responded by modifying our design and development plans for hernes fed village to the project before you today. A plan that fully complies with the current zoning and land use requirements. We have created a plan for four 20,000 square foot plus lots each with a detached residential unit and an ADU. We haven't requested density bonuses and bonus incentives for affordable housing available by city code and state law. No changes to setbacks building heights parking or development standards. Our design measures well with the neighborhood and provides a safe comfortable and secure living environment for the future residents. After developing our current plan we reached out to the neighbors and met with them. We listened to their comments and adjusted our plans to address concerns. We did not, however, modify the unit count or the two-story design. Both elements are fully consistent with zoning and land use. Any other developer could subdivide the property in four blocks with a detached residential unit and an ADU. That is our plan. That's what's before you today for approval. We appreciate your consideration and request approval of the tentative map and EIR addendum as recommended by staff. Our team is available to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Mr. Meltzner. Are there any questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing? Okay, seeing none then 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 has three minutes and a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when asked to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown. So I see we have at this point five hands raised for this item. So Mr. Maloney, will you facilitate this? Yes. All right, the first speaker we have is Lorena. You can please state your full name for the record. Am I unmuted now? Yes, you are. Okay, good. Hi, my name is Lorena Radich-McKrell and I live at 2235 West Hearn Avenue. I believe I'm three houses down from the project. I sent my comments via email letter and what I'd like to understand here is the idea that the purchasing the fire road and incorporating it into this larger property and building structures that are not consistent with our neighborhood, there is not one house on West Hearn Avenue that is two-story high. So I don't understand, please help me understand how you find that comparable to, let's see, what's the word that you used in harmony with, compatible with the neighborhood? I don't see it. Can you help me understand that? I mean, I understand that you are all doing your best to be within the confines of all the legal ramifications of how we develop our city, but when we go about developing our city in a way that is disparative to the people that are already living there, we welcome the vets and we have and we've taken them into our arms since they've been here, but to build something that does not have the consistent visual and physical impact that the rest of the neighborhood has and for you to say that it is compatible, I don't understand, please help me understand. Thank you. You still have 50 seconds if you want to continue. Well, I'm just flabbergasted that you all have decided to go forward with this and that I'm flabbergasted. I mean, to me, it's it's there's not a, there has, this group has been asked for five years to communicate with us, the residents, we have had no communication whatsoever when we were county, when we were city, when the annexation was happening, nothing. So that to me says that somebody is doing what they want to do no matter what we think and that concerns me because I pay for your salary. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Sorry, I have a bit of scrolling to do chair. It's been taking a second each time. If you can give us a second, we're going to take permissions away for a moment from the applicant team. We have quite a large one and just for ease of the public one, we'll reinstate your permission applicants at the appropriate time. Next is Rebecca Davis. Can you hear me? Yes. Wonderful. Good afternoon chair and honorable commissioners. My name is Rebecca Davis and I represent West Turn residents for rural integrity, a group of neighbors living in the West Turn neighborhood who are very concerned about the impacts of this project, which would nearly double the number of people in this rural neighborhood. Back in June, we submitted extensive written comments supported by the expert comments of biologist Dr. Sean Smallwood detailing a number of major inadequacies with the MND that was prepared among other issues. A number of members of the public also provided comments at that June 10th hearing. But rather than engage with the public on their legitimate concerns, since June, the city and the applicant have decided to play games with CEQA, switching from an MND to an addendum in a clear effort to get a more favorable standard of review if the project is challenged in court. Making matters worse, the city released an addendum to the public shortly before the Thanksgiving holiday, providing very little time to digest and comment on the new iteration of the CEQA document. This complete lack of engagement is particularly disappointing because as stated in our written comments, my clients are not opposed to the type of use proposed. They are opposed to the density of the project, its failure to maintain the rural character of the neighborhood and the project's environmental impacts. Despite changing the type of document, the city for the city and the applicant's second bite of the CEQA apple, it still fails because of the significant and unmitigated environmental impacts the project will have. I want to briefly discuss the significant biological impacts. The inadequacies that permeate the entire analysis stem from the biological reports that were relied on. For example, the 2021 report by the city's consultant identified eight bird species over the course of four hours. Yet our expert in only three hours was able to detect 30 bird species at the site. And some of the species detected by Dr. Smallwood and not the consultant included special status species like the white tailed kite, the red-shouldered hawk, and the willow fly catcher. Another example is that surveys for monarch butterflies were conducted in April, despite the fact that the appropriate time to survey for monarchs is in the fall. Because I have very little time left, I will just say that we believe there is a solution to be had that is workable for both the western neighbors and the applicant. My clients have repeatedly attempt to undertake these conversations with the applicant, yet thus far the applicant has been unwilling to sit down with my clients to discuss any possible solutions. As a result, since the currently proposed project and addendum violate CEQA, we ask that you deny the project and require staff to prepare an EIR to fully analyze and mitigate its significant impacts. In addition, I would just ask that you please review our written comments, since obviously we can only cover so much in the three-minute time period, as it raises numerous other legal violations posed by this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Christina Cramer. Thank you. I wanted to just, before I get to actual comments, I have two questions based on the presentation. One, if you could cover it before you take final action. One, I thought I heard a swing gate being placed at the emergency access road. Did I hear that correctly? And if I did my request and recommendation would be to continue to use bollards. I'm a little bit concerned about swing gates and the ability to actually, if they get locked or not. So if you could address that question. The other comment that I heard, thought I heard, is that negligible degeneration of the road based on the traffic, if you could clarify that. So my recommendation would be to defer and decline this plan. Again, my comments are, I agree with my neighbors and the prior commenters. And I just feel that this developer going back to 2013 and 2016 has never appropriately engaged this community ever. When they say that they have, it was a meeting in April and there was no meeting on the prior development. And I have a very hard time appreciating that fact when they have been told to please engage with this community. As has been said previously, we support development of additional housing for low income and homeless veterans. But this again, yet again, is not the plan. And the fact that the easement line has been extended in order to allow this by a purchase of the property that is the access road is very concerning to me. This whole process has felt like we have been marginalized and that we are already an underserved community with basically no city services. It just smacks of bad faith after we met with the city and county officials to preserve the character and nature of our street. And I believe the consultant Craig Meltzner said, this plot project meshes with the neighborhood is what his exact words were. I strongly disagree with that. And to think of all of these individuals, I submitted photographs and I know you said that you came out and saw this place, this street and this property to think that that many people in this remote isolated area would be successful. I just have to respectfully disagree. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have a Kailin Weeks. Good evening, Planning Commission Chair Weeks, Vice Chair Peterson, commissioners. My name is Cal Weeks and I'm the policy director for Generation Housing, where we advocate for more, more diverse and more affordable housing for the record, no relation to the good chair. Generation Housing is proud to endorse Herne Veterans Village. While the rates of homeless veterans have declined precipitously over the past decade, Sonoma County's annual homeless census determined we still have 139 veterans living in the region. This is quite frankly unacceptable, especially after this group of people has given so much towards preserving the way of life we cherish so much. Solutions do exist, however, and one of them is Herne Veterans Village. This gentle density, permanent supportive affordable housing project is nested in an actual setting and designed to offer open space, gardening, gathering spaces, all key amenities that assist with healing and really ensuring a peace of mind. Its proximity to nearby transit options at Pear Blossom Park and other services were also key contributing factors that led to our subsequent endorsement. Furthermore, while we understand that the surrounding community and, you know, as expressed a number of, you know, salient concerns related to privacy, environmental impact, etc., it is our belief that developer, key housing Sonoma County and consulting entities have been responsive to the input provided by the community. Therefore, we ask the Planning Commission to recognize today the critical role these types of projects can play in addressing our housing crisis and more specifically in supporting our veterans. They deserve our respect and they deserve adequate housing. We urge you to support this project and help fulfill our community's goal of ending homelessness in Santa Rosa. As always, thank you for your service and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have a phone caller with the last four digits, nine, seven, eight, eight. It should be prompted to unmute, if not, start now. Star six. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Susan Kirk. I am president of Madrone Audubon Society in Sonoma County. We are headquartered in Santa Rosa and we sent correspondence expressing strong concerns about the proposal before you and in the last Planning Commission hearing, the agenda item was removed from the agenda. And so, like many, I received the notice recently that the proposal was being brought before you again as is with an attempt to utilize the area EIR for the environmental review. I concur with Attorney Davis' comments this evening. I concur with the residents who have expressed concern to you. I am aware that there has been absolutely zero outreach by the applicant to the community members, which is certainly not congruent with the way that I view the city of Santa Rosa and how you should be doing business. And unfortunately, I must strongly disagree with the generation housing representative who just spoke and tried to characterize this rezoning and extreme increase in density on this property as appropriate. It certainly is not. The environmental impacts are very significant. The surrounding community would be very impacted, and that does include the biological resources. And I just, it just, all of this feels really wrong to me. Representing an organization that has 3,000 members in Sonoma County, this particular area is rich in biological resources. And I think it's very important to say that the community is supportive of veterans' housing with the existing zoning on that property and wants to be involved in the community there. So I ask you as planning commissioners to consider that, to consider the whole picture here, and to ask yourselves why the applicant has never reached out to try and obtain collaboration and support from the community who will be so impacted, and who also supports veterans' housing there. Thank you very much. Okay, it looks like we have about six more hands raised. So I would ask if you would like to make a comment if you could raise your hand. Now it's seven. So go ahead, Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Next, we have Scott Kincaid. Good evening, Chair Weeks, Vice Chair Peterson and commissioners. My name is Scott Kincaid. I am the former chair and member of the City of Santa Rosa Design Review Board. It's really great to see Jessica Jones back. Just had to mention that. I did not know she was back, but welcome back, Jessica. I would like to speak in support of the veterans, the Heron Veterans Village. First and foremost, we should take every opportunity to honor our veterans, those who have served to protect our freedoms. Second, there are several veterans' housing projects throughout Santa Rosa having much success in providing transitional and permanent supportive housing for our veterans. Third, by way of voter approved urban growth boundaries, we look to infill development for our housing growth needs. And this comes with density. The item before you provides a path for another of these proven bite-sized veterans' housing projects to move forward in an effort to end veteran homelessness in Sonoma County. Please approve this application by resolutions one and two as currently conditioned. Thank you very much for your consideration and happy holidays. Thank you, Chair Wee. Oh, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Next, we have a Shirley Zane. Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yes, I am on the board of the applicants, the community housing Sonoma County, and I have worked for many years to create veterans' housing. I just came from Pearl Harbor last week, and as you all know, this week is the 80th anniversary. I think it's really easy for us, and I'm a proud daughter of a World War II veteran, and I think it's really easy for us to say, wave the flag and say, oh, we all support veterans, but when it comes to actually providing the housing they need to oppose because things are two stories. I mean, that's ridiculous. I also worked on Roseland annexation too, and this is an infill project within urban boundaries. I think the contention of the neighbors that it's going to take away the integrity of their neighborhood is just actually morally wrong. We are talking about the community integrity. We are talking about defending those who defended us, who put their lives in harm's way, and many of them came back and they never got their life back, and that's why they ended up homeless. They ended up with severe PTSD, and they ended up with substance abuse, and we all know. We all know the answer to homelessness. It's called supportive housing, and that's what this project is, and I would defy the neighbors to say that they could go home tonight and sleep in a warm bed and say that they don't support 32 veterans having that warm bed also and the services that they desperately need. This is about the integrity of our community, and as far as I can see from that map, there's a lot of density around this parcel in terms of homes that are very close to one another, but really, really, you're going to oppose providing a bed and supportive services to veterans because you are afraid that the integrity of your community is going to be taken away with two stories. That to me is really sad. I want to draw your attention to Congressman Mike Thompson's complete and utter support of this project that was delivered late today, and his staff just bent over backwards to make sure that you all had that letter and his support. It's time for us to put our money where our mouth is and to get these veterans off the street. There's 139 of them, and by the way, Ms. Kramer, you represent the employees of Sonoma County as the HR director. I'm really surprised you came forward in opposition to this project. This is about moral integrity, and it is about ethics, and it is about defending those veterans who defended us. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have an Ann Hopkins. My name is Ann Hopkins. I live at the very end of Western Avenue. I'm going to sleep great tonight. When the planners say they've been to our street, did they go to the very end because this street ends on a dead-end dirt road? There is no access at the end. It's incredibly rural. It is country. We live in the country outside of the city. What does the city want? Does the city, I know what the city wants because I know what the people want. The people don't want you to pay paradise and put up parking lots. We are the outside of the city center. We are the country. We are where all the animals live and drink and eat and burrow. It's so inappropriate, incredibly inappropriate. I'm trying not to get upset, but when you get Mr. Milksner lying right to your face telling you that it fits with our community, wow. Please come again. Go the entire length of the road. Our trees are huge. We are in a dead-end dirt road. We all have sewer and septic and wells. It is the country. It's the outside of the city. It's not even the suburbs. We all live in itty-bitty houses on at least a half acre. Most of us have about an acre. We all have one to two, three people in our houses. You're trying to plot down an apartment complex. It's not just 32 people. I don't buy it. You can put two people in a bedroom. It's totally legal. I think this is about a 75-unit development. There's no regulations that say it can't be. I also don't understand how it's being built. You can't build supportive housing right next to another supportive housing. There's like all kinds of rules about that. I don't get that. How's it being built? We already have two supportive housing on Western Avenue, and this will be our third. When they say, oh my gosh, this is going to improve our fire road, you don't improve a road by putting a bunch of cars on the side of it. Our fire road is beautiful. It's perfect. Geez, the lies and the miscommunication is wow, just so upsetting. It belongs somewhere else. I used to be for it. I'm not for it at all anymore. I can't in good faith expect this developer to be good neighbors. They haven't even talked to us. