 So with that, if people could start turning on their audio and their video, that would be great so we can start at 4.30. She disabled my home. Now she did it. And if you're not speaking, if we could keep the audio on mute, that would be great. My video isn't being allowed to be turned on for Yvonne Rahelzer. Oh, here we go. Thank you. Okay, great. Yeah, my video won't go on either. Okay. Okay, it looks like everybody's videos are working and as I mentioned, if you could keep your audio on mute. Unless you're speaking, that helps with background noise with as many people on the call. So Michelle, are we ready? We are ready. Okay, thank you. So with that, I'd like to call the June 9th, 2022 meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission to order. Before we start, I'd like to read the following statement. I'm going to read the provisions of the governor's executive orders and dash 25 dash 20 and end dash 29 dash 20, which suspends certain requirements with the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19 planning commissioners and the housing authority commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using zoom webinar commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and or practicing 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 four, which is a public comment portion or during our public hearing tonight will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to speak. So with that, I'd like to welcome the housing authority to this special joint study session with the planning commission. Nice to have you all with us today. And if I could ask the recording secretary to call roll. Yes, thank you. Our planning commission roll call. Let the record reflect that all planning commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Carter and Vice Chair Peterson. And now I will call roll for housing authority. I'm sorry, Michelle also a commissioner dug in isn't here tonight. Oh, yes, thank you. I'm sorry I didn't that's okay. I did miss her. Okay, and then let the record reflect that all housing authority commissioners are present with the exception of Vice Chair Owen. Great. Thank you. So with that, I'd like to now open the joint planning commission housing authority study session. And item two and item 2.1 is a study session on the housing element review. The draft 2023 dash 2031 housing element. And I believe Ms. Lyle is going to be doing the presentation. Yes, thank you so much. Good afternoon chair weeks and chair test and members of the commission and housing authority. And tonight we are going to be talking about our draft housing elements. And with me tonight, we also have any Nicholson senior planner with our advanced planning team, and also Cynthia Walsh, our consultant with place works will be here and be able to answer questions and Cynthia will be participating in the presentation as well. So I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. One second here. All right, is that looking good to my team members there. I'm going to assume it is so you guys jump in if I feel if you see me making a mistake here with the presentation. So, as I noted, this is really the first opportunity we have to talk to you about the draft housing element. We have talked to you so far about the actual general plan update, Santa Rosa forward, and with the housing authority. We did talk about a month ago about our general plan update and the housing element. So some of this may be some review for you, but we are going to go through various components of the housing element. And we will stop at a couple of different points, because this is a lot of dense information. So you'll have time to ask questions and clarifying comments as we as we move through. So we are going to talk about our state law and the housing element requirements and why we were at this point. We'll talk about the outreach we've done as part of this effort. We will talk about our sites inventory and our regional housing needs allocation and then what that process entailed. And then we will get into the actual housing element programs. There are quite a few programs and policies within this document. And then the project schedule moving forward. So you are probably aware we are in the midst of a general plan update, which we call Santa Rosa forward. And that does include a comprehensive update to our whole general plan. The housing element is part of that, but we have pulled the housing element out of that larger process to create a faster track, because the housing element has a different set of requirements. It is updated required to be updated more often. And we are required to adopt it by the end of January of next year. So I noted some of these things, but the other interesting thing about the housing element is that it is required to be certified by the state housing and community development department. So it's not very often that we have a locally adopted document that needs to be certified by the state. So it is a very intricate process and we will go through that when we talk about the schedule. So the other piece of this is that the housing element that's under review right now is really looking at an eight year timeframe. So our general plan update is looking at 2050 as a horizon year. So you've probably heard discussion about our visioning and growth projections through 2050. For this housing element, we're only looking at this very small piece of that larger timeframe. So eight years. So 2023 through 2031. And as I said, we are required to adopt a housing element by January 31st of 2023. So early next year. And I will also note that we are one of the first to release a draft housing element in our region. And so far we are tracking to be on time. That timeline will be dependent on your review and also on just the state review as well. But this is the one of two times that you'll be seeing the housing element. So no final action is required tonight. You will be asked to review and create a final action later this fall and winter when it comes back. Matt, sorry, I'm speaking to the planning commission when I say that we will come back to the housing authority as well to make sure that you have a chance to provide comments and to make sure that your comments have been incorporated. So there are quite a few components of our housing element. One, it does, it is required that we review our previous housing element. So the one that's in effect right now and taking a deep dive into the programs to see how successful they were or how what has been implemented and what still needs to be done. The other piece is looking at our housing needs assessment and a fair housing assessment. So there's a lot in the document about demographics. How, where is the need, what type of housing do we need to create and looking at fair housing. So looking at our housing data in a different way with more of an equity lens, environmental justice lens. And a lot of that is required by federal and state law. We do have a fair housing assessment within our housing element tonight that's specific to Santa Rosa. We are also participating in a countywide fair housing assessment. And that will is moving on a little bit of a slower track, but we'll be moving forward separate from this in the next few months. So that's looking at more of the region. So looking at all of our Sonoma County jurisdictions and fair housing on that kind of larger macro scale. So the housing element also looks at our regional housing needs allocation and making sure that we have adequate sites that are zoned and appropriate for the level of income requirement and within the city. And then the housing element also looks at housing constraints. So it looks at issues with permitting fees, all all things that really go into how housing is produced. And then of course it does include programs and policies to be able to accomplish our housing goals. So as part of our work, we have done a fair amount of outreach. This is a requirement by the state, but it's also something that we adhere to as a standard and Santa Rosa to make sure that we are doing outreach and engagement to really reflect with the community needs. So there what what we've done is a couple of different types of outreach and engagement. Our consultant team has done interviews of service providers within the region. Those are listed in the housing element. You may remember we did do a joint study session late last year with the city council and planning commission. We did have a community workshop a few months ago, which was on zoom, and we know that not everyone's going to attend a zoom meeting to talk about housing policy. So we also did an online community survey, and we got a great response from that. It did have a lot of questions in there. So that that questionnaire and those results are contained in your information tonight, and we're really important to our policy effort. And then we are also participating in a collaborative with other jurisdictions. So we have some grant money from regional government to collaborate with Sonoma and Napa County jurisdictions. And as part of that effort, there has been an equity working group. And so those folks met about five times over a two month period of time and provided really valuable input on barriers to housing, where the housing is needed, what type of housing is needed. And so we received that input as well and it wasn't incorporated. And then of course, we've already been working on our general plan update. So the work and the outreach and the workshops that have gone on since the summer of 2020 have also been really valuable in creating this work. So now let's move into our arena or regional housing needs allocation. So the state actually determines how many housing units as a state we need to create, and they give a certain number to our regional governments. And our original government is a Bay Association of Bay Area governments, and they created a methodology process to determine how to allocate. I think it was roughly half a million housing units, how to