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have a Paul M., and if you can state your full name for the record. Hi, my name is Paul Moosman. I live on Western Avenue. First, I'd like to say that I think it's really inappropriate that Ms. Zane is trying to pit those of us that are how could we sleep tonight? That's really inappropriate, especially as a member of our community and a leader in our community. I'd like to echo much of what my neighbors and the professionals have said regarding this thing. I also need to make it clear that I am in support of this project, always have been in support of this project. I just think the size and the scope is inappropriate. I feel like the city and the planners and the community housing of Sonoma County have discounted and have not reached out to the community as you've heard multiple times tonight. People say they never have, but we did. We had a Zoom meeting in April, one Zoom meeting. When you look at the letter that's written by Paula Cook in response to her comments, she also states that there were multiple attempts to reach out to one neighbor over that time. This project's been in the works with the county for over five years. There has been very little outreach. She also wrote that letter that is part of your packet in response to our comments. It was dated later in July 26th. We were never made aware of that comment. We were never made aware of that letter. In terms of outreach, I think that is ridiculous. It doesn't look like diligence. It doesn't look like respectful communication, and it's not professional. Yes, I think if the developer really wanted to be part of the community, they would have made a difference. I'm also trying to look at this whole idea of how we get away from us versus them. It's pretty clear that the city has done their work. They know it's all justified by laws and mitigation rules, et cetera. If you look at who's available for the developer, there's a lot of people there to answer your questions. We are just a small neighborhood trying to see that this development happens, but it happens smartly with less of an impact. I also, lastly, I want you to address the idea of rural heritage. We've been talking about this. We are the only neighborhood designated as rural heritage, so it's your responsibility to decide what that's going to look like. It doesn't look like an apartment complex or a two-story structure built in our neighborhood. There are direct impacts. We see them because we live here. We're going to see them on a daily basis. We support the project, but we feel that the project needs to move forward smartly and with much thought. Thank you. Next we have Ross Liskam. Yes, my name is Ross Liskam. I'm a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran providing housing for our local veterans that are either homeless or are trying to transition back into a safe and secure life. Quite frankly, should be a community-wide priority. Our veteran community has been willing to serve our country and quite frankly, if necessary, to give their lives to this country to fight and defend it for the over 90 percent of the country that has never served in the military. The current military seems to make up less than 1 percent of our population that has stepped up to defend us. They all deserve the basic necessities as housing and health care. The voters quite frankly spoke on what they wanted as a community years ago, enacting urban growth boundaries, which means all the future development will be infill projects like this one. This particular project addresses a lacking need in our community. I think the goal is to house all remaining homeless veterans in the county. Just this past week, there was a grand opening in Windsor for 60 veterans. This will contribute to another 32 veterans, hopefully getting off the streets. Please support this project moving forward. Thank you. Next we have a South Flores. Yeah, hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, we can. My name is South Flores. Actually, I'm on 2115 Western Avenue right next door on the east side of this property. There's a few concerns that I've dealt with in the past. Some of these individuals that are there, obviously, they're not mentally stable. There's been many times, one, two o'clock in the morning, screaming and hollering. At times, a couple of them jumping over my fence line, trying to capture whatever they threw over when I have a dog that's about ready to rip their legs off. I don't know how this community housing association is going to deal with that, as far as how much support they're going to have for these individuals. Overall, I mean, there's many more things I don't know if I have enough time to explain. I know my neighbor, Paul, they definitely nailed it on there. As you heard from most of our neighbors, we're not against it. We definitely support it. We've supported the housing that's there now. We support a little bit more, but there's got to be some common sense somewhere along the line to have a limit. The amount of extra people that are going to be there, the issues that I've dealt with of I'm an on-smoker, my wife's an on-smoker, people lining up against the property line, smoking like trains, I'm downwind. I've got to shut my windows on the west side of my house so I can enjoy my own peace and quiet. That's something for them to consider and figure something out to find another area. Some of the other things too, what was it, the environmental impact. Apparently this community, the housing community, had their own kind of investigation to come out here and see what kind of wildlife is going to be affected. It's kind of a shame that they are coming down maybe at the wrong times, but come springtime, summertime, the wildlife is just amazing. Maybe not too many of my neighbors have seen like Salamander Tiger growing around. That's another concern for them to say that there's no wildlife is going to be affected. It's a bunch of BS. The applicant, everything that they've been saying that as far as reaching out to the community, like I said, I'm right next door, right over the fence line, no reach whatsoever. The other issue I've got, now all of a sudden I've been here for 20 years, my neighbor in front of me for 30 years, now all of a sudden the property line, they want to redesign or remove it. Come on, you talk about being neighbor friendly, it's like there's been zero issues or come try to be friendly to the neighbors or anything or communication. Thank you. Chair, weeks without, we do not have any other hands raised at this time. Thank you, Mr. Maloney. I just want to make sure nobody else wants to speak. All right. Well, with that, I will go ahead. Oops, there is one. I believe Ms. Hopkins had already spoken. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So with that, I will go ahead and close a public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission. I noted some questions during the public comment that I will start off with. If that's all right with everybody and please weigh in if I've missed something. So I think if we could, probably these are mainly for the applicant. So if Mr. Meltzner could be promoted. If the applicant team can please raise their hand so that we can give you speaking permissions again. Okay. Thank you. So the first question had to do and what I'll do is I'll have asked the questions of the applicant team first and then go to my fellow commissioners and see if they have questions of the applicant team and then we can go back to staff if there's questions of staff if that works for folks. Thank you, Chair. On the administrative side, if we can have one, if you're not speaking, if you can please be muted from the applicant team. We have multiple people on right now. Okay. That would be great. I believe it probably will be Mr. Meltzner that would have most of these questions. I'll do my best this week said I made defer to some other members of the team. Thank you. So there were a couple of people that talked about lack of engagement with the neighbors. Can you talk, can you describe what you've done with that and engaging the neighbors? Probably the key consideration is that it wasn't until 2021 that we actually had a development plan to discuss with the neighbors. Prior to that we were redesigning the project to conform with the zoning and land use requirements. We did engage the neighbors through the city required city meeting. We did reach out by phone and email to neighbors individually to solicit their feedback. To be honest with you, the bottom line issues from the neighbors were twofold. One had to do with the physical design of the project and specifically the concern about two-story units and secondarily the density. And insofar as we are within the city guidelines on both of those points, we are not interested in engaging in discussions about lowering density or modifying the two-story design. In part we went with the two-story design in order to reduce the building footprints and ensure greater open space. With that I would offer if Paul Fritz could offer any other comments in terms of responses that we made on specific design or neighborhood characteristics? Sure, happy to do that. There were a few things that we did change the project design including for some of the second floor elements. We did relocate windows that were expressed as being concerned for being able to view adjacent properties. So we relocated windows. We also added some physical screening elements to the landscape to again assist with sort of screening views from our property to adjacent properties. We added a walkway that would connect from western to the Park Meadow Drive to the north to allow residents to still be able to move you know via bikes or walking to the neighborhood to the north and to the Park, Cereblossum Park which was expressed as like that. A lot of people use that current emergency vehicle way. So we provided a separate pathway and we also did add more parking. So we heard parking was a concern so we added some more parking spaces to the project. Thank you. Then I'm not sure which of the applicant team this question has to do with has to do with the number of people in each bedroom and the question of supportive housing projects next to each other and then what type of support you provide the clients. Thank you for your weeks. I can start out by saying that these are designed for single person occupancy and I would ask Mary Hange and Chris Cabral with Nations Finest to talk a little bit about the joining her house and some of the support and services programs available to veterans. Mr. Meltzer, who was that that you wanted to answer? Mary Hange and Chris Cabral. Unfortunately I can't see who else is in the Zoom room but they are both staff for Nations Finest which operate the adjoining her house. That is the only supportive housing that I'm aware of in the neighborhood. If there is another one to be honest I don't I don't know about it. Mary or Chris are you available to respond to Chair Week's question? I do see Chris Cabral as an attendee but let me I don't see a hand raised for her or him. Chris for Mary can you raise your hand please? There is Mary Haines. Is that the person? Yes. Okay I do see Mr. Maloney I do see Mary Haines hand raised. Chair Weeks will recommend it. Okay. They should have permission to speak now. Great thank you Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission. Yes so we Nations Finest is the nonprofit that provides services at the 2149 Western Avenue and we provide a number of groups and programming each day to the veterans who reside there. Each veteran receives case management. We have clinical support. I'm a licensed clinical social worker and I oversee the programming there with our clinical director Jim Looper. Our hope is that any veterans who live at the Heron Veterans Village the 32 veterans that they could also be part of the community and engage in services and groups. We have a number of activities that we do throughout the year for the holidays and just as a community in general and I would say that the veterans are very community oriented. The service is if you're a veteran you're engaged in service it's just part of the the veteran culture and identity and so they they look out for one another and very much seek to be engaged. Are there any other questions I can answer about programming or services? I think not from me but while we have you here do any of the other commissioners have a question for Miss Haynes? Okay Commissioner Duggan? It might not specifically be for Miss Haynes but I'll try. So do you have an on-site manager that's there 24 hours to deal with any problems like the the neighboring the fellow from the neighboring parcel said he sometimes has her screaming in the wee hours is there somebody on site to deal with somebody's in crisis? Yes absolutely thank you yes absolutely we have a 24-hour staffing in the program and then we also have an after hours on-call phone tree. I'm on call and so is our agency clinical director and the night staff are aware to call if there's ever an emergency or disturbance. Okay thank you and then the other part I don't know if this is to ask you or somebody else on the client team but if this is approved tonight is the is the idea that all of these different houses and buildings are going to function as one one unit and they'll be like shared public areas and you know so like if there's a concern with smoking on the joining fence blend is there going to be like a designated smoking area within the larger parcel if this gets approved? Mary I'll take that one if that's okay yeah the answer is yes this is going to operate as one property and to clarify Herm House which is the facility that Mary Haynes is currently referring to and is existing on the property will be on a separate parcel but ultimately this is going to operate as kind of integrated development. The 32 units though will be owned operated and managed as one property and there will be common areas throughout that will be available for all of the tenants uses. Having said that with the four different parcels and the configuration of a single family unit in ADU there's going to be some spaces that are kind of semi-private or kind of can be claimed by the individual houses but and then some areas that are available for the overall community so it kind of gets gives you the best of both worlds. There is an onsite net property manager as well and as with most properties of this kind there will be a number of physical amenities, gardening, outdoor activity court, landscaping and so on. It's going to be a beautiful environment for the residents. Okay thank you. Thank you and I do see we have two hands raised on the attendees and I just wanted to remind people that the public hearing portion of the meeting has closed so we won't be taking any more public comments on this item. Then let's see I do have why don't we stay with the applicant team if any of the other commissioners have questions of any of the applicant in any way and then we can segue over to any questions of staff so are there questions that any of you have in addition to what's already been asked? Okay I don't see any nodding heads so if we could if the applicant team could unpromote or whatever the proper term is and if we could get staff back that would be great. So Ms. Chicali can you have a couple questions and I'm not sure if it would be for you or perhaps other staff that are also present but let me just fire away. Ms. Cramer talked about a swing gate on the emergency access road and that it was a preference to keep bollards there and I wondered if you could talk a little bit about that and then also the term negligible deterioration of roads and how that's defined or if you could address that too. Okay so about the fire we have assistant fire marshal Paul tonight and he can explain the gate and fire access and how it is being improved so let's see if he can promote Paul. Yeah he's here. Good evening commissioner my name is Paul Walthold assistant fire marshal with the fire department so as you're aware emergency vehicle access roads have become quite a hot topic in our community since 2017. We have a variety of EVAs as what we've heard to them as that are some electronic and some bollards some swing style and some electronic. From our standpoint right now what we're seeing for that particular development is two access points one from the north and one from the south to supply that EVA and both are secured by bollards. Bollards are locked individually in other cases are just placed in position either way when utilizing an emergency vehicle access having to remove and or unlock multiple bollards does slow their access down which is why when we do install emergency vehicle access roads today they're off to come controlled meaning that our fired emergency vehicles can actually activate the use of the emergency vehicle access much quicker through the opt to calm system which is what our understanding is proposed for this project whether or not it swings and or rolls from side to side from our standpoint would not affect our response time but the improvement of increasing from bollards to an actual compliant electronic with opt to calm activated and knocks key override system would actually improve our ability to use that emergency vehicle access road. Great thank you. While we have Mr. Loventhal here are there any questions of him other than that? Okay so are there any other questions of Ms. Shekali or other staff members? Commissioner Carter. While we're on the subject of the access road I believe I read in the conditions from the engineering department that an easement of public access easement will also for pedestrians and bikes will also be required over that road is that correct? Correct and Gabe Osborne can explain that and as in one of my slides I show the forfeit public easement will be provided on the best side of that EVA the driveway and Gabe if you can add that or have any additional information. Absolutely just Mike check can everyone hear me? Yes we can thank you. Good evening chair weeks and members of the commission yeah our intention with that access road because it doesn't function as a public access for roadway purposes was to get as much multimodal connectivity we can through there and mainly because western doesn't have defined sidewalks so by allowing bicycle and pedestrian it provides an access way over that easement to allow individuals to utilize that corridor where they can connect to existing infrastructure to the north that then connects to bigger infrastructure on arterials so that is correct we are requiring an easement over the top of that access road for the purpose of pedestrian and bicycle through that corridor. Commissioner Carter did you have anything else? Okay any other questions of staff? Vice Chair Peterson? So I think these are you know the answers sort of in front of us we just want to clarify so two stories would be allowed in this zoning district is that correct? Maximum height allowed is 35 feet so as long as they don't exceed that height they should be fine. Sure okay I mean is there any uh we had the concern I think it's been addressed a little bit but is there an actual limit on the number of people who could live there? Is that tied to the land use at all? So the general plan land use talks about density as units it does not regulate the number of bedrooms in a house it just talks about the number of units like four single family it can have two bedrooms or six bedrooms but if a single family has six bedrooms it still counts toward as one unit those that answered the question. Yes in terms of the the annexation process I mean is there a plan for city sewer water hookups that kind of thing? Well a question to Gabe do we have Gabe our public works I'm not familiar with that I can't answer that question. Thanks Monet I'd be happy to answer that typically the way it works with annexations especially the areas that do not have that infrastructure from a master planning standpoint they are built into the model to ensure that they can be served by the greater infrastructure but typically how infrastructure of that nature is built is through development so as the need exists and development needs it it starts extending and that really has to do with the fact that the additional rates that people pay are for more or less the maintenance of the existing infrastructure they're not to support the expansion of it so that's more on those property owners so really it likely will inch its way through that area that's normally what we see through either development or people transitioning from septic systems on the sewer or wells on the water. Thank you and then I think the the final question I've got is just sort of procedural is there a design review portion of this after us? So single family dwelling units are exempt from design review the only projects that requires design reviews are multi-family or commercial not single family units. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay then with that if somebody would like to read the first resolution or if we and then we can talk about the project or the the the item as a whole Commissioner Duggan. I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa adopting an addendum to the certified Roseland area, Sebastopol Road specific plan and Roseland area annexation projects final environmental impact report state clearinghouse number 2016012030 for Hearn Veterans Village subdivision located at 2149 West Turn Avenue assessor's parcel numbers 134-011-012 and dash 013 file number MIN21-001 and wave further reading and is that address actually correct isn't it 2159? 2149. That's okay that so the address here is correct okay and wave further reading. Is there a second? A second. Thank you so that was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Cisco so and what I as I mentioned I'd like to talk about this item as a whole even though we have two resolutions so we'll start with Commissioner Carter. So I want to begin by stating that this is one of the nicest housing sites I've looked at since I've been on the planning commission and it caused me to wonder who gets to live on such nice sites in the city of Santa Rosa and why shouldn't it be some of those populations who have had the least opportunities such as our veterans? I think staff has presented a reasonable presented reasonable arguments and evidence that the previous CEQA analysis and the the conservation strategy have anticipated this type of infill development in the western areas of Santa Rosa and come up with mitigation measures at a programmatic level to deal with specifics of projects like this. Consequently, many of those conditions, those mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval for this project. The project has been reviewed by fire and engineering to make sure it plugs into city services and utilities properly and that the grading and drainage is handled appropriately and what we're talking about is for single family projects, single family houses. I believe I can make all the finding necessary for adopting the addendum to the EIR and the findings necessary to approve the tentative map. That said, since there is substantial opportunity for further communication and outreach with the neighbors to discuss the particulars of the design and ensure privacy, access, drainage, and to look at the landscaping that might replace some of the habitat value, I could support a resolution or continuing the item for further outreach and engagement with the community if there's potential for resolution. But I think that it must be acknowledged that the right to develop for single family houses does exist for this applicant. Those are my thoughts at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Siscoe. Well, I agree with most of what Commissioner Carter has stated. I think he stated it well in terms of the appropriate. What we're looking at is this dividing this parcel into four. I think that the accident well is perfectly comfortable adopting the addendum to the formally certified EIR. I think stated, there are all kinds of environmental protections built into our DAC and will be implemented. Project progresses. That's important as to the character neighborhood. I think it's also just important for the neighbors to I mean, this was on the subdivision committee to allow more and now more community input. But my understanding is the way that the zoning is there that any of the neighbors, if they so chose could add a second story to their house. And so that didn't seem character to have the two-story units. Obviously, they're in order to really provide the density for this population that really needs to be served. So I think that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I think it's a very nice site for this parcel division would not be a big of continuing that for further community outreach. I would recommend though that the main issue I think are going to be about how the management of the property is handled. And I think working more with the neighbors about who the property manager is going to be for the neighbors and someone to work with in order to alleviate any should they arise. But I think we should move forward and I'm in full favor of adopting. I can make the finding to make the findings for that as well. And so we state that. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. Hi. So I too can make all the required findings in support of the addendum to the final EIR. I can also make all the required findings approving the tentative parcel map. A couple of comments. I echo what my former commissioner colleagues have said already. But I think it's unfortunate that the applicant is not engaged with the residents more or that they perceive that they've not been engaged with and that they have legitimate concerns. And I did drive the entire length of western and I saw a lot of variety in housing types and sizes. And I saw the unpaved dirt end. And you know, you can see that it feels like a real special quiet rural place. But it's within the urban growth boundaries. It is an infill project. It's very close to Stony Point, even though it feels quite rural and quiet. It's close to the services and transit. And you know, as far as the two-story houses, anybody like Commissioner Sisco has just said anyone who wanted to build on their parcel right now could build a two-story house. So I think the two-story houses are fine. And it's, you know, the parcel is just over the fence line from the Park Meadow. The houses that are along Park Meadow. And they're all two-story and quite small lots. And I think, you know, it's not going to be out of character with what you see when you're looking at this project. So I'm in favor of the project. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson. Well, so I think that this is in some ways a very tough project and in some ways an easier one. I think the tough thing is that what we've heard from neighbors is I think starting with the annexation, it maybe feels a little bit like a bait and switch that, you know, the city said one thing. And now they're faced with a project like this that will increase, you know, the number of people, maybe, you know, the house style is a little bit different. So I think it's challenging to have that kind of in the background combined with, you know, the applicant maybe doing the minimum amount of outreach for a project that sounds like could have used a lot more. At the same time, you know, I mean, I think the alternative when we're looking at this, this zoning is, you know, four single-family houses that can be up to 35 feet high. I mean, this is a by-right kind of project. And, you know, I think it's hard, you know, it can be kind of a blunt instrument to deal with these kind of granular concerns that the neighbors have expressed so well. You know, I think it's clear that it's not, you know, the veterans or supportive housing that's really at issue. And so to me, it comes back to, you know, the findings that we've got to make for this. And the FEIR wasn't challenged back in 2016. So that stands the addendum I think is adequate under the standards that we're looking at for CEQA. Maybe it isn't ideal. Maybe they didn't time it perfectly, but I think it does meet the statutory kind of requirements as they're laid out. And then, you know, really all the only other thing we're looking at is a tentative map. And, you know, so in a sense, this is a big deal. This will be a change to the neighborhood. I think change isn't easy. But in terms of what, you know, the Planning Commission is looking at and what we're sort of empowered to do from a land use perspective, I think what we've gotten in front of us meets the standards of what we need to find. So, you know, I don't know if my fellow commissioners have any additional thoughts, but that's sort of where I'm at. Thank you. I'm not going to reiterate what my fellow commissioners have said. I am supportive of this project. I will encourage as strongly as I can encourage the applicant team and the operator to continue discussing this discussion and dialogue and reaching out to the neighbors. As Vice Chair Peterson said, what's before us today is the tentative map. It's not the project. It's the tentative map. And I can make all the findings for both the resolutions. So, with that, let's see, that was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Cisco. Mr. Maloney, call the roll. Thank you. Commissioner Carter? Aye. Commissioner Cisco? Sorry, Commissioner. I wasn't able to hear you. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan? Aye. Vice Chair Peterson? Chair Weeks? Aye. So, that passes with five ayes. Commissioner Krepke, abstaining, and Commissioner Holton, absent. And would somebody read the second resolution? Commissioner Duggan? I will move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa approving a tentative parcel map for the Herne Veterans Village subdivision to subdivide a 2.01 acre parcel into four lots located at 2149 Western Avenue, assessor's parcel numbers 134-011-012 and 013 file number MIN21-001 and wave further reading. Second. Thank you. So, that was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Cisco. Any other discussion on this item? Can you remind me if we need to go through the commissioners and restate that we can make the findings? Somebody help me with that. I believe I heard everybody say they could make the findings for both the Addendum and the tentative map on the record, so that will be sufficient. Thank you. Thank you. So, with that, like I said, that was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Cisco. Mr. Maloney, will you call for the vote? Yes. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Commissioner Cardin? Aye. Commissioner Cisco? Aye. Commissioner Duggan? Aye. Vice-Chair Peterson? Aye. And Chair Weeks? Aye. So, that passes with five ayes. Commissioner Krepke abstaining and Commissioner Holton absent. And I'd like to take, before our next item, I'd like to take about a five-minute break unless staff needs longer than that. Or Mr. Maloney, does that work for all of you? That would be great. Okay. So, let's actually come back at 6.20. All right. While we're on the break, we're going to go ahead and get permission to speak to Jeff if you can confirm your Commissioner Holton for us. Get your hand. Thank you so much. Apologies, all. You made it at least, which is good. Yeah. I don't have my iPad for my city-issued iPad. Is it my house in Santa Rosa? And I'm house-sitting and taking care of my kids while my ex-wife is in Brazil right now. Well, you made it, which is good. Mr. Maloney, are we ready? Or does staff need a little more time? Thank you, Chair Weeks. Staff is ready when you are. Okay. So, welcome, Commissioner Holton, and welcome back, Commissioner Krepke. Is there a need to call roll again? I have adjusted the record to include that all commissioners are present. Great. Thank you very much. So, with that, we'll go ahead and go to our second public hearing tonight. Item 9.2, if that meadows subdivision EIR, Sequest statutory exemption planning project, 2650, 2666, 2684, that meadows and 1112 and 1200 Hearn Avenue, PRJ18-039. This is an exparte item. So, we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter. I did visit the site, but I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Sisko. I visited the site with some neighbors. I also took a look back at April 11th, 2002 minutes of the Planning Commission. And this is new information stated at my staff at that time that Sally Ann was a temporary access plan to be vacated as a public roadway when Eloise connects to surrounding streets. This sort of a nagging memory. So, I checked it out by looking at the minute. But that's all, that's all the information I have. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan. I also visited the site and I met with a couple of neighbors and have no additional information. And I want to thank Commissioner Sisko for having a great memory and remembering to look at it. That's why we love having her back. I like Commissioner Holton. I also did. And I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Krepke. Yeah, I visited the site and met with some neighbors and I have nothing further to disclose. Vice-Chair Peterson. I also visited the site and had a telephone conversation with one of the neighbors and had no additional information to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site. Oh, Commissioner Carter. Sorry. I should probably disclose that I met with some neighbors also. Okay. Thank you. And I visited the site and I had a phone conversation with one of the neighbors. So, with that, we are ready for you, Mr. Ross. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Members of the Commission, I'm going to open up the presentation now and share that with you on my screen. I just want to point out in the agenda, it says Dutton Meadow Subdivision EIR Sequa statutory exemption. That's just a mild error in that it should have said EIR previously certified. And then the statutory exemption. So, just for clarification, it's the Dutton Meadow Subdivision, not Dutton Meadow Subdivision EIR. Thank you. And then if you can just confirm that you could see the presentation. Yes. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Chair Weeks. Members of the Commission, my name is Adam Ross, the project planner for the Dutton Meadow Subdivision. The application before you includes a conditional use permit and a tentative map. The project location is 2650, 2666, and 2684 Dutton Meadow, as well as 1112 and 1200 Hearns Avenue. The project itself is 137 market rate units, that is 5.3% of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Housing Action Plan goal. And the, sorry, so the project includes a small lot subdivision of an 18.56 acre site. The, for a total of 137 detached single family market rate units with alternative setbacks and alternative two-story design standards, as well as a parking reduction. There are three associated parcels, A, B, and C, which are noted on the tentative map. And I'll kind of show that in the images later. Lot sizes range from 2,703 square feet to 8,260 square feet for an average lot size of 3,858 square feet. On and off-site improvements include 1.4 acres of the Regional Serving North Point Parkway extension. Again, I'll show more of that information later in the slides. A new signalized intersection, which includes that North Point Parkway extension and Dutton Meadow. Two new bus stops, as well as New Roads Curve and Gutter and other right-of-way improvements within the project site and surrounding, as it fronts Hearns Avenue and Dutton Meadow. So the project is located within the Southwest quadrant of the city. So you can see where the star symbol shows the general location. Here's an aerial image of the site. So if you see my cursor, I hope it's this square and this kind of area that excludes these two units goes here. And so there it is. The yellow border shows the project site location. The project history, it has been before the Planning Commission in February of 2019. And based at that time, there was a general plan amendment, tentative map and conditional use permit. And based on staff's recommendation and review of the project proposal of the time, the Planning Commission denied the project. It was then appealed by the applicant following Planning Commission's decision to deny the project. And then when it went on appeal to the city council for public hearing, the council decided that instead of deny it, they would continue it. And they told the applicant team to work with staff to come do an agreeable solution, basically to implement the circulation element of the site, which was what the general plan amendment was for, and go back to the Planning Commission for consideration. So on December 14th of 2020, the applicant submitted a revised application requesting a conditional use permit and a tentative map, and it no longer included the general plan amendment. Kind of go over that general plan amendment in the images in a few slides. And then there was a notice of application sense and a neighborhood meeting as well as an additional meeting with city staff and residents of the existing and surrounding neighborhood. So the general