allocate that among our nine County Bay Area. And throughout so through that process, we received a certain amount in an income breakdown as far as units that we are required to be able to plan for for this eight year cycle. So our current cycle, which ends this month required us to create roughly 5000 units. And so our next cycle is similar. Where it's roughly 4600 units, although the number of lower income units has increased as far as that percentage. And so it's part of state law and really looking at our allocation. It does require that we have a buffer. So we're going to walk through some of the numbers and our housing inventory related to this, but just know that they, we do have to have a buffer. We need to show that we have adequate site zone for this allocation, but we also need to have a buffer beyond that as well. So here's the breakdown of what Sonoma County in whole received. So we did receive the largest allocation in Sonoma County. Next being in the unincorporated County and then Petaluma and Runert Park. So just wanted to show this breakdown for you. And so the, the amount of units that we're required to produce is also broken down in these income categories. So very low, low, moderate and above moderate. So this reflects how we are doing in our current cycle right now. So currently we are required to produce roughly 5000 units. And this shows over the period of time what we've produced. We have had issues being able to accomplish our housing goal. And that is because of a variety of different issues, but it is very important that we are able to not just plan for the number of units required, but to actually build those units because that keeps us eligible for other grant money. So there are many types of grants and federal state funds that first look to see do we have a certified housing element. And for us, the answer is yes. Our housing element is certified. And then there's usually a second question. Are you meeting your regional housing needs allocation? And unfortunately, we are not currently and we have not for quite a while and I'll go into that previous cycles in a moment. But you can see our requirements are to produce the units in this breakdown of very low, low, moderate and above moderate. We have been very successful in building those above moderate units, but there are greater needs for the other income areas. So we've actually exceeded the amount that we need for above moderate and need to build more in those other income categories. I'll also note that this does not include the rebuilding of homes lost within the fires. That sector of building is one of the reasons we have not been able to meet our allocation, but they are not counted when they get rebuilt towards these totals because they were already existing units when this cycle started. So looking back, so previous cycles, so looking at 2007 to 2014 and then looking even further back, 1999 to 2007, you can see that our fourth cycle goal was about 6500 units and we did not reach that. And then our third cycle goal was 7600 units. We actually did very well that cycle, but still fell short in that very low income category. So looking forward to this next cycle, our consultants really helped us identify the correct process to identify the sites to show that we can meet this new allocation. And that starts with looking at our last cycle, so our current one that we're in. So which of those housing sites that were identified actually had building construction, which actually got built and which ones are still vacant or underutilized. And then we look at the capacity of our pending and approved projects. We do have quite a few of entitled projects or approved projects and some of those have had building permits issued. If those building permits are issued, they cannot count towards this next cycle, but we have many that are approved and have not applied for building permits yet or are in the midst of that plan check process. So those units we are counting because anything that is built after basically this month can be counted toward this next cycle. The other thing that we look at is vacant sites. So there could be vacant sites that were not identified in the last cycle and those are obviously very key. Usually vacant sites are in areas where there needs to be development. And so those are important because we also look at what the barriers were as to why those sites weren't developed. And then we are also looking at sites that are larger than half an acre and smaller than 10 acres. So there's also very strict rules about the inventory from state law about what can be counted. We do need to make sure that the sites are feasible and Cynthia will get into a little bit of that when we talk about what state law requires. The other piece of our inventory looks at accessory dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units are kind of a new concept in the last few cycles and they are really valuable because you're able to add additional units on existing lots. And we've had a great track record with being able to produce ADUs within our jurisdiction and we work closely with our Sonoma Napa ADU nonprofit group. That's really been promoting stock building plans and helping homeowners with feasibility and walking them through the process. State law has also required us to streamline a lot of our permit process to be able to increase the production of ADUs and make sure that basically any homeowner is really able to accomplish these units. So this map is pulled out of our housing element draft and it's really just to show you where are those approved and pending projects. So as you can see a lot of them are focused in the downtown area. We also have a fair number in Roseland. We do have priority development areas which serve to streamline development and most of them do have a specific plan which helps streamline the environmental review. So we have a lot of projects located in those areas. So the little green dots are approved and the blue dots are pending. And this map also shows our fire severity zones which I will talk about on the next slide here. So we are also looking at vacant sites in a different way because we're going to be differentiating with these next two slides of within the downtown station area plan and outside the downtown station area plan. And you may question why are we focused on that specific plan when we have so many others and that's because our downtown plan looks at density very differently. So you may remember we removed density in the downtown and now we have what's called floor area ratio. So we have to differentiate the sites in downtown very differently because the state needs to trust that the sites we're providing them are feasible for housing and at the rate or at the number per acre that we are suggesting. That's hard to do when you don't have density and you provide maximum flexibility on the type of land use and project that could be built. And so we've really gotten out of the way to the point where HCD at the state is a hard time deciphering how many units could potentially be there. So just I wanted to give you that caveat of that's why we are differentiating between outside the downtown plan and inside the downtown plan. So outside the downtown plan. This is what our draft inventory is looking at. So this is looking at where do we have capacity to show the state we have the ability to build the right mix of units as far as income within the city. So you'll see a lot of purple dots in our fire rebuilds areas and that's because after or for this next cycle we are able to count those rebuilt homes towards our allocation. So that is very new. We haven't been able to do that in the past. So this map does show that we're capitalizing on that opportunity that these sites as they rebuild will be counted towards allocation because of the location of these sites. They are mostly above moderate. But as you have seen in the previous slide we are required to produce or plan for a good sector of above moderate. So this shows also other sites that are eligible for lower income and moderate as well. So one other thing I'll note about this inventory is we are very fortunate that we do not have to rezone property to to create this capacity. We have existing capacity right now. So we have a little bit of an easier time than some other jurisdictions who would have to go through a full identification and rezoning process to be able to create capacity to show the state that there's enough for the allocation. And then focusing on the downtown plan. These sites are noted as part of the capacity to look at what's allowed in our downtown area. And again we are going to make the case to HDD that these sites are able to be produced in the number of units required and at the income level required. So based on state law and best practice we are projecting a at a thousand lower income units amongst these sites. And that's really because of the size of the lots and the amount of floor area ratio that's allowed for these particular sites. And then moving to accessory dwelling units. So this shows our track record and being able to produce those adues over the last few years. And our annual average is 72. And so we are doing a very conservative projection that we can create another 576 adue units. So this is consistent with what HDD methodology recommends and then also a bag or association of various governments methodology as far as the affordability and where those may actually land. So as I noted earlier not only do we have to show that we can meet that 4600 number of allocation. We also have to have a buffer. So this slide is a little complex but I wanted to walk through with you how we get to that number. So this is our allocation. This is the amount that we're required to produce or to show that we can have capacity for. This is our capacity that we've identified in the draft housing element. And then of that here is our vacant site capacity downtown capacity and then our projected adues. So our total capacity is oh so for above moderate