plan for the site includes medium density residential, sorry, medium low density residential and low density residential. As you can see here, here's the medium low, the front side facing current is medium low, and then low density residential in this location here. So a bit about the general plan for the site. Again, it's 137 detached single family residential units over the entire 18.56 acre parcel, parcels I should say. And so that's an overall unit per acre of 7.3, sorry 7.38. In addition to that, we had to calculate for, go back really quick, we had to calculate density for this particular area and this particular, and then these two particular areas. So these two match medium low density residential and then there's low density residential. So the medium low is 8 to 13 units per acre and the low density residential is 2 to 8 units per acre. So I'll show you that breakdown in a bit. But when considering that, there are unique and substantial public infrastructure requirements. And that, you know, some of that is majority of that actually is the North Point Parkway extension and the new intersection with Dutton Meadow. And it results in the net loss or in the loss of approximately 1.3 acres of developable area. And just a bit about that extension is that it's not required to serve this project. It is a part of the regional circulation plan that's intended to connect the commercial and industrial facilities south of the site on Dutton Avenue and Bellevue. And that's to connect them to Herne and then to the future extension of North Point Parkway, which would go up north west of the project site. In addition to the required dedication and developable area, the North Point Parkway extension roadway design also inhibits residential development in the following ways. It requires atypical lot designs that reduce opportunity for residential development. It constrains the location or configuration of housing on certain proposed lots. And it creates a 0.14 acre undevelopable parcel, which is parcel C on the western portion of the required North Point Parkway and Dutton Meadow intersection. So this is the original 2006 looking approved plan. But this just shows the regional roadway, regional serving roadway network. So this is Colgan Creek and then over Colgan is Dutton Avenue. It currently stops right below this image. There would be a roundabout and then Dutton extension would hit Herne Avenue and then this portion is North Point Parkway. So Dutton Meadow is actually going to turn into North Point Parkway and Dutton Meadow will then curve. It'll go north and south and then bank to the east to connect to that Dutton extension. So the area that I'm talking about for this project and it's in the next couple slides is right here. So this is that North Point Parkway extension. There's this little triangle here that is that parcel C. And then there's also Dutton Meadow that comes from the south and then curves in. So that's a bit of that. This creates kind of like those specific configurations for certain lots in this area and also removes some of the actual developable area to make the project feasible. So with that the staff analyzed and removed and kind of took away the North Point Parkway and parcel C that are created from the 14.88 acres of the medium low density residential section. So you now have 13.5 acres of developable area. So that allows 108 to 176 allowable units. This project within that area provides 110 for total units per acre of 8.1. And then the low density residential is not as complicated. It's 3.68 acres. It allows 7 to 29 units in that location. The project provides 27 for a density of 7.33 units per acre. So long story short the project complies with the density calculations for the medium low density residential and the low density residential portions of the overall project site. And just two other just FYI's it's you know with the project it identified a minimum of 125 units across the entire site within the general plan. And that was without factoring in the regional serving infrastructure that would remove the total developable area. And then all other right of way improvements are included in the density calculations. So the only portion that would be taken out of that is the North Point Parkway extension and parcel C. And so here's kind of what that looks like. This is an attachment in the agenda package. So here's parcel C. It's this triangle that's in front of the meta view elementary school. This is the new signalized intersection that would be built out with the project. And here's North Point Parkway. So this is the portion that was taken out and parcel C. So and then again this is the low density residential and this is the medium low density residential in purple. And so here's just some more images the for the internal roadway section. So you know you have alloys extending on the north side. You have some internal streets private streets serving some of the red the residential units. You have Dutton Meadow that would then curve banks to the east and then some neighborhood serving streets here. Additional benefits of the general plan. It you know that's the construction of a large portion of the North Point Parkway extension and that signalized intersection with Dutton Meadow. And the planned extension of Dutton Meadow to the east where it eventually connects to the Dutton Avenue extension when that is built out in the future. And it also provides access to an otherwise landlocked phase 4A, 4B, 3A, and 3B of the Dutton Meadow's master plan which is the PD 06-001 zoning district which I'll kind of show you in the next few slides. And then in that those next phases of this kind of master plan area you have four acres of city parkland and a community shopping center identified on the land use the general plan land use diagram. And then again you know again that signalized intersection that provides a bit safer routes to the schools. This project was referred to the Alpenfield City School Districts and comments were received and and and general support for the for the project no additional conditions were required from them. And it also includes you know it also contributes to the much needed pedestrian bicycle and vehicle infrastructure to support the City Southwest Quadrant. So the reason why I kind of gave you all this is because you know the staff analyzed this but the planning commission has to accept that that developable area can be reduced based off the regional serving infrastructure improvements. Again that's not required to serve the project it's what the city has planned for the area. So here's the zoning so on the on the left side you see R16 that's single family residential to the right you have PD 06-001 that is part of the 2006 plan development zoning district that was the original project that is somewhat referenced here in the in in this in staff's analysis of the project. And so in both zoning districts the R16 and PD 06-001 any developments proposing a lot smaller than 6000 square feet requires a conditional use permit and the residential small subdivision standards apply that's zoning code section 20-42.140. The project complies with those standards but at the same time while also proposing alternatives to setbacks and alternatives to two-story structure design that is allowed within that zoning code section provided the planning commission determines that the alternative approach is more appropriate to the characteristics of the site and the surroundings. So those reduced setbacks or those alternative setbacks I should say is four feet for one-story portion of the residents sorry I should move back up. The standard is four feet for the one-story portion for residential small lot subdivisions and eight feet for the second-story portion. This project requests four feet for the four-story portion and the second-story portion. And it's it is similar to surrounding subdivisions and is a alternative setback that the planning commission has approved in other residential small lot subdivisions in the city and surrounding area. They ask for a reduction in the rear yard setback from 15 to 13 feet. The planning commission within the residential small subdivision zoning code you can approve a reduction up to 10 feet. And the reduction in the private open space dimension from 15 to 13 feet but all lots comply with the 400 square feet of private open space requirement. So this is the two-story structure design standards. The floor area of a second-story structure is no more than 50% of all the roofed floor area of the dwelling unit including the covered porch area and an attached garage but not a detached garage or 25% of the dwelling units in the project are one-story or all units have one-story elements. So that's what the design standards are within the zoning code. And most of the single-family plan types have an eight-foot second-story setback on one side. So the four-foot would only apply to on the majority would only be used on one side of the units. And again that does this the design is proposed of the conditional use permit and the tentative map are consistent with surrounding subdivisions in the area and throughout Santa Rosa. So here's the development plan. As you can see here you have some of those. So these would be you know four-story second-story side setbacks. Some of these are four-story some of these are eight-story side setbacks. The applicant has requested the reduction for or the alternative for as stated for all the units. And then here's a just a landscape preliminary landscape plan to to show what the project would look like with street trees and and internal courtyard plans. There is a lot a parcel that is just going to be used as a passive park right here. And again there are there's four acres of parkland to the east of the site. Here's some elevations for reference to kind of get a general idea of what those what the what the units would look like. And I do want to point out that for units such as these down on the bottom left you have a the 400 square feet of private open space is on the side yard. So it's not necessarily in the back of the the residential unit other units would have it in the back more traditionally. So again here's just more elevations for reference. And so parking there is a parking reduction request with this project. So there are two minimum parking standards applicable to each half of the project. One being the half the project in the PD zoning district and that is a parking demand of sorry a parking requirement of two spaces per unit where one must be covered plus half a space for each unit. And then zoning code section 20-36 table 3-4 requires detached single family dwellings required to provide four parking spaces that's in the R16 zoning district. One of which must be on site covered and outside of setbacks and the remaining three spaces may be on site in the driveways and tandem or on a public or private street when directly fronting the lot. So on the left side of the screen the 53 residential units are located within the PD zoning district and that requires 106 parking spaces. 164 parking spaces are provided in that they all have two car garages and the additional within that 164 are parking spaces on the street directly fronting the lot. There are additional 58 on street parking spaces that aren't directly fronting a lot so it's for on that side there's a total of 220 parking spaces for an excess of 116 over what would be required what is required by the PD zoning district. There are 84 residential units within the R1 zoning district and that requires 336 parking spaces of those 84 units or 84 lots 25 are deficient in that 10 lots provide 3 parking spaces two in you know two in the garage in the two car garage and then one on street directly fronting the the lot and then 15 of 15 lots only provide two units sorry two spaces in the in the parking in the parking garage and that's a total of 40 parking space deficit or 12 percent. The however well so here's an image showing each of these dash lines are the are the park are the lots with deficient parking spaces meaning that there are you know two here the one means that there's only two spaces and then when they're the number two shows that there's three spaces provided for them so these ones along the north point parkway extension down here and then you know then there's additional parking provided throughout so under zoning code section 20-36.050 C1B the review authority may as a condition of project approval approve an increase or decrease in parking spaces after making the following findings due to the special circumstances associated with the operation of the use at its location the proposed use will generate a parking amount different from the standard specified in table three dash four and the number of parking spaces approved will be sufficient for its safe convenient and efficient operation of the use. So the 25 lots that are deficient they are homes that are smaller they're the smaller of the kind of two types going on here which are you know more likely to be sold to younger families or you know elderly couples who who are empty nesters or or individuals you know and that decreases the parking demand for for those units and a parking study by W. Tran stated December 2nd 2021 concluded that the parking will be no will be more than adequate to meet peak parking demands additionally there are 45 parking spaces provided on street or in small parking lots for a total of 341 parking spaces and all of the 25 parking deficient lots are within approximately 300 feet from additional parking so all that to say that the entire project provides 563 parking spaces when 442 are required so it's it's like a so it's like a it's technically a reduction but it's it's kind of it's not really in that there are there is adequate parking and and an excess of adequate parking a traffic impact study was completed and provided for the project and it the project would generate an average of 1274 new daily trips 100 amp peak hour trips and within that 100 are in the amp peak hour and 134 within the PM peak hour and the study in intersections that's concluded by the traffic impact study the study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable rate under both existing and future conditions so here are the you know the level of service review of the traffic impact study so you have um you know existing peak hour and plan future peak hour intersection levels of service remain the same or better or relatively unchanged these are project plus the existing plus project peak hour intersections you know some of the public improvements was the north point parkway extension and and Dutton Meadow widening and build out net curvature of the road which includes a 64 foot right-of-way width which includes a 13 foot median 14 foot traveling six foot class two bike lanes and six foot planter strip and a six foot wide sidewalk again that new signalized intersection on north point parkway and Dutton Meadow and two new bus stops public right-of-way improvements on her on the Herb Avenue frontage and new interior public and private streets with right-of-way dedications the project is statutory statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to government code section 65457 CEQA guideline section 15182 subdivisions ANC as well as CEQA guideline section 15183 in that the project would develop a residential land use that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with the Roseland area's vassal road specific plan the AIR prepared for the specific plan was certified by city council in 2016 and no events subsequent to certification have required a supplemental EIR pursuant to public resource code 21166 and the project has been found to be consistent with the Santa Rosa general plan it complies with all zoning code requirements and review of the project revealed no significant environmental impacts which are peculiar to the site or to the project and which were which were not addressed in the general plan EIR nor is there any new information that shows that any environmental impacts were more significant than as described in that EIR so the public comments were received for this project and provided as public correspondence and discussions with the neighborhood as well during pre-app neighborhood meetings and in response to notice of application and this project and this public hearing as well the biggest concerns were traffic impacts you know potential traffic impacts and again that there was a traffic study provided by WTRANS it concluded that the project will not have a significant impact on the surrounding area as a result of the project and a concern over the increased demand for parking again the overall overall the project provides 563 parking spaces when 442 are required and concern regarding the the total density without existing infrastructure as that long-winded exercise that I did earlier for the general plan density shows that you know you know that the the density itself is allows 137 units oh sorry the project as proposed is 137 units and the overall you know the applicant could be proposing 205 units and that is still within the density range of the project site and the you know the project has been conditioned by engineering staff and traffic staff and all applicable city staff and is provided in the DIC report and you know impact to the surrounding neighborhoods concern over water consumption and request room and then one later request was to remove the private parking lots found throughout the site and replace it with open space so um you know part of this is that yes there is infrastructure improvements that need to be done in the southwest but this is how the city would get those infrastructures put into place so while staff understands and is uh you know staff understands the the um the pause in neighborhood has for this type of for any development when when improvements are needed but you know again that's how these developments are put in um and there are greater regional serving uh public improvements and developments that would come after this ideally sooner rather than later um and uh you know again the the parkland as part of the other phases of this plan development area that is four acres of parkland and as far as water is concerned it is allocated based on the general plan densities for for sites you know for the site um and the project itself has to comply with the water efficient landscape ordinance um which requires you know uh low water use um uh foliage and and and as far as the private parking lots throughout the site uh that was you know the planning commission can propose a condition of approval to turn those into passive parks I mean and the applicant team would have to accept that but um you know it's it's as present as presented and that's how it's been analyzed as well um so there's there's no issues there's no unresolved issues but the alternatives to the residential small and subdivision standards uh noted in the staff report and presentation have to be approved by the planning commission um that is again that's the setbacks and the two-story design um of the of the proposed homes and with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission by resolutions approve a conditional use permit and adopt a tentative map for the Dutton Meadow subdivision project a 137 unit residential small subdivision with associated parcels and parking reduction located at 268-426-66 and 265-0 Dutton Meadow and 1112 and 1250 Herron Avenue assessor parcels um 043-071-007 and 002 and 003 and 043-191-016 and same numbers dash 024 so with that this concludes staff's presentation um and again my name is Adam Ross and I'm ready to answer any questions that you may have and the applicant also has a presentation that I can uh we can start as soon as the planning commission feels fit thank you thank you Mr Ross um are there any questions of Mr Ross at this time before we hear from the applicant okay so then if we could go ahead um and promote the applicant maybe they could raise their hand hi this is Garrett Hines can you hear me yes we can excellent um I'll give Adam a minute to put up my presentation please excellent thank you Adam uh good evening chair vice chair and commissioners my name again is Garrett Hines vice president true mark Holmes thank you Adam for a thorough presentation I'd simply like to add a few comments and provide some reasons of why we've done some things uh I'll try not to duplicate what Adam said but I have prepared an exact seven minute presentation I hope that's okay uh true mark Holmes is based in San Ramon California and we're thrilled to come back to the commission with a revised proposal to complete two of the five phases within the Denton Meadows master plan phases one and two of course shown here phase fives was phase five was completed back in 2009 by Burbank housing phases three and four are future phases owned by others and not a part of this proposal phase four as Adam mentioned I do want to point out again is a grocery store anchored neighborhood shopping center after over a year of hard work we're thrilled to have full staff support to move forward with what we believe will be the catalyst to complete the master plan including traffic connections to improve the quality of life in this area next slide please phases one and two are the stepping stones that will encourage phases three and four to move ahead to compete complete the master plan circulation improvements it is unlikely that phases three and four will happen until the rooftops in our two phases move ahead next slide please ultimately the master plan build out will relieve local traffic issues on her avenue by allowing the connections of north point parkway and Denton extension to go ahead south cross colgan creek which then connects to the Todd road 101 interchange and provide this area with and provide this area with the new shopping center walkable for many local residents this is a big deal for southwest Santa Rosa something we've all been waiting for a big deal a bigger deal than just adding much needed attainable family oriented housing I think it's important to point out as Adam did that the four-acre central park shown in green has already been dedicated to the city of Santa Rosa satisfying the overall parkland requirement for the entire 50 acre master plan the city can develop the park when ready the original park concept provides a combination of active central park areas as well as a linear passive park along colgan creek phases one and two uh next slide please phases one and two provide Santa Rosa with an eclectic niche mix of 137 homes with six different floor plans the home types and sizes and density were selected and designed very carefully to balance a wide variety of competing interests on one hand we have neighbors upset about the traffic that comes with new housing but on the other hand we have a general plan asking for housing at this site to balance these competing interests we've selected homes at the lower end of the required density range next in order to provide desirable family oriented housing at this density we must work with standards such as four parking spaces per home and various setbacks that make meeting the density goals very challenging it's a balancing act a balancing act that we've successfully worked hard with staff to solve next slide please we chose to mix both traditional front loaded and alley loaded home configurations to create an eclectic mix of homes an interesting rhythm as you move through the community the upper image is a street scene showing the traditional homes with garages forward and traditional rear yards the lower image is the view along herne avenue for example with only front doors facing herne avenue since the garage doors are located in the rear of the homes the two different styles help address a number of various site conditions next slide please the alley loaded homes work best in locations that address major streets such as herne avenue where we don't want cars backing out into the street the same situation occurs along north point park where parkway where we want attractive homes without garages or driveways facing uh meadowview elementary school next slide streets internalized within the neighborhood are better for traditional homes where two-car garages full-size two-car driveway aprons and front doors all face the street along our north edge traditional homes in this red in the red circle back up to our existing neighbors on alleyways avenue with rear yards to maximize separation and privacy our traditional two-story homes were modeled after the alleyways avenue homes for massing and setbacks next slide please the upper street scene is along Dutton meadows near the north point parkway intersection again without driveways to add even more variety some of the traditional homes have side entries facing the streets in a more friendly manner this is in the lower image again without garage doors facing the main street please notice the effort put into creating strong single-story roof elements to break down the massing as it relates to the public realm in both the front and the rear and the sides of the homes in certain conditions front porches and second floor setbacks help create high quality design throughout next slide please the floor plans are designed to promote comfortable family oriented living young couples young families and mature families will find the plans adaptable to life's many stages yard sizes meet city standards and guest parking ratios are actually higher than required overall except for a couple spots that i'm pointing out we've worked hard with staff to provide the needed guest parking as close as possible to every home while still working with big streets that don't want street parking such as north point parkway and hern avenue next slide we chose two strong architectural themes that will provide variation and consistency throughout the neighborhood farmhouse and vineyard styles are authentic to the region and share common materials but offer varied massing and roof forms to create variety again we paid attention to providing single story elements throughout to add charm and step down massing the step down massing that we're looking for next slide please the alley loaded homes share the same styles materials and colors as traditional homes but obviously the massing is different helping create a variety as we what that we're looking for the three alley loaded four plans have different widths adding to the variety next slide please i'd be happy to review all these six four plans in detail if that is desired tonight of course adam touched on the statistics i'll just touch on a little more uh traditional plan one is traditional plan one is 1800 square feet three beds two and a half baths two car garage two car front apron has a front porch and a 15 foot by 40 foot rear yard materials and design quality wrap all four sides of all of our homes next slide traditional plan two is 1886 square feet three beds two and a half baths two car garage two car front apron again and again a 15 by 40 foot rear yard the differences the front door and the porch are oriented to the side where it faces the side street condition all homes come with two car side by side garages and three and four bedroom configurations in all private yards average around 500 square feet larger than the 400 require quickly next slide please um let's see all plans come with two cars i read that one all homes have four-sided architecture including siding and window frame detailing traditional plan three is 2153 square feet with four bedrooms next slide the alley loaded plants since the garage is in the rear we have 15 by 40 foot side yards that create the required outdoor living area and also separate the homes by 15 feet side to side for added breathing room and privacy this plan is a full width front porch measuring seven feet by 21 feet the home is 21 feet wide alley loaded plan four is 1680 square feet with three bedrooms two and a half baths and again a two car side by side garage next slide again i'm happy to go through the details and look at these in detail for roof areas and all that stuff this is plan five 1786 square feet three bed two and a half bath and a 15 by 27 foot yard the home is 28 feet wide and finally plan six adam if you go to the next one it is 2100 square feet four bed or two and a half bath with an optional loft and again a two car side by side garage next slide please equally important to creating variety through architectures creating by variety through landscape architecture as you can see we have a variety of streets running through the site of varying widths and functions some for faster speeds with regional bike lanes such as the dept and meadow extension others for safety walking to school detached sidewalks and street trees help safely connect homes to local amenities such as meadow meadow view on elementary into the west and the future public public park to the southeast internal green belts lead to front doors of the alley loaded homes when we don't face the street next slide professional landscape architects have worked with staff to select appropriate city approved landscape materials next slide adam hit a lot of the benefits but quickly I just want to point out again that this map this two these two phases will help continue and help move towards the completion of a network of public streets to allow future connections intended to relieve traffic new sidewalks replace dirt shoulders to safely connect to schools new bus stops a signalized intersection we've already dedicated and created a hundred acre mitigation bank for the 50 acre master plan to satisfy wetland cts habitat rare plants and that was all handled many years ago there's an error on the slide we're not providing the grocery store yet but we will be the catalyst to hopefully get that grocery store to the southwest region and again this project provides over 10 million dollars to the city for total fees including approximately 850 000 in school fees so to wrap it up last slide this is the stepping stone the catalyst needed to move toward a complete master plan that comes with needed traffic relief on her and a new shopping center a four acre park high quality attainably priced family-oriented housing in southwest centeroza we're thrilled to have staff support the input and direction provided by our neighbors has been terrific to bring this proposal before you we hope you agree that this will improve the quality of life in southwest centeroza and we look forward to being good neighbors with you through the construction process my whole team here tonight to answer any questions thank you so much thank you mr. hines um are there any questions of the applicant before i open the public hearing okay seeing no questions of the applicant um i'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on this item if you wish to make a comment via zoom please select the raised hand button if you are dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand each speaker will have three minutes a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers please make sure to unmute yourself when you're asked to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown so um thank you chair weeks we do have one hand raised okay it's Arthur and if you can please state your phone name for the record and Arthur we have uh given the permission to speak you just need to unmute yourself right okay can you hear me now yes we can i'm sorry uh my name is arthur dyke i live at 25 13 deep harbour lane which is the neighborhood um to the north of this development um i have comments and questions um the overall traffic impacts to herne and stony point are worsened by this project and nearly a dozen others that are underway either planned ground broken houses being built um salianne street herne avenue intersection is poorly designed and dangerous and why wasn't it why wasn't this intersection included in the traffic study um when when will this park be built for the underserved southwest santa rosa area why was there no condition in the dac for no construction vehicles through al-awiz avenue during the construction period why can't al-awiz avenue remain blocked with a fire gate until all phases are built out and why does the disclosure form not include true mark homes and not identify individuals associated with all the llcs as required and i just want to point out that our little neighborhood 50 of the the curves are restrictive for no parking either because of fire hydrants or because opposed to no parking signs um i like this development i i like what what um what has been proposed here but the impacts to current neighbors current people living here um it's just getting worse and by allowing salianne to be one of the main arteries into this development is worsening our quality of life and i'm hoping the planning commission can work at doing something to maintain our quality of life until this development is finally developed thank you very much thank you mr dyke is there anybody else who would like to make comment on this item thank you chair weeks um no one else is raising their hand at this time okay so with that i will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission um and if um mr ross could you or someone uh in this in city staff address the questions that mr dyke had yeah so um i'm just going to kind of list them and and i'll have for traffic i'll have um uh city staff rob sprinkles on here he could answer that and then there's also the the um a daily wetlock from w trans is on us to to answer that as well um and then so just before i do that i want to see uh you know the so about the um the construction uh the the construction vehicles going on to salianne um you know we're so one of the conditions is that the project developers submit a traffic um control plan for the construction project afterwards and while it's not explicitly stated um salianne would would probably not be um you know really used for for the construction of the project because they could access off of directly off of herne onto the site and then on done met up but you know again and just further that um you know we can probably can the we can introduce some language and and a planning commission can condition that for salianne i don't think that that is an issue mr ross i think he said al ois too sorry so yeah so salianne you have to turn on to salianne okay so if you're saying no to salianne they you know they can't really go on the neighborhood for al ois either thank you yeah of course and then um as far as when the the um the uh the parkland is to be built we don't know it's just when the next proposal comes through i believe jay bosnians on the call you maybe add a little bit more to that um and so with what were the other ones so i have i have the traffic the the traffic control plan um and uh and the parkland um to the east of the site yeah um help me fellow commissioners if i miss something but um it was also about the llc's and why that weren't just that why that wasn't disclosed um and i know that you added a revised disclosure statement uh as as um late correspondence um and then the overall traffic impact and why uh salianne and urn wasn't a part of right searcher okay i mean i mean my own writing i'm going to go ahead and and then ask uh rob sprinkle and then uh potentially uh dailene from w trans to to answer those questions um and before you do uh just second uh did i miss anything else um from mr dyke uh commissioner sisco also asking about whether or not the um the fire gate uh across al-awiz could gain um until al-awiz is completely extended you know to her okay i'll um i'll probably defer it to rob and gape on on that question as well okay thank you good evening uh chair weeks vice chair peterson and there's the commissioners my name's rob sprinkle a traffic engineer for city santa rosa i'll do my best to take some notes as well to go through the the questions and and answer them um so obviously when we're adding a development of the size it will be adding traffic to to the area and the area has been planned out to make several connections not necessarily just with this project but with projects that come that will alleviate traffic along her um any interim until those projects are constructed and until the her and interchange is constructed um traffic on her and will uh be impacted um and and there there is not really a way around that until those other connections have been made with the other development so i don't want to um you know broad brush that but the um traffic study does show that the intersection operations at those intersections will still operate at an acceptable level even in the interim conditions um moving on to sally and sally and is is really considered a minor street um connection and in the interim as it will increase some traffic when this um when this development has been fully built out um in the future when the other connections are made the actually the the the impact of this intersection will be much less than than that interim condition i believe the traffic study um identified that there would be about uh 15 of the traffic using um sally and in the interim condition going down to an initial three percent of the um of the traffic during the so that'd be a hundred trips in the am and or i'm sorry so three percent of that would be three trips in the am and then three percent in the p.m would be of the hundred and thirty four would be like about four trips um so not a lot of additional traffic when everything is is built out as commissioners just go did bring up uh there were some notes found um on in the um engineering side that uh it indicate sally and would be is a temporary connection so that does need to be further evaluated by staff that was news um to traffic engineering earlier