we're showing a 200% buffer moderate we're showing 58% buffer and then for very low and low of 43% buffer. So that's really important because we need to show the state that there is a buffer. This provides us the flexibility. So if a site does not develop into housing downtown and goes to a mix of office or you know an event center or something different we have other sites that can serve to to accommodate that allocation. So we have to have a also a no net loss. So the site that's identified in our housing element that zone for housing. If it gets approved for something other than housing we all we need to show that we have an adequate site that's comparable. So we are not losing that potential allocation. So we'll come back to this when we need to. So I thought this might be a good place to stop before moving on and Cynthia is going to talk about housing element programs and state law. Are there any questions that I can help you with at this moment and I will stop my screen share. Amy but what I'd like to do is see if the commission has any questions at this time and then turn it over to chair test for any questions and I have a number of questions that but I think they cover a lot of the area so I'm going to wait till the very end of your presentation. That's my questions if that's OK with you. So I'll ask my fellow commissioners. Do you have any questions of Ms. Lyle at this time. OK seeing none chair test. Thank you. I don't see any hands raised. So no we don't. All right. Well then I'll proceed on and then after Cynthia presents there will be a couple more slides and then I have a couple questions for you all or areas of that we want to talk through. So we'll do that at that point too. So I will turn it over to you and make sure you see my slide there. Yes. Great. Thank you Amy. Good evening everyone. Cynthia Walsh with Placeworks. I'm just going to jump right in. So now that you've walked through an overview of the housing element once those sections are complete we take that information and the data and then we create new programs or continuing programs to address the needs we've identified. So as a part of this process we first look at the fiscal housing element to determine certain we look at each program and determine OK has this been completed. Should we carry this forward maybe slightly modify it strengthen it in any way. And if there's any new programs to add based off of state law requirements or any comments we have received from our public outreach. So as a part of this for process for Santa Rosa we have identified a total of 25 programs for the housing action plan. Seven of those are continuing without modifications 18 18 have been modified. And when I say modified that most likely means we've consolidated to make the program more streamlined or we've added additional information to strengthen the program. And then we do have eight new programs which typically as I already mentioned address new state law or comments that we have received. Next slide. Sorry. Great. So just to kind of walk through the programs that we have included to address new state law. So SB 166 Amy did mention no net loss. So this is when there is a site that comes forward that as she said may not develop with housing. You need to ensure that you're continuing to have a sites inventory that will meet your rena throughout the eight year cycle. So you want to make sure that you do have that buffer. HCD recommends a buffer between 15 and 30 percent. So as sites do develop not at the affordable level level you are planning them for you still maintain that capacity. Otherwise you end up in a situation where you're constantly having to rezone property as soon as something develops at a different income group. AB 686. This is the big new section for the housing on an update. It's the affirmatively furthering fair housing and there are several new programs to address this specifically 23 24 25 and 26. AB 1397. This is regarding the sites inventory and allowing by right. So if sites have been included in previous cycles to meet your lower income rena and we would like to continue to use them. Then you have to allow for this provision and we have a policy stating this it's not an action item. It's just an overarching policy. So the project comes in and there's a 20 percent affordable component. You must permit that project by right. Now this is only on those specific sites. And if I remember correctly I believe there are maybe three sites that this would apply to for the city of Santa Rosa. All right. So we also have zoning code amendments and these are to comply with state law. So this is program 32. We will be looking at the definition of family to ensure that is consistent with state law residential care facilities. This is a new requirement this round. And this is allowing care facilities permitting them the same way as you would not based off of the size or before it was six or fewer could be treated a certain way seven or more persons could be treated a different way. And now HCD is looking for that to kind of be the same for everyone regardless and that becomes a fair housing issue if you're not treating families the same way. A low barrier navigation center. There is new state law to allow those permit those in multifamily uses and then ensuring compliance with employee and farm worker housing. So those are just some cleanup items to comply with state law. This is a continuing of 32 program age 32. And so for emergency shelters this is regarding parking standards ensuring compliance there transitional and supportive housing allowing for the approval of 100% affordable affordable developments consistent with government code and reviewing your reasonable accommodations findings to ensure that they are not a barrier to housing for persons with disabilities. So now I'm going to go through kind of a long list of all these programs. I'm not going to read all of them to you. But this slide identifies the programs that we are planning to continue. So regarding adequate sites ensuring that there is sufficient capacity throughout the eight year timeframe looking at different opportunity development areas the Santa Rosa housing trust fund. Looking at housing for large households to build community acceptance the real property transfer tax and to continue participation in the mortgage credit certificate program. So those are all continuing programs. For modified programs again this is a very lengthy list. So we're looking at encouraging mixed use projects and this is really come about because of the reliance that we're looking at the downtown plan. So there are proposed mixed use is most likely what is planned for that area. So this is encouraging that more a more proactive code enforcement continuing housing rehabilitation mobile home park preservation preserving at risk units at risk units are affordable units that are at the within 10 years of converting to mark to market market rates. So there's a bunch of different items to to try and preserve those units continuing the inclusionary housing program support affordable housing development and continue funding for housing. Some more modified programs. These are surrounding special needs groups such as persons with disabilities farm workers persons experiencing homelessness extremely low income households which are persons on the verge of homelessness senior households different housing services continuing the section 8 housing choice voucher program continuing the application and streamlining compliance for SB 35 and then action items around energy efficiency and development. So for the new programs program H2 and H6 these are really to help with beef up our site cemetery analysis. We do have some small sites a small site is anything smaller than a half of an acre. And the city does develop small sites so we were able to show different examples of how that does happen and lot consolidation does happen. And this program is just to strengthen that analysis. We're also looking at innovative housing options. So this different ways to meet your rena mobile home park rent control affordable housing tracking and that's going to come about with your ad use because ad use are tricky to track. But they are a more affordable option so being able to take credit for those when they are rented to a lower income household is something that you definitely want to do. So we're going to go back to the next slide. So we're going to go back to the 25 and 26. These are our fair housing programs. There are a lot of action items tied to those for 25. This is mainly focused at anti displacement strategies and for 26. This is more place based revitalization. We're also including a program for community land trust program and our zoning code amendments which we went over with the state law compliance. So we're going to go back to the next slide. And we're going to turn this back over to Amy. Great. Thank you, Cynthia. So we did want to just touch on where we're at in the schedule and what's going to be coming up. So tonight we are presenting our draft housing element. We will also present this to the city council on June 21. We have released this for public review and it will be out for 30 days. And so after the conclusion of this public review period, we will have 10 business days to incorporate comments, make any necessary changes. And then we submit it to HCD and HCD has 90 days to review. And after that 90 days, they will provide us comments and will ask us to make changes based on state law and based on their review. So we will have some time to make those changes and then to resubmit. And so after that resubmittal, we hope that will only have to happen once and then we'll get comments and be able to move our housing element forward for adoption. And again, we are so far tracking relatively on time. We are required to adopt by January 31 of 2023, but we do have a 60 day grace period. We've been kind of watching other areas of the state as their deadlines have occurred. There have been on a few previous cycles and HCD is