this week and we need to evaluate that with our partners in at the fire department to make sure that um that when that occurs they have the appropriate access that they need um moving forward so that's something that we do need to do some further evaluation on um let's see the and then also the fire gate i think that is being was being asked about um by the gentleman was probably the existing gate that's currently um on aloe's which is basically just a barricade um therefore traffic i think they will need to have some access into the development during uh construction although we we would not authorize construction vehicles to use aloe's um but you know construction type trucks use aloe's through there um but they there may be a point in time where they do need to have some access to that that that side of the project he also mentioned some um parking restrictions and i think he was just mentioning that they already do have uh constrained parking and i think his concern with that um i think adam mentioned that they do have more than adequate parking identified in their project and yes the intent of saline is not to be an arterial excuse me although as i mentioned in in the interim condition when the development is open in prior to the other connections made over to uh doesn't have an extension there would be uh an increase in traffic on aloe's during that interim period i think i answered all the questions unless someone wants to help me if i didn't thank you for me i'm happy to answer them thank you mr sprinkled uh you uh commissioner dagon well as far as the question on aloe's i think that it was two part it was if the fire gate could remain there until aloe's is connected to herne avenue and not um not just when this part of the development gets um built and then also can we restrict um construction traffic and um is it going to in saline could be vacated so that would be something the the first question we would have to check in with fire to see if that would be amenable to them um i don't want to speak for them and what their access needs are excuse me um i know that they typically do prefer to have two points of access open for especially large subdivisions of this type but again i don't want to speak for them and then if your second i'm sorry commissioner dagon your second question uh limiting construction traffic but i i guess um mr ross talked about that and then also is saline going to be vacated eventually i don't know that saline will be vacated uh if it was made a um if it's considered to be a temporary street it may be gated for emergency vehicle access i don't know that it'll be vacated though uh commissioner sysco yeah this is sort of informational because the way that those minutes read it said it would be saline be um uh vacated and um so i originally that meant it would be gated off so people could not in that way but it says vacated as a public roadway so then that made me think well could the could it be considered a public roadway anyway just kind of what and i don't need to evaluate but really so the the neighbors know what does the future hold for saline as an access for anything i would anticipate and again if we haven't done the the full evaluation but i would anticipate that it would receive an eva gate in the future still out pedestrian and you again not vehicles sorry pedestrian bicycle access the roadway would like to remain the same however there the one thing that i questioned even with the um making that a temporary access is nothing was designed there to put in a cul-de-sac so it's it is very odd and that's why we i still want to do some further evaluation on what was really the intent of that um that comment and to see if i could um do a little more evaluation on it um and again that needs to be that would occur much later when the um connection to the avenue extension would be made so that there are multiple access points as far as you know that the plan was not changed that saline was considered temporary it's just we got a long before it can be vacated yeah i was not aware that saline was going to be the was a temporary street until early this week it was my memory sorry okay so let me follow up on that um and i don't know who this is the question for um mr sprinkler you said that you needed to do some further evaluation does any action we take tonight would that be would your further evaluation be impacted or vice versa i don't see how that would have an impact on something that was already previously um had a decision thank you uh any questions of staff for the applicant a commissioner dug in yeah this question i think is for staff um on the pd document that you sent out adam i think it's page 10 the the master development plan it shows the different phases of the project and it's also i think in your powerpoint presentation that shows a little corner of what's going to be the four acre park is clearly shown as being in phase two is that going to be developed as part of this project it's sort of at the corner the southeast corner of uh dutton meadow and road a i think you're there give me uh just one second to kind of catch up and figure that out so that portion of the site so yeah okay i understand what you're saying so that is right beneath the parcel line so the bottom of dutton meadow of the new portion of dutton meadow is the end of this project boundary and then right below that is that small park that you're talking about that i believe is already dedicated excuse me sorry sorry um that my my dog is going crazy that um that phase two is dedicated i don't believe that is part of the conditions that for the project um maybe if gave osborne might know i don't i'm putting him on the spot but in my recollection is that the land is dedicated and this it's the city is responsible for development of the park right so in the interim be just a passive area well it's not even included with this overall um this proposal itself as far as uh like where it lands within the project boundary it's right outside the project boundary well it's shown here as park and and parentheses phase two underneath that and then the other park below that south of that is phase four b yes i see that so um so i think that's where it comes in as it's dedicated but not up to the applicant to develop it it have to be um from the the park agreement um i think robin miller the applicant might have a bit more he's got his hand raised to kind of help answer that question thank you thank you rob uh the history uh regarding the park site was that uh not only trimark homes but the other um property owners that own the subsequent phases um have all contributed the lands for the four acre park part of the agreement that was agreed to with the city signed off is that there's an irrevocable author of dedication and that the city will uh take the responsibility for the design and construction of the park with the park lands dedication that has already been offered so whenever the city chooses to implement the park design and construction uh which i think the roadway leading up to it would help facilitate that uh that is when that will occur it is completely within the city's discretion to do so um other questions uh commissioner cisco um yeah one more question for rob sprinkle and that is um i believe in the master plan and certainly in the uh the other iteration when we were considering the general plan amendment what looks as a regular intersection or a traffic square replace the traffic circle and so could you say something about that i assume that was a city um there has always been planned a traffic circle around about in the south i'll say the southeast area of that project just just north of colgan creek um the intersection that is uh at datan meadow and north point the new intersection that's being constructed with this project um proposed um has always been considered to be a traffic signal are those the two that you're referring to yeah i just was thinking that part of the the problem for the applicant or proposing the general plan was because that was considered a traffic circle and i know that the school had issues and i'm just wondering what how that discussion happened how it changed or made is wrong could happen so the prior the prior discussion um was actually the alignment of the roadway um the alignment was more of a t-intersection into the school which took away which basically made that intersection um right in front of the datan meadow school uh be a t-intersection whether it be you know hard right turns and hard left turns and we and we wanted to follow the circulation plan that was identified in the general plan and in a um rosin area specific plan to make that more uh curvy linear along there to facilitate more of a through traffic um regional type street which was planned for there thanks commissioner krapke and then commissioner carter and vice chair peterson yeah i have a couple questions versus for the applicant um in looking at your uh presentation the first map that you have on there is an old map and however on it you have um basically a through street from datan meadow to herne through the aloe's extension and on your map that you're you presented for approval that's gone and no longer exists and so in the what i'm looking at here is if al if salian to aloe is never meant to be in arterial street be a through street your phase is one and two only have one access point for all of these homes um so i'm just i was just curious why you removed that um i don't know if that's for robin or mr hines to answer i'm happy to take that robin um it came down to uh i can't remember who exactly would have been the the direction on this but again it came down to the fewest possible uh points of conflict on herne avenue that's already a busy street so we thought taking away that intersection would be better for the overall big picture and again we're we're we've been following this this dream of getting all these roads in as soon as possible and we can only work with what we have but um i wouldn't want it once the ultimate plan is laid out um i wouldn't want that additional intersection along herne if i could help it but i'll i'll stop and let rob take take it over maybe from from the city perspective that i agree that the you know minimum minimal number of intersections we could have on our arterial street the better and so if there are other access points that we can um access on lower volume roads uh that would typically be helpful i guess my question is is it's it's it's not adding it's just swapping in a different location right so sally ann was never supposed to be an access point so if you add one and that doesn't have a street name but we'll call east f1 street uh according to the plan right if you add that and then close off sally sally ann you're not adding anything you're just swapping one for another um that's my concern i i my biggest concern of this and then this leads into my my staff questions is the impact this has on on a Louise and then sally ann i mean i understand that you can um condition uh um this the approval to say you know no construction vehicles can can use that street i've lived in an area where they were building 1300 homes those rules are not followed i don't care what the conditions are and what the city says um you know i've gave nos this mr osborne knows this uh very well that he's he and other city staff have received very very many complaints about you know contractors just point a to point b whatever is the shortest distance um just like normal people and and that leads to my concern about that being an arterial street of people trying to access phase two um and parts of phase one off of her by going down sally ann into all the weeds and so i think if we were able to condition it and now this leads into my questions and i'm sorry um if we were able to condition it with a fire gate um it would it would it would solve kind of that problem um that that that probably is it so my questions are because are one two i guess it's probably a question for mr osborne would be do we have any sort of concept of a timeline on phase three of when that extra uh extension contacting her would be done and then if we don't if it's kind if it's kind of up in the air then i guess i don't know if it would be for staff or or council to say can't can they condition it now to have that uh an emergency fire emergency access fire gate put at the end of al-awiz where a i guess it's a blockade is now so uh just before rob jumps in too much paul lowenthal with the fire department came back on so maybe he can provide some uh insight into the in the gate or or any sort of other um fire access requirements good evening commission other uh sorry i just popped on uh the request of staff so my understanding is the question right now is uh the need for the second access point based on uh the volume of homes that are proposed for this area uh so yes it would trigger the second and whether or not uh the question is whether or not a fire access gate would be feasible on salient uh on al-awiz so we're on al-awiz now where there's just like a barrier it while this is under construction putting in a fire access gate until al-awiz can be extended all the way to the future plant that met his extension so yeah so the and then transitioning from the temporary gate to the permanent access gate at salient as one option yeah i mean just i'm just talking about where al-awiz ends so when you're coming off salient you hit al-awiz where al-awiz ends putting a fire gate there because right right now there's just a barrier while this is all under construction and then once al-awiz is connected all the way through to the dot meta's extension in phase three have a discussion about removing that's presumably when salient would be vacated if i recall that's what um commissioner sisco was saying then removing that gate yeah that looks like that that could work um with a compliant access gate there all right thank you the question i guess would be to what level it was constructed at and how easy it would be to utilize for emergency response and that's something that we could condition and look at further i think that answers all of my questions unless council has something to add to that about doing that right now or anything thank you um commissioner carter you were next yeah i'll start with i what i hope is an easy question the uh traffic impact study recommended modifications to the circulation at meadow wood elementary who would be responsible for those modifications commissioner carter that's a good question um let me uh consult with gay bosburn and circle and and as an add-on it looks like the driveway from the school is awfully close to that new intersection is that reasonable and feasible to work that way okay i'm gonna um robber gave a probably defer to them to answer that question i'll take a shot at it i guess um i think uh and that'd be something that we would have to work with the with the school on definitely to to arrange for improvements to be made um that'd be something we would likely have to plan then through our cip in order to to fund something like that okay um then i have another question for mr ross if i can continue um adam if you could put up the slide on cqa i know we don't have any cqa action with this item but i do have a question about the exemption from your presentation so and just to clarify you are making the finding for cqa with this so okay with the tentative map and the conditional use permit um that would be the cqa finding okay got you thank you let me pull it up really quick that's the one thank you so um you stated that the project is stat statutorily exempt due to its consistency with the rosalina areas best of all road specific plan uh the general and the and uh requirements of the zoning code and general plan um do those uh zoning requirement includes setbacks and things that we are approving alternatives for i'm not sure if their variance is but we're approving alternatives so as the is that second bullet mean once the planning commission approves those alternatives to the subdivision mac it becomes compliant with all zoning code requirements good great question so um so the the sub asset the specific plan uh rosalina areas festival road specific plan it doesn't necessarily identify the setbacks um within that context it identifies you know the circulation element the the density at the site and um and infrastructure improvements those sorts of things so the the uh zoning code for small lot subdivisions is within is kind of like under that and within that zoning code for the residential small subdivision it does allow the commission to or review authority it just it's always the commission in this day so um it does allow the the planning commission to approve those alternative setbacks so it's built into that into the zoning code section um that it's that you can make those of those uh those findings for the alternative setbacks which which has been done plenty times um throughout the city so the sequa so so yes when you approve those alternative setbacks you're you're also saying that it's you know it's compliant with the zoning code and then the zoning code also complies with the general plan and the rosalina specific plan and so forth so so yes um and it's not a variance because it is built into those uh into that zoning code for a residential sponsor the subdivisions does that make sense yes thank you very much and one last question possibly for mr caplan has uh has staff pursued any alternative strategies for implementing those roadway extensions other than the development of the funding parcels so i think that's a it's a game question and or rob i think you know i'll let them jump on but i think it's a capital and it'd be you know a capital improvement project to be done when it's not done by a development proposal um but uh but again i'll i'll uh i know that gave is having some technical audio difficulties trying to be able to respond otherwise i'm sure he would have done so uh so and i'll just here he comes perfect i'm in now good afternoon commissioners um yes i i have probably a few answers to a variety of the different questions that were presented that i can prove probably provide a little more clarity on but that one in particular when it gets into the capital improvements and what the city is going to do i'm going to defer to rob to that one but i'm i'm happy if i can have an opportunity to clear up some of the other points that were discussed i'm happy to jump in on those if if the commission would appreciate that so that would be great thank you okay so i will uh hand this over to rob at this point to answer that one and then i'll step back and give some clarity to the other points that were made over the last 15 20 minutes or so sure so we don't have any current capital improvements to do any roadway construction projects in that area that would be left to the development however we