very busy and is reviewing lots of housing elements from all around the state. So we've been watching what comments come back to various jurisdictions, how successful jurisdictions are, what are the best practices, and how fast is HCD able to review things and get back to us. So we're going to move into a little bit of the unknown once we submit this to HCD. But again, we're pretty early as far as how our partners are doing around the region and a bag region. So we're going to hope for the best. So I did want to touch back on a couple of talking points or just a little discussion points on two things. First, we wanted to go back and talk about the, I'm going to save you from getting dizzy and just walk back this way. But one discussion point to review is to consider our wildland urban interface. This map shows our housing sites inventory and the fire severity zones, which really make up our wildland urban interface. So all those, the colorful pieces on the map here, as you can see, we do have sites within these areas, and they are zoned appropriately now. Most of these are rebuilt sites. Some of them are just simply sites that have been vacant and available to build on that just happened to be within that wildland urban interface area. So one discussion point for your consideration is if we want to identify these sites as part of our housing element. I'll note that they, we are not changing anyone's land use zoning, not changing anyone's right to be able to develop their properties. This housing element is simply identifying that we have capacity to build in these areas. And so it's really just identification and not necessarily incentivizing or prohibiting development. But because part of our general plan update, he have heard concerns about developing in the wildland urban interface in general and potential densification that may occur within our general plan update. We wanted to bring this forward as a discussion point for you to consider. And we will be asking the city council the same question. So the other, the other thing that we wanted to talk through is the correspondence that we have on today's item. So as part of your package, you'll see that we've added correspondence that we've received. We have received a couple letters from members of the community, but there are also a couple letters from the county of Sonoma. So the county of Sonoma is asking for us to accept or absorb a portion of their regional housing needs allocation. So their request is asking for us to take on an additional 1800 units of allocation. So we are still talking at the staff level and hoping to get more information related to their request. But we wanted to bring that forward to you today as a discussion point. If you have feedback on this issue, we will continue to look at options and we'll continue to take feedback on this, including going to the city council on on June 21. So that tonight, our recommendation is simply that you receive and provide input on the draft housing element. And I will stop there if there's any questions that we can help you address. Great. Thank you, Amy. So at this time, it's, it's our time now to ask questions of staff or the consultant and not to make comments. We'll do questions from the housing authority and then bring it back to the commission, then open it up to public comment. And then after public comment, we would bring it back to both bodies for comment. So this time is strictly for questions. And I'll pass it on to chair test to see if the housing authority commissioners have any questions. Thank you, chair weeks. Thank you so much to the staff and the consultants. It's an amazing body of work and research. And thank you for including us in this discussion. We're opening up now discussion with the housing authority members. Commissioner Rawhouser. Yes, thank you. I just was wanting clarification on the vacant site capacity that the areas in pink. And that interface zone are basically areas that we'd be not building, but the where we have the dots are areas that we are looking at to build on. And so the interface zones, the yellow and the pink aren't areas that we would consider building, but places with a colored dot would be. I lost my unmute button. So the colors on the map indicate our wildland urban interface areas. So Cal fire breaks them down into three different zones. But that is what the color represents on the background of the map. The dots themselves are those vacant areas. Okay. Thank you. Yes, thank you, chair test. And thank you staff for the presentation. You brought up just at the end of the last portion of the presentation, the request from the county got lots of questions about that. And I think you said the needed to be addressed by the city council on the 21st of June, if I'm not mistaken. I guess I'd like to have a little bit better idea about what the opportunity might be. For instance, the housing authority to weigh in on that particular request. Or, or maybe you can just describe the process for receiving questions and then processing those questions. So that's one question. And I've got a couple more, but let me start with that one. Yeah, so your question is how we'd like to receive input from the housing authority on that issue. You're muted, but I'm going to think that you said yes to that. So we are up for any comments you have on that matter. I will say it's kind of a unique situation of where we're at in the housing element process that we can entertain such a request. It is something that would have to go through a bag association of various governments and HCD for approval, if we were to reach some kind of agreement. So there's a lot more process involved beyond our, our simple acceptance of that were to happen. But if there is a window of time within the housing element process where jurisdictions can change Rena, but it is extremely limited and has to be under certain circumstances. The only other opportunity that exists for allocations to change hands is part of annexation, and that can occur at any point outside of the housing element process. So what the county is doing is requesting us to take some on as part of our housing element. And so we it's we're still very early in those discussions and at this point really just looking for input and trying to understand what our decision makers would like to do on that. You're still you're muted. You're muted. Okay, so you're muted. Still muted. Okay, maybe that'll work. Okay, my spacebar normally works for unmuting but apparently that's not doing it today. So thank you for that. And I do have a comment on it, which I'll reserve for the time when we make comments, but thank you for that information. And then my second question is, can you discuss the outreach for the housing survey. And in particular, the efforts to solicit responses from lower income people, including farm workers and their families and non English speaking people in areas where overcrowding and poor housing and neighborhood conditions exist. And I know there's lots of discussion about programs and information in the survey about that. But I'm not so I don't feel really confident that maybe it reached some of the people that it needed to. And so maybe if you can explain a little bit better about how that process work to get input. Absolutely. So I will say as part of our general plan update, it has been one of our goals is to reach the harder to reach populations and to really focus on our vulnerable populations. So as part of our general plan update, we do have a grant from Kaiser Permanente to do environmental justice work and public health policy. And through that effort, we were able to hire a equity and public health planner. And so as part of her work, she developed an equity priority communities work plan. And so she's done the demographic work to identify where in our community are the highest concentration of people of color of low income overcrowding. And which of those, which population should we be focusing on, not just for housing, but for all of our other policy efforts as part of the general plan update. So that work has been ongoing since 2020. And as you can guess, when we ask our communities for input on anything housing rises to the top. So we have received a lot of valuable input through our work on the general plan update. And much of that has related to housing and the issues that people are having. And, and, and it's kind of it, we come and ask these big questions about what we want our community to look and feel like in 2050, and there's basic needs issues with a lot of our community members. So we have been getting that feedback on housing and really engaging and kind of in a trust building and operation with our communities that really haven't been asked what they think before. So that has been going on with our general plan update as part of our housing element. Our consultant team has also reached out to service providers that do provide services directly to populations, including farm workers, unhoused populations, other low income service providers that are focused on those sectors of the community that are where housing is, is a concern. So our interviews have been important because we're hearing from the service providers of what the barriers are to their work and what they feel the barriers are so they are speaking on behalf of those populations. And then through our collaborative work, they formed a equity working group. And basically that meant that there was the identification of people in the community, who were either housing vulnerable themselves or her work with housing vulnerable and they met over a series of two months and were provided stipends to participate to make sure that they have childcare and everything arranged so they're able to participate and provide input. And we received quite a mass of comments and input and a lot of that was kind of transcends this general plan update or transcends the housing element and we are working through those comments to see if there's other things outside this effort that we