do have a very large uh construction project planned for the hermit interchange um we recently went for and did not receive a 14 million dollar grant that was going to fill the gap in our funding um to fully fund that project we have the environmental and the design 100 done so we are shovel ready with that project we're very optimistic that we will be able to leverage some of the fundings that's being established through the biden administration with the infrastructure grants that will become available to hopefully to fund and fill our our 14 million dollar gap for that project that on itself will help a lot of the uh will help alleviate a lot of the construction or excuse me a lot of the congestion in that area on herna avenue um so we're we are uh cautiously optimistic that will be successful hopefully in the upcoming year or two to help help get some of that funding we are working with our partners at scta as well to help um do that and leverage some of our measure and funds that have been established through that program um so that and that is the only current capital project we have regarding the roadway construction in that area appreciate that answer and and the previous material that was sent on and on the the hern interchange um i'll just close by saying i i hope that the city's good performance on on housing puts us in good stead with award for any infrastructure monies that might be available out there because i really would like to see the infrastructure in advance of or concurrent with the are not phased in as pieces of the master plan or implement thank you okay gabe do you want to um ask do you want to answer some of the other questions and then we'll advice chair peterson had a question too so absolutely and i'll try to make it quick so first off to commissioner sysco point about salian and the potential vacation of that right of way uh just to give a little more clarity about that process for the public um logistically how that would work is once alouise makes the connection to the public streets both to the to the east and to the west and a determination can be made that salian is no longer needed for general circulation for fire protection it is actually eligible for vacation at that point and that becomes a bit of an interesting um the whole process because essentially how it works it could be driven by the previous developer because that land was dedicated by the previous developer they would have the ability to apply for a vacation that land would revert back to the developer the developer would have the ability to utilize that for something other than a roadway the city can also initiate that process which would then still return it back to the developer but it would close off that road so that that is what would happen in that process once the connectivity is made and once robin his team can make the finding with fires um input that it's a safe connection and that that connection is no longer needed so to commissioner dugins question about the park uh basically the way that works in a bit of a master planned area is typically the park the park is funded by a few different ways first clearly in this particular situation we had the previous developer dedicate the land that goes to the city and then as development occurs in that general area that development pays parks fees and that park fee helps to fund that park so as more activity comes in more of the desire to build that park comes in because of the demand and even though it was placed on the city as an obligation in some situations the city can negotiate with future developers to build that park and get additional credits so most times it has a tendency to happen with the adjacent development and as that area builds out that's typically how the park program worked and then uh to um uh commissioner crepti's issue with the connectivity along alawis and salian very valid points um we do through the encroachment permit process do our best to control construction activity we can condition it we can enforce construction entrances um but as was mentioned it it just has a tendency to happen as activity picks up parking occurs there delivery vehicles occur there but we do have another avenue to address that and that is through the encroachment permit because we do have the ability to protect the existing public right of way through that process so we typically do implement conditions of that nature obviously that's a little different than instituting a gate that would be more suited as a condition of approval but we do put forward general conditions that attempt to control that and to try to create peace in those adjacent neighborhoods because we definitely understand the input that can create so we would never let a major construction access occur through that site but as was mentioned there are times when they have to get back there logistically to make that work but we do our best to try and mitigate them so those are the three happy to answer any questions about any additional details I provided but those are the three points that I felt could I could add a little more to thank you Gabe um you could stay on um a little bit more um Vice Chair Peterson I think you had some questions um I do this my question isn't traffic related so I'm happy to wait if we've got some more while we've we've got the key people um are there any other questions um for either uh Mr. Sprinkle or Mr. Osbrun well we have um Commissioner Deggan uh yeah in Mr. Ross's presentation he noted that the improvements on Dutton Meadow and Stoney Point and the North Point extension um are we're going to include a median and um the traffic studies seem to be predicated on having a form median um especially in those locations that limited um turns to right turn in and right turn out only um and but then in the DAC on items number 49 and 51 the language says um two-way median or left right turn lane so um is there a way to to is that still okay or because the traffic study counts on the median it should it be one or the other and that's my question I don't know if you want me to jump in or yes yes please okay so um my understanding is that those are those um there are medians established on North Point Parkway um in its entirety and on um portions of Dutton Meadow um except that I don't know the name but they're the first intersection there is opening for left turns in and out at the second so at the easterly uh roadway intersection there's a median that would allow only right turn in and right turn out at the third street going to the north that would also allow left turns in and out so my understanding that's not a two-way left hand there are not any two-way left hand turn lanes in that on the on the plan um I understand that but but um it looks like the DAC is written that it's the developer's option it says median and or left right turn lane so I'm just wondering if there's a way to make that more um you know that they can't change that it has to be a median can you give me those conditions from the DAC again I have the DAC report open okay it was page 16 um number 49 and number um 51 one second so if you just give me give us a just a couple minutes to kind of review that and see if there's to for us to respond to those specific conditions um would you like us to take maybe a five-minute break while you do that uh that would be cool yes please okay so let's uh come back at eight o'clock thank you yeah we just got a request for five more minutes if you're okay with it five more minutes if possibly yes okay uh so that would come back at eight oh six thank you chairman okay but if you would like to officially reconvene the meeting for the record okay um I'd like to officially reconvene the meeting at eight oh seven thank you chair weeks um so I'm at this slideshow let me just concurrent slide so okay so Stephanie's just a little bit of clarification for two parts here first is we have an answer to the DAC report um and we propose that you we just remove the reference to the um right turn lane on condition of approval 49 and 51 so it would read um so it would read typical half street so this is the one to third sentence of condition of approval number 49 it says typical half street improvements shall consist of a 6.5 foot wide two-way median or left turn lane it currently says left dash right turn lane so it should say left turn lane then on condition of approval number 51 the second half of that condition reads the first sentence of the second half that it says half width street improvements shall consist of a 26.5 foot wide structural pavement section from centerline to face of curve a 6.5 foot wide median or left turn lane so it currently says or left right turn lane so we remove the right from that language so it's basically deleting the word right from both those correct okay and then for the um for the clarification for alloys uh the um staff just wants a little bit more information on sorry so where where exactly on alloys is the um is the fire gate and then at what points of time is it is are the commissioners asking when it can be is it on the interim for construction only is it until all is it all the way until alloys connects to Dutton avenue extension or is it you know or is it um you know indefinitely what just what are those specifics of the question so we could provide a a better answer and then exactly where I think it's right here where it's between the s and the e okay and uh my thought process was to put it in there um my preference would be until alloys is extended to the eventual Dutton meadows extension okay give me one second so this is jessica jones um I think we need to have um paul lowenthal speak uh from the fire uh code perspective to understand it if I understand it correctly that connection would be one of the two required connections um as required by the fire code and putting in a gate there may not meet the fire code so I don't know paul if you're able to speak to that yeah I think Gabe and I were offline trying to tag team this one so I think the question that we're trying to better understand is if the intention is to have the gate in place until the development isn't just through but until the development hits a certain number of of units then once the number of units uh reaches the threshold the trigger is going to require the opening of the restricted gate to a to a compliant access and it's it sounds like there's a desire potentially to keep a gate in place regardless of the size of the development and I think that's where where the concern is or is the request just to keep the gate during construction but again once you hit the potentially once you hit a unit count we're still going to be in the same issue where we don't have the two compliant fire code points of access right and and so yeah my thought was not necessarily unit count I understand that's how you calculated as how you how many access points you need to serve as so many homes um but like my my concern is is sally and street is the only other access point to this entire thing other than that meadow now that the applicant has removed that the uh the uh access point onto her and that kind of brought up my whole thing about like what we put you know if if sally and was supposed to be vacated at some point then you're just kind of switching one for the other so it's not it's um my biggest concern is having been on those on those streets is I mean one construction supply material suppliers are not going to be able to fit on that street um you can barely fit three cars you know three car wide um and I know some of the the residents have video of you know like amazon and ups trucks not being able to get by each other on those streets so my concern from my point of view is that one of the findings we have to make paraphrasing is that there's no uh negative effect on the surrounding areas and if sally and street was never meant to be an arterial street is the only other access point to this entire phase one and phase two um portion of the development it's going to severely impact all of those that live on those streets because those streets were not meant to be arterial streets. Good afternoon commissioners this is Gabe Osburn I think I can add to that a little bit those those are all incredibly valid points typically the way it works with a subdivision of this size is generally when you hit a unit count and this is what mr lowenthal and I were attempting to uncover when you hit a certain unit count based on the number of units a secondary public access is required to the development it's not an eva access it's not gated it allows ingress and egress into the development for general operation emergencies things of that nature and when developments are over that threshold and they have to maintain that connection which this one likely is um we believe it's around the 100 unit mark um that it it can gate that access off for a period of time and that period of time can be up until that 100 unit or whatever that threshold is that occupancy request comes in but at that point it needs to be memorialized as an open access so in some of these situations what we run into is it really is an interim approach and I think that's what we've seen with alouise and salian where the ultimate circulation design does push alouise which is at our minor street to bigger connection points but as it stands now as a secondary access it will have to rely on that salian street connection until that's materialized so I think specifically with the gate a gate can go in but the gate has to be consistent with fire code and it can only remain for that period of time until the fire code states that that has to be opened up as a secondary pedestrian access I hope that helps with the issue or at least the understanding of how it works with subdivision development it does thank you very much sorry chair weeks for hijacking this real quick um but uh so I um my follow my two follow-up questions would would be when you say 100 units are those 100 occupied units with full um uh certificate of occupancy or um is there a substantial completion point for those and then second one of the things I asked earlier is what are the plans for the phase three that would be that extension all the way to the cut meadows extension um where is that in the pipeline or is is that just impossible to say right now I would say basically your question on the occupancy so typically the way it works with the the fire thresholds and and mr lowenthal feel free to jump in if I get anything incorrect but generally the numbers can tweak different pieces so for example if fire needs access for fire it could be based on when you start bringing combustible materials on site so that can be the start of the building permit process when you're required to basically get secondary access meaning for the general public meaning people need to move in and out of that quarter that's typically occupancy because that's what generates that additional load so depending on what it is there can be a few different triggers there for how that gate would need to function or when it would need to be removed but typically the public street connection because of the fact that it needs to move people in and out doesn't need to occur until the additional people are there and as I mentioned paul feel free to correct me if anything in there was incorrect as far as the adjacent development unfortunately that is very difficult to tell you know when we looked at salian clearly tracking that back and looking at the conditions and some of the internal communication that took place as part of that temporary connection it really was unknown as to when that circulation pattern would be completed unfortunately that's the nature of development things come through they slow down it's very difficult to to put a defined timeline on that connection point all right thank you very much yeah I think if you're asking what my preference would be then within the constraints of which uh been uh communicated then I guess it would be yeah have a have a temporary emergency access vehicle gate gav gate there until the 100 occupied homes until 100 homes are occupied and then because that's as far as we can go without having three being developed so that's what I would like to see chair we see might have asked one more question not at all keep going okay thanks and this is more of a procedural thing for for miss crocker um how what is the procedure to do it appropriately to see if there is a general consensus amongst the commission that to condition this I mean that's just an open question like who's all for it or how would we do that appropriately well hi there you could um do a rather informal straw poll or you could um go ahead and introduce the motion as amended to revise conditions 4951 of the DAC report and yeah I just would have to come up with some language I mean maybe at this point just a an informal straw poll on as if the commission would like to continue entertaining um this type of condition which sounds like it might need a little more time to flesh out I don't want to waste any more of the commission or staff's time if nobody else for this but me so chair we said so I think um let's do we do a straw poll by a thumbs up thumbs down yeah okay so then let's I can't see anybody on the screen so but but I can if you can help me thank you I'm in support of commissioner crepti thank you you've said exactly what I was going to say so as always my fellow commissioners always say everything I don't need to say anymore so thank you so um can we get a thumbs up uh or a thumbs down okay so that's six up one down so okay uh commissioner dug in um as far as my question on the DAC language I just want to explain my thinking um for the traffic report they don't advise putting in a stretch crossing across Dutton Meadow um at this time and I'm thinking that um children like going to see a neighbor on the far side of Dutton Meadow from the north side going to the south side um having a median to stand on if there's traffic is much safer than standing in the middle of a traffic lane if it's a two-way turn lane so I would prefer having a constructed median rather than a two-way turn lane that's why I asked for the clarification and asked um if one of the other was um if it was optional for the developer and um if we could change that so that was and I don't know if that has to be voted on but that was my thinking behind that so instead of um what Mr. Ross said about removing the words right on both those it's that there's a median is that how is that well I think Mr. Boss's language suggestions make it that it has to be a median it can't be a it can't be an optional two-way turn lane okay thank you so um where are we uh any maybe we should do a thumbs up or thumbs down on the issue of deleting the word right in both those items um and then because it also did indicate left as an option as well I believe I might well I think it was right