can do. In addition, we did do the survey that you mentioned. That housing survey we disseminated as widely as we possibly could. We used every avenue that we have as part of our Santa Rosa communications team. So a lot of social media reliance, our newsletter reliance and we did get Amy Nicholson you might have to tell me how many respondents but I think it was close to 2000, which is statistically is a pretty good number for what we've experienced on the number of people that usually respond to those. I think we got more for our short term rental survey, but we came in for a pretty close second on that one. Amy, do you remember how many responded off hand? I don't, but I'll look it up. Okay, thank you. And then beyond that, we also did our classic very, very classic zoom webinar to be able to have in depth community conversations in a small group format. And, and really we wanted to do that one under health requirements at the time just making sure we were being respectful. But also, we know since the pandemic a lot of people would rather get on a zoom call versus come down to City Hall, or to a library to participate. And so we did get a different mix of people in that meeting. And, and then of course we've had communications with just the general public and through our website phone calls. And we are starting to get a number of comments through the outreach we've done on the release of this housing element. So we're going to continue that effort, but we are very open to more input on how we can get deeper into our community. Thanks for that response and a very impressive effort on your part and staff's part and consultants part to get that information. I do have a comment that will come later. I actually think I have two more questions. Can you provide information on where to find the policies and programs in the housing element that address the efforts that the city could undertake to encourage affordable housing opportunities for lower income households. To to to provide opportunities for them to live to find residents in nontraditional neighborhoods. I was kind of looking for this kind of idea of dispersal housing, and I didn't see it but I wonder if I missed it so maybe you can help me with that. Yeah, I'm going to see if Cynthia is able to respond to that. I mean, it's most likely covered between several programs. We have our the innovative housing program where that is looking at different types of housing types that would be available to different income levels. So that's going to be covered in the fair housing programs. Okay. Well, thank you for that. And I'll have a comment on that one as well. And then I guess this goes back to the rena question. What what kind of sanction I know you talked about opportunities for the community to have access to different areas, but to provide that opportunity for all income groups throughout the community. So that's going to be a mainly covered in the fair housing programs. Okay, well, thank you for that. And I'll have a comment on that one as well. And what what kind of sanction I know you talked about opportunities for funding. If we're in alignment with arena goals, and those possibly being lost if we aren't, are there other things like sanctions that the state has for cities or counties that are income are not in compliance. Well, I'll let Cynthia respond to that. But luckily we have not been in the position of not having a certified housing element. But as I'm aware, if we don't, the state could potentially take over our local jurisdictions ability to approve housing. And so that that is really the major stick that the state has. But Cynthia, did you want to elaborate. Yeah, to add to that. So you also can lose the opportunity to funding sources so when SP to came around you had to have a compliant housing element to access that that source of funding so there are funding opportunities that you could miss out on. So the funding regarding meeting your arena is SB 35 and the percentage that is placed on the community based off of your development process. So if you've hit this target, then projects that come in with, you know, a certain percent are allowed by right if you hit this higher target, then there has to be a higher percentage of affordability included in order for it to be by right so SB 35 is one other way that they kind of get you with arena. Yeah, and the worst case scenario, you would be out of compliance with your general plan, I guess, or the housing element portion of general plan, and then you would be having some real issues to fill it. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Oh, and Commissioner Burke before we leave your, your set of questions. Amy did check on the housing survey so we received 470 respondents and almost 15% of respondents were from individuals who speak Spanish in the home. Okay, great. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Burke. Commissioner Downey. Commissioner Downey. Sorry about that. My mouth is slow. Within the real reality of housing insecurity as we move forward and harness the abilities to come up with some really creative ideas that deal with affordable housing, is there anything that can be done to help ameliorate the fear of being evicted or essentially losing your house because of something I'm foreseeing during the last five years we've done with fire. I see two fires as you all know. A pandemic which is disrupted the economy, which is completely unforeseen. And I don't know if there's anything was in the context of this conversation that could generally help people have less worry about being housed as this process is being honed and refined. And I hope that makes sense. Yeah, that's a good question. I think it's always, for me, difficult to understand what can we do in land use policy and what is, what needs to be done separately. And there has been a lot of work on eviction protections through efforts outside of our policy work or our land use housing work. But I'm curious, Cynthia, do you have an identification, if we have any policies related to that or is that something that usually dovetails into a housing element or not? Sure. Currently we do not have a specific program that talks about that. I'm not saying that we cannot include one. We can look at the programs that are available and include how the city could work with those providers to ensure assistance there. But currently we do not have a program that's included. Chair Tess, if I can interject, I'd like to provide a quick response. I'm Megan Bassinger. I'm the Director of Housing and Community Services. And I just want to tie into Commissioner Downey's question and let both bodies know that the City of Santa Rosa and the Housing Authority do actively fund a couple of programs that do help support tenant services. We provide funding to Legal Aid of Sonoma County to assist with tenant issues. We also provide funding to Fair Housing of Northern California, which does provide tenant advocacy as well. So there are avenues outside of policies in the housing element that allow for assistance to our residents. Thank you. Any further questions? Commissioner Downey, I'll move on to Commissioner LaPenna. Oh, Commissioner Downey, sorry. No, I don't have any further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner LaPenna. Yeah, just one quick question. I would like to know if the county gave you a reason they want the City of Santa Rosa to take over some of their allocation. What we know is really in the letters that are in your package tonight. So they've identified a few different things that are really based on policy on as far as city-centered growth premises among other things there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have a couple of questions regarding the public outreach and engagement and stakeholder consultations. I believe what may have been helpful was to have opinions from for-profit and nonprofit developers who build housing because ultimately they're the ones who are going to be building these units. So I think that they're time to include this in this outreach process. I'm going to ask Cynthia to reply to who she's spoken with and what we can still do. Thank you. Sure. So when we start our stakeholder interview process, you know, we cast a wide net and we, you know, reach out to several more than we know we're going to be able to speak with. So we do have a number of organizations that we reached out to and nine of them we did get feedback from. So we do have a good number of organizations, but as far as developers, we have generation housing. And then Burbank was the other we reached out to. So we have three additional that are still pending. We're waiting to hear back from, but those do not include developers specifically. And then I can also weigh in that our collaborative through grant funded Sonoma Napa collaborative, they actually have a panel of developers that we have submitted a few of our housing sites to to get impact or to get input on what the feasibility is for development of those and what the barriers are. So that's one way we've been working with the development community is to give them very specific sites that have either been problematic during this current cycle or that we anticipate being problematic so that that through that input we can create programs or even remove them from the inventory of this just too large of a hurdle. That's a very good idea. Is that something that we could do for Santa Rosa look more local developers and builders. Yes, I'm going to see of liaison Hartman or maybe able to reply to that because they I know that is something that we have talked about. I will also note that just through our general business here we do have a lot of contact with the development community. And so we are in a dialogue very much with the development community. I will also note that just through our general business here we do have a lot of contact with the development community. And so we are in a dialogue, very often on what works what doesn't what the barriers are, and have really made efforts to remove as many barriers as possible. Yes, good afternoon. Claire Hartman I'm the director for planning and economic development. Yeah, I would just add that it's good feedback on what additional engagement we can do and to supervisor plan allows point. We do have a draft out there for feedback and we will be continuing to accept feedback on that so in some ways it is comprehensive documents review but in other ways it's the beginning of that conversation and that betting so we can certainly reach out to our local developers and make sure that they feel that they can engage and inform as we as we move through the process. Thank you. Yeah, that that would be great. Thank you so much. I have a second question and that is just with a little background. In terms of incentives and fee waivers. There are two examples that I'd like to put forward that are both under construction here in Santa Rosa. One is a 64 unit very low income development. The development cost is $43,694,000 with a per unit of $682,720 per unit. Another development on very unlike the one I just outlined is a 26 unit senior studio units in a reuse of an existing commercial building development that costs $9,485,205 for a per unit cost of $364,815 a unit. So my question is, can there be a continuous revision or not really revision. Can there be a continuous update on looking at these incentives and fee waivers, because I think as time goes on they're definitely going to be needed in order for us to meet our goals. Thank you. Yeah, I'm wondering Cynthia if you could talk about some of the programs we have to do that cyclical review of our fees I feel like we do have a program that is built to really review that. Yeah, we do have most of the programs have specific timelines tied to them we don't just do you know the ongoing there is a timing associated so it's either an annual basis by annual basis, you know, annually every June. Yeah, I think that's one of the things that we have to do is we have in there do have that more specific timing. I'd have to look through the document to see where the specific waivers and incentives fall, but we can definitely ensure that that's done on a regular basis. That'd be great. Thank you. I see no other questions, although Commissioner Rawhouser, do you have another question. I think it's appropriate for this meeting but actually the interfacing of the transportation needs of the community, especially with a lot of the need being low income and senior housing, and how the interface to be able to move people as we want to build more density towards downtown and the different transportation hubs. So, I don't know if that's the right topic for this now. Yeah, that's a great question. So the sites that we're identifying as part of this housing element are already zoned appropriately, and have already been assessed as part of our current general plan that was adopted years ago and that we are in the process of updating. And as part of looking at the current sites, those have already been reviewed in terms of the resources needed to support those housing, the infrastructure, the road network, the water, all of those things. So when we aren't at this time planning to increase densities as part of this housing element that is out for review right now. We're in downtown, so that was a different discreet project where we definitely increased densities, definitely assessed the amount of new growth that could happen under that downtown plan. And our Public Works Department, it was pretty much all hands throughout the city were on deck to make sure that we wrote that document in a way where there was appropriate infrastructure and mobility options to support that kind of density downtown. So as we move forward with the general plan update and look at new housing and incentivizing housing and intensifying densities. That conversation is what we will be going into to really make sure that wherever we do plan for new housing, the rest of that piece that goes along with creating community, making sure that senior housing has access to all the needs and services required. That will be part of that larger conversation with the general plan update. This is a little bit of an odd project because we're really just identifying what already exists and creating programs that meet our new state law. So it's really a polishing an update of what we have currently, but as the general plan moves forward, this will all coalesce together as well. That's a great question. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your presentation. I'll turn this back over to chair weeks. Thank you. So with that, missioners, I'm sure you all have questions. So we'll start with Commissioner Krepke. Thank you. Thank you very much for that presentation. Thank you so much for your comments. Last question. In the future, when it comes to the numbers, can we get percentages? I know we can do the math to see the results of like, we're, you know, we were signed this much of this much has been built, but I think it's easier to digest and typically see, you know, we're only at 35% of this or we're at 110% of that. It's just easier to take that information in. Another question is in this process, you know, and looking how we can get more built has the per door versus square foot impact fees been taken into consideration. I think there's a new law that was just passed, maybe 602. It's going to mandate that. I know there's also a race period, but is that like being considered? Are we taking your time or is that fast track? Is it giving you information on that? Can you say that again per square foot versus per what? Per door. Per door. And you're talking about fees. Impact fee, housing impact fees. Cynthia, are you familiar with that legislation? I apologize. I am not familiar with that legislation. It's like three months old. So I don't blame you, but it's AB 602 is what I found. Sorry, this is Ashley Kroger. I'm just going to respond quickly. We are aware of that assembly bill. It has new requirements concerning impact fees on development projects. It's implemented in two stages. Started January 1st of this year. We're just going to have to take a look at our fee schedules and I believe we have to implement the new. Schedule as of July. I'm sorry, I don't have all the details, but it is something that's on our radar and we'll we will be implementing and adhering to. And I just wanted to that voice you heard was Ashley Kroger, our city attorney who is counsel for the planning commission. Oh, thank you chair weeks. I'm sorry. I forgot to announce who I was. We have guests tonight that are familiar with that voice behind the door. All right. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Commissioner crepti. Thanks and don't go anywhere, Miss Crocker because I think the next question is going to come right back to you and that's the request by the county is this this is an official right where there's still some legal. Manoeuvring that needs to go on as to whether or not it can or cannot happen. So this be the proverbial gentleman's agreement. Yes, we will. Supposing that it is found legally feasible with that or what you're trying to get. Get to yes, this is Ashley Crocker again. There are this is the transfers will be regulated by the government code, which does have very specific requirements and as of right now as far as I can see the information that would be required to initiate the transfer request. We don't have all of that information from the county. So it would be a bit of a multi step process. I'm not sure, you know, the extent of time it would take to negotiate this, but it definitely has a number of components that we need to address and work through with the county. Okay, thank you. In the current cycle, our fiery builds with ad use are the ad use counted, or our fiery bills just off board and only count towards next cycle. And our current cycle that we're in currently. Yes. Okay, just want to make sure. So rebuilds are not counted, but ad use are counted if they are new, and they were not previously there on the property. Okay, so if it's a fiery bill, but they add an ad you that ad you would be counted. Yes, for instance, we did have an influx of ad use that were built as part of the rebuilding of coffee park and fountain growth. So those are new units that we counted in our ad you counts. Thank you that's exactly what I was trying to get to. And then in the adequate site analysis. Our other departments consulted on that. So like, like TPW or even public safety as to whether I mean it looks, you know, zoning wise and with pet it looks great but are the other departments consulted as to whether it's feasible for them to service that area or, or not. So all the units that we identify are already planned for in our planning documents as well as the infrastructure needs. So they are part of the team that reviews the housing element, but they're, we don't anticipate any issues with a lack of ability to resource these units or to provide infrastructure. Okay. I don't know if this would be appropriate. It's a file. It's a follow up comment to that question. Chair, do you want to leave that to the end. If you wouldn't mind. Nope, no problem. Right down so you don't forget it. I am. And then just a general overall question. Is staff, you know, either being short staffed or the amount of things where staff is being tasked to undertake. Does that have an impact on our ability to approve any of these kind of housings. Does it slow it down. That's a great question. I'm going to see a deputy director Jones would like to weigh in as she's been overseeing our current development. Sure. Thank you. Super raising plan allow and commissioner. That's a great question. Yeah, I think it's we've, we have shown that, you know, we, we currently have less staff than we've had in recent years, which has been a challenge for us in focusing new applications. However, you know, we are super excited we've been and I think I've mentioned this to the commission previously. We are in a