in some locations and left in other locations because of how the traffic study indicates it wants to um control right turn in and right turn out in some locations and that was predicated on having to perform median there yeah locations they needed to have like left turn access yeah so um for the median issue um is there um what language um Mr. Osburner Mr. Sprinkle or uh Ms. Crocker would we need to um delete or add unless it's just that word right in those two lines can you help me one of you this is Rob um my interpretation is that the the left right wording that was in there before could be interpreted as a two-way left turn lane which is not what the intent is the intent is to have a median there however at intersections we do want to allow the left turn lane so that's why the word left was was left in as as um and and is standing in there okay so is there um support in deleting the word right in those two sentences thumbs up thumbs down um okay so um that's seven thumbs up on that one okay so and now where are we uh any other questions from um for uh from the commissioners for us F uh commission for Vice Chair Peterson uh so I think this may be for um Ms. Crocker but uh the the public speaker mentioned the deficient disclosure form um where the LLC members are not listed out and so I just you know what do we do with that? Sure um I believe Ms. Weeks had also mentioned that that information was added prior to the start of this meeting so the information is required to disclose the names of the members of the LLC to enable the commissioners to properly determine whether they have a financial conflict and must abstain um we are to identify the members, managers, partners, offices, directors of LLCs, general and limited partners of limited partnerships and I understand that that was uploaded to um as late correspondence in time for anyone to make a determination as to whether um they would have a conflict as a result of disclosure of those names okay thank you sure so is there are there any other questions before I ask somebody to uh enter the resolution um commissioners oh I'm sorry I think we're still just working on I'd like to get some language here for um the condition so that we're clear when you read the resolution that we can say as amended to and then we'll have the language for the condition which we're just depending and which resolution the first or the second resolution uh the GAC is referenced in both resolutions okay that will apply to both and then oh please we're all uh writing here trying to come up with an okay I'd like to be able to read some language for you all to you know hear and react to so we can hopefully make the resolution process as clean as possible okay stand by just a moment so anybody have a joke to tell them I think I can take a try on the fly at least while they're working on the access gate I was just gonna compliment commissioner Holton on his uh doggie so go ahead miss docker revising the resolutions both resolutions to modify conditions 49 and 51 of the DAC report to remove reference to left right turn lane and revise to delete the word right to state only a left turn lane and delete reference to right turn lane I'll I'll make that prettier tomorrow okay but I think okay and then the issue on the temporary access does that need to go and uh rest mr ross will jump in on that in a moment they're just okay in the language hi commissioner dug in do we also need language about um limiting or restricting no construction traffic along eloise help salient and where would that go a good question I think with the language that we're coming up with with the eba access gate it would already restrict access to the site from aloe's and salient and then uh just to point out we I think we do need to get the applicant to agree to the proposed condition for the um for the eba access gate okay I see we have a hand from uh mr miller and mr hinds that would be for each of the proposed revised conditions yes as we um get them out to you okay thank you and robin miller is raising his hand to respond hi yes uh thank you adam and uh chair weeks yes uh to mark is a variable to the condition modifications thank you very much thank you bear with us commissioners I think we are almost there okay and we will be looking at um the eba access gate will be in the cp resolution stand by while we identify which number and then mr ross will read in the proposed language and we shall proceed do you we should probably so he will read the proposed language before a commissioner enters the resolution yes I'd like to get the language before you and then when you read the resolution mr ross can again read the language if you would like and then you can just say as amended um pursuant to planner ross got it or you can just read it in these will be short conditions okay and then to include new condition number x in the cp resolution to read as follows and then you can read that language and if you like or mr ross can read it again at that time yes sorry we're just uh we're just finalizing this language and it I believe it should go as condition of approval number four on the conditional use permit resolution under the general conditions of approval and then we will remember number four to number five and number five to number six this is when I really miss being able to be at the staff table I know this out thank you guys I I'm seeing uh final sign-offs on some language here so I feel like um sure we do your joke idea was okay I think we have it okay sorry they typically start off as this and then you get it to this yeah so um okay so in reading these two we're going to propose two conditions um one is for the eba access gate and for the encroachment permit that would be applied for after entitlement um obviously during the construction phase so this would be as condition of approval number four and five new conditions added into the conditional use permit resolution moving uh condition of approval numbers four and five down one or I should say two so so four and five would then be six and seven um so they read as the first one is an eba access gate shall be installed at the current end of valoese avenue during construction activities until the removal is required in accordance with adopted codes and amendments and the second one or sorry condition of approval number five that was four this is five the encroachment permit associated with the project shall prohibit any construction staging or parking on the existing sections of valoese avenue so with that um would somebody like to enter the resolution commissioner sysco we the resolution of the planning commission of the city of san rosa making findings and and approving it that was subject to a 100 net resident a lot subject 12 percent part here located at two six five oh two six and two six eight four and one one two one three zero three five assessors process number zero four zero seven that zero zero that zero two zero two three and zero four nine one zero two zero two and that's zero one on the c one eight dash one oh one including the heading out you were you were cutting out all right um um and adding uh conditions the new conditions as uh stated by adam ross also amending attached uh exhibit a to the changes recited or by staff modifying conditions if you want to read the reference right uh from those and way further we have account thank you is there a second i'll second thank you so that was moved by miss uh commissioner sysco seconded by commissioner duggin um so uh comments um we'll start with commissioner carter well let me start by saying i support housing on the site and hope to see it built soon um san rosa is a housing first community and i fully expect we will continue on that course as we focus on redevelopment and infill in roseland um i also support the development of infrastructure and community services to optimize the intensified residential uses in these areas um i can make all the findings necessary for approval of the tentative map but i'm still having problems with findings c and d under the use permit should i contain my comments to the resolution the c up resolution um i know let's go ahead and uh talk about both of them and we'll just vote on them separately of course as i said i can i can make the findings necessary for approval of the tentative map but i'm having difficulty with finding c and d that the design and location and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with existing and future land uses or that the site is current as proposed is physically suitable for the type and density we've heard from staff that over a hundred units should have two access points and the limited conditions on alloys and um and salient mean there is one access point to this project so i don't think i can make those findings on the c up thank you uh okay so we'll go to uh commissioner cisco well first of all i appreciate the uh the applicant back as uh requested by the council to need this item bring forward a project out the general plan amendment as they had before obviously a lot of work has gone into this in in terms of completing the site uh there are complications as as a result of the the circulation demands and i think that the applicant a really good probably together uh the very much needed housing here in a thoughtful way a thoughtful way with the design to the neighborhood etc um i definitely we need this infrastructure you know it's going to be providing a really important um slice of infrastructure badly needed uh in this area of town and so i really appreciate the fact um in addition to the housing this applicant is um going to be thinking really important contributions to the infrastructure um so i definitely under appreciate the the concerns with salient and al-awiz i how we get that um secondary in on other than this until phase three happens oh i don't know when that so um i'm comfortable with the the conditioning the commission sounds like it's prepared to make on the conditional you much impossible always great so um yeah so with that findings for the conditional use permit at this time and can make the findings as well for the tentative map thank you commissioner duggin um i'm also can make the findings um for the um i guess we're doing the conditional use permit first for the permit plus the small lot subdivision plus the the small changes that are allowed for the small lot subdivision um part of the zoning code um and i'm in support of all the the differences that we've added the two extra added conditions plus the change the revisions to the dac i think those are all good additions and the fire gate i think is a good stop gap measure until um until later in the game so it'll limit construction activities on al-awiz as it is right now and help keep that neighborhood quiet and safe because i know for a fact it's sort of difficult to access in and out of um and i you know i just hope that day three goes goes quickly so then we they have the necessary second access um as the meadow gets extended but i can make all the required findings for the project thank you uh mr holton i can also make all the required findings for the operational permit uh for pretty much the myriad of everything i'm on board with my fellow commissioners i do also want to thank uh the community i want to thank mr deckey for calling in and or for chiming in and and definitely putting his insight and making sure that we were definitely going to address the fire gate issue because i think that's a really really important component uh i can tell the applicant is totally bent over backwards for this whole project and done a lot of really great work and really thought outside the box in a lot of areas especially with uh some of the the front facing housing i i think it's definitely shown a lot of effort however i am concerned as well about the duration of the completion of the project to go all the way through to detonado because that's really really a major impactful uh artery through west santa rosa and you know herne can really i think especially with a lot of the studies uh that were done they were done a little bit earlier and there's been quite a bit of impact in the area in the past two to three years especially where that school is just it's it's it's a hot mess so it's only going to get worse so i really really hope that there's some proactive planning to make sure that we can get that to go all the way through as soon as possible and i know that you know there's a lot of factors involved um but i just have to say that the that that traffic is just going to be an absolute nightmare for the community of the west side but i can still make all the required findings and i'll be in support of this project thank you can we share a crep key yeah first uh thank you so much to staff um meeting up to this and all the hard work and then all the hard work we push you through tonight uh really really appreciate it um also um you know i just want to say thank you to the applicant for meeting us midway just so that we can get this project move forward um i'm i'm in support of the application i can make all the required findings for the c up and the tent map um i don't want to repeat anything that anybody's already said i agree it's just about everything including commissioner carter's concerns however operating under the general plan um that exists with the pre-approved extensions should they get built at some point um we come into a kind of a rock and a hard place of do we not allow housing because we don't have the infrastructure but we don't have the money to build the infrastructure to support the housing um so with that being said i i think i'm gonna you know i'm going to vote favor this uh of this application to move it forward because it's an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem um but you know we do need housing but i think this is a perfect example of how um as commissioner carter said earlier that um we're not just in a housing emergency here in santa rosa we're in an infrastructure emergency as well um and i'm not just talking potholes i'm talking you know being able to for people to drive through their communities and it's uh it's it's important to to not you know to realize that and then then to plan for that going forward so um i will be voting in favor of uh both the c up and the temp map thank you uh vice chair peterson so i i think my fellow commissioners have put this uh the challenge of this project um pretty well you know we're looking at something that's been around for a while you know this this project's been in the works for quite a while um and it was you know initially according to you know the the docs we've seen it the setback came with a great recession and you know who knows what could happen right but we know that herne avenue overpass is 14 million short and you know so we approved the project to commissioner carter's point you know we've we've got kind of limited access i i speaking from experience doubt and herne that whole area is is immovable i mean it is just solid cars uh it rush hour we've approved a bunch of projects in southwest and you know this is the tension where you know this is the chicken and egg this is the you know infrastructure versus housing and and it's certainly not the pressing absolute need for housing um versus like an existing just terrible traffic and transport situation i mean those are really intention for for me and and i completely understand commissioner carter's point um i think the balance here i think i can make the findings in the the c up i think this is is not an ideal situation at least now i think you know again commissioner carter made a great point that it would be these kind of projects the capital projects be going tandem with these developments so that we don't have the scenarios the way they are now i think that would be ideal but i i think with the help of staff and the applicant we've been able to kind of figure out um some conditions that may at least improve the you know the short term maybe hopefully not medium or long term life of the residents while the other phases and the herne overpass get get built out so um with that i think the tentative map is is fine i can make all those findings and um i i think i can also make all the findings in the uh conditional use permit thank you um i also can make all the findings for both resolutions i'm not going to reiterate uh what my fellow commissioners have already said um so with that um mr maloney will you go ahead and call for the vote that was moved by commissioner cisco and seconded by commissioner duggin yes thank you chair weeks starting with commissioner carter no on the uh use permit resolution commissioner cisco sorry about that commissioner cisco broke up i didn't hear you hi i'm sorry one more time hi thank you commissioner duggin hi commissioner holton hi commissioner crepe hi vice chair peterson hi and chair weeks hi so that passes with uh six eyes and one no uh commissioner carter voting no so then we'll go to the second resolution which is for the tentative map would somebody like to enter that but chair weeks i'd be happy to enter it but since i'm breaking up it might be better for somebody else to do that okay thank you commissioner duggin i'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of san aroza approving the dutton meadows subdivision tentative map located at 2650 2666 2684 dutton meadow and 1112 1130 and 1250 herne avenue assessor's parcel numbers 043-071-007-002-0023 and 043-191-021-024 and 016 file number prj18-039 mha18-006 and do i need to include any changes in this the the language in the DAC you got it thank you so much and the the changes the revisions to conditions 49 and 51 in the DAC report and wait for the reading thank you is there a second uh commissioner holton okay so that was moved by commissioner duggin yeah i might just randomly moved by commissioner duggin and seconded by commissioner holton uh so we'll go ahead and mr maloney if you can call for the vote thank you chair weeks commissioner carter i commissioner sysco hi commissioner duggin hi commissioner holton hi commissioner quickie hi vice chair peterson hi chair weeks hi so that passes with seven eyes um and with that unless uh miss jones has anything she wants to impart to us before we leave um i would just i'd like to take uh chair prior chair whatever preference i don't know what there's some word for it um and say happy new year to everybody and i can't believe but it's going to be 2022 the next time we all get together so jesse could you have anything you want to impart to us thank you chair weeks um yeah just uh reiterate what you just uh just uh wishing everybody happy holidays and uh happy new year and i'm i'm just excited to be back with you all and look forward to continued work great so with that i will go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 8 50 7 p.m. good night everybody good night happy holidays all yeah