recruitment process right now. And we actually have three new city planners starting this month, two of which will be on our development review team, one in our advanced planning team. The first one is arriving on Monday. And we are just thrilled to have her. She comes to us from Sacramento and it's just going to be a great addition to our team. And we do have two more new city planners that will be starting probably in July. We will, we hope to be fully stopped up here very soon. But I will say that our existing team is small but mighty. And we are working diligently to make sure that these projects are processed in a timely manner. And just doing the best we can with the tools that we have. All right, thank you very much. That's all my questions, chair. If I may, through chair weeks, just add to what deputy director Jones said she was speaking from the planning divisions perspective and as you all know, there is a heavy lift to support housing, the processing, even just a processing of housing units across the organization, let alone the infrastructural support with infrastructure and public safety. So really what we're trying to do is you set the target, and then you're going to build your resources to accommodate that there is a balancing act that that happens each and every budget year to make that that work. But yeah, it's definitely a broader support impact whenever you're trying to support a certain number of units or certain type of units, and all units are created equal. Those that have the income restricted types like very low and low, heavy reliance on our housing community services team, not just to process again, but the monitoring that goes on with that and all the contractual stuff so grant and so it's really kind of a complex support system that helps these units actually be produced, not just planned for chairs or Commissioner Cisco or Commissioner Holton do you have any questions, Commissioner Cisco. Yeah, I have just a couple. I'm explaining the process. One of the programs was lot consolidation and small site development just kind of what the city's actual role is going to be because that jumped out at me I don't know that we do that but if you could just explain what that process is going to be like as a policy or program. Cynthia, would you be able to take that one. So, you know, the program kind of lays out how the city will help facilitate that and as I mentioned, you know, this is something that has been done previously. So I assume it would be a similar process to help the developers consolidate the sites to ensure that it is the size that they need to ensure the number of units that they're planning for any I don't know if you have the specifics on any of the past lot consolidation projects. I don't on top of my head. If anyone else on our team does feel free to weigh in. There are sorry I apologize. Yeah, it sounds like it's developer initiated. I mean is the city going to identify lots and sort of encourage them to look at it or does the developer go out and go I'm interested in this place. Can you help me consolidate these that the ladder so yes it would be developer driven. Yes, developer driven. Okay. And then is the drought considered an obstacle to housing development. I didn't really see that mentioned in the energy and natural resource conservation, or has that kind of been handled and or maybe it should be described in the same way as the water demand offset fee. So that's a really interesting element from the BPU program that was just I think recently adopted by the city council for payment of special fees to offset use. So just a question. Does that belong anywhere in here or is it just understood. Okay. So that is the water demand offset fee. Yes. And we do need to include that if it is not already. So that is something that we will double check. So thank you very much for pointing that out. Okay. And as far as the overall impacts of drought on our housing production. It is a question that we get quite often from the community. And I will say that the drought as horrible as it is was somewhat anticipated. Our long term water supply has measured and reviewed on a cyclical basis. And so we have an urban water management plan that requires us to look. I believe it's a 20 year horizon on water supply to ensure that we have adequate supply to meet the demand in housing. So we work in concert with our water department when they are updating their plans and we're updating ours to make sure that our plans are communicating and assessing the supply needed and that our growth projections are not outpacing that supply. So because these sites are already planned for under our existing plans, there is no concern related to the ability to supply water for this housing element cycle. When we move into our general plan conversations, that will be something that we will be looking at and a lot closer view because we are looking at the 2050. And our water supply needs, we need to show that we have that capacity. So stay tuned on that conversation. But for this housing element, eight year cycle as staff, we are comfortable with the planning that has gone into ensure that we have capacity. Okay. And then just a couple of questions on the county issue. And it may be too early to answer this in terms of the math involved and what they're requesting, but with their request encroach on our buffers. Yes. So if we were to if we were directed to accept the 1800 units, we would have to reevaluate our inventory, and we would have to create a larger buffer. So there, their numbers would essentially remove our buffer. So we would have to go back to our drawing board and find additional sites. Okay. And then this may be a question for for Miss Crocker. You know we do general plan amendments. Is there a method to amend that the housing element and if there is what would what would be involved in something like that. Hi commissioners niscoe. This is Ashley. I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I'm not completely I can look that up for a moment if you like if there's some other process or maybe Cynthia looks like she's going to weigh in with the Okay. Yeah, I can add a little bit. It's kind of a gray area. So it kind of depends on the level of amendment that is being made. You know, if you are removing a bunch of sites and adding in new sites, then sure, HD is going to want to see how you're justifying that these replacement sites are appropriate. If we're removing programs, adding in new programs. That's another red flag for them. If you're doing minor modifications. That's really not a big deal. But you can amend the housing element. You know twice a year if you'd like to. Okay, great. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. Yeah, well, chair. That's one thing I love about going almost last is everybody asked most of the questions chair test covered my question about annual review incentives. Commissioner Cisco, Commissioner Krepke pretty much covered everything else. The last question I have is, well, the only question I have is, is there actual deadline to fall into compliance in regard to building for under low income units. Cynthia, do you want to speak to that question. Yeah, so there is no actual deadline and the only negatives that come out of not building the affordable housing is SB 35 and the tier that you fall into for that. And then obviously, you know, you do have a lot of households that then don't have the housing that is needed but beyond that as far as HD is concerned the state's concerned it's just SB 35 as of right now. And if I could add to that, I would also say that our state legislature is focused on housing and has been for quite a few years and could create additional measures that requires to do certain things or create other connections. So SB 35 reflects that. And what potentially could those measures be like more funding for more grant writers more house housing community advocates or is that kind of what we're thinking. Well, recently, the state has been providing grant funds to local jurisdictions through the SB two program that was mentioned previously but there are some other ones as well. Although actually SB two is actually coming locally and going to the state and then coming back to us. But I think there's a realization now that it, even if they supply money for the local jurisdictions, many don't have the capacity to actually accomplish the work. So there's been a pivot in the type of grant money and support provided, at least at the planning level, where those grants are to support capacity or support the planning. And then the next round that we're expecting is to support the implementation of the planning. So, you know, there has been a lot of innovation and how they're coming around, but as many carrots are being created, there's still the sticks being created as well. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it and I appreciate the staff's presentation and all your guys is hard work leading up to this. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I will echo Commissioner Holton there's a real advantage of going last. But I do have questions. One has to do with the adequate sites. And it kind of piggies back on Commissioner Krepke's question about other departments weighing in. So, some of those sites need infrastructure need road improvement sidewalks, etc. So, how is that figured into when you designate the sites or is it. It is those requirements are already in place as as far as what's required when someone proposes a development. So this wouldn't change it by identifying them as part of our housing element. So what about let me phrase it differently. What about other services such as grocery stores, drug stores, etc. schools. How is that figured into is that figured into or taken into consideration when you look at the different sites. Not for this process because these were already planned for so a lot of those connections have already been assessed under our existing general plan. At the point where we are looking at new densities those are the conversations we will have to make sure that there's adequate mobility connections or services for the locations that we're looking at. I know that there's a housing and homeless ad hoc of the council and wondered if they had weighed in on this or if they or if the council members will see it on the regular scheduled council meeting. We have worked with the ad hoc on a few discussion points related to the housing element, but we will be going before the full council on the 21st and having a very the same conversation with them that we're having with you today. Can you just tape it and show it to them. So, sorry. And then that under the rehab section and this might be a question for director passenger. So you have in pages 3-14 of the housing element. There's a discussion of different of rehab and I wondered. Is that I believe that some of that's funded privately as well as funded by the housing authority and just wondered if there could be some comments on the number of units that are rehab on an annual basis by the housing authority now. Thank you chair weeks. This is Megan passenger director of housing and community services. So the housing authority does prioritize the rehab of existing multifamily units and also in the past through resources that we've obtained through HCD through grant program. We have had rehab programs that were available to mobile homes. So that is one of the areas where we focus and we do identify need because as we build affordable housing units. It's important to make sure that they remain in good condition for the residents of the community. On the top of my head I don't have an annual number, but we currently are reviewing applications and there are 2 rehab projects that could contribute if they were to proceed about 100 additional rehab units. So that's something that's on the horizon. And if I could also just take the opportunity to kind of go back to commissioner hopes. I have a question about resources that are available. For example under SB to the city has received the permanent local housing allocation. Funding and that's about $4 million over 5 years. So as we're looking at the number of units that are required under our current arena. $4 million doesn't really help us advance the need that much. We are looking at about 125,000 per unit in local subsidy. And so that needs to be matched by resources that are available at the state level so then these projects have to go on and compete so there's I think it's a long process that takes a fair amount of local and state contribution in order to bring affordable housing units to tuition and have them count towards arena numbers. Thank you. You're welcome. And one last question. I have three dash 31. There's a chart of transitional housing and Athena house is on there. And I wondered if I wondered if the city has a role in Athena house at all. Number one and number two, you know, I know this is a draft, but so I just wanted to bring that up. Certainly. So the housing authority does have a loan on Athena house, all of our loans are secured through a data trust. So we do have a data trust on that property. We are in continued conversations with the property owner on what the future of that site will be. But our financial investment is secured by a data trust. And also with all of our loans secure a regulatory agreement, generally for a term of 55 years that restricts the use. So depending on what the future of that property holds we will need to have further conversations with the property owner and the housing authority on how to address that issue. And we were just as surprised as everybody else to see the fate of the house arrive in the newspaper. So we're not going to have any advance notice as well. But ultimately our goal is to preserve those units. Great. Thank you. So with that, I will go ahead and open the public comment portion of the meeting. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand. And here we'll have three minutes and a countdown timer will appear on the screen. Please make sure to unmute yourself when asked to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. Okay, see a number of hands raised. Ms Montoya, do you want to call the names. Yes, thank you chair weeks. First we have a caller with the last four digits of 1611. You should have permissions to unmute yourself. And then if you can start by stating your name for the record please. Yes, I am George McKinney I'm a 20 year Oakmont resident. And I'm very involved in emergency preparedness for Oakmont chair weeks. And three of us who have been listening to this and wanted to each make comments. May we do that in sequence rather than having to do separate call in. Sure, if you can identify who those are. Okay, fine. So let me start I'm George McKinney. Oakmont is a highly concentrated community of elderly and disabled citizens. It's more than an anomaly for Santa Rosa because the bulk of your efforts quite legitimately is on a different need. But we really hope the planning commission will understand how exposed we are to wildfires here and our evacuation risk and why the housing element and the general plan as a whole need to reflect that. I'm going to step over to Butte County for a moment, which is the place we had paradise paradise fire. And one of the things they have done with their housing element is eliminate all sites that were in higher very high fire hazard zones. So that it is very appropriate to include the fire risk in the housing element. We are in a very classic wildfire urban interface. We have Trioni and Adele on one side and Hood Mountain on the other. Oakmont lost homes in both 2017 and in 2020 and evacuation times here run two hours just to get to route 12. And so we are deeply concerned. We only have one exit. That's route 12. And that's a two lane road that Santa Rosa forwards own traffic analysis is defined as the road with the most difficult traffic traffic problem in the city. We recently met with a leading engineering firm that models evacuation times. Their lead investigator made us felt that our exit problem was comparable to that of paradise. You want to talk about something that's scary. We really believe the new general plan and the housing element and the safety element all need to understand the wildfire dangers and need for safe evacuations. In the interim, we really asked that no approvals be given to developments that are likely to have an impact on Oakmont's fire safety and evacuations. We understand the problem you all have in trying to deal with new housing for Santa Rosa. But we don't think that should be done risking the 5000 Santa Rosa residents who live here and are terrified of a deadly event. Now I'm going to turn the mic over to Iris Harrell. My three minutes starts. This is Iris Harrell. I'm a member of Oakmont's board of directors and I have been a leader in developing our fireways program to reduce fire danger for the homes in Oakmont since 2018. Oakmont has moved aggressively to take out flammable plants, reduce vegetation in the five foot zone at each home and continue to educate homeowners on home hardening as well as the sensible space vegetation management. In April, Oakmont resident Steve Stillman, who was a representative on the Santa Rosa Forward Advisory Committee and George McKinney, who just spoke, led an Oakmont town hall for residents to explain the Santa Rosa master plan process and the fact that the existing plan was completed in 2009 before the fires in 2017 and 2020. They described how the Santa Rosa forward process will create a new general plan projected for 2023 completion. Residents who attended that town hall and subsequent Oakmont board meeting made it clear that our fire safety can't wait for the new Santa Rosa general plan to be completed and asked the board to submit an amendment to the existing pre wildfire general plan of 2009. Wildo community behind us is also supporting this amendment. Our amendment to the existing 2009 general plan consists of three parts. One, we'd like to develop plans to reduce evacuation time for any area of Santa Rosa and the wildland urban interface with an objective of ensuring evacuation does not take longer than 30 minutes traffic wise after the evacuation order is received. Number two, to ensure changes involving light stop signs and lane changes on major evacuation routes such as how we 12 do not increase evacuation times for residential areas that use them as an evacuation route for wildfires. And number three, prior to final permitting of developments, ensure new developments in the woolly areas do not increase wildfire evacuation times for other existing surrounding residents in Santa Rosa during construction or after any new approved developments are completed. On the issue of evacuation time, Oakmont is considering engaging KLD consultants who have done substantial studies of wildfire evacuations including Ashland, Oregon, San Lorenzo, Oceanside and Laguna Beach. We hope to have the first study available by September and this might allow the Santa Rosa planning department to ask for environmental reviews to include evaluations using this model to determine possible impacts on fire safety and evacuation. And evacuation in Oakmont and Wildo. Thank you for listening to this. I'd like to turn the mic over to Crystal Anton who was our general manager at Oakmont. Hello, this is Crystal Anton. I'm the general manager for Oakmont. I am responsible to Oakmont's board for managing the day-to-day operations of Oakmont. And I am the person responsible for interfacing with the Santa Rosa planning department on a regular basis. Oakmont has 4,700 residents with the average age being 75. There are an estimated 1,000 residents who are requiring an assistance during an emergency. There is senior resident site assisted living Oakmont Gardens with 190 seniors which average age is 90. 75% of Oakmont residents are homeowners and 25 are renters. Wildo gives a development behind Oakmont. It has 360 residents who have to evacuate to Oakmont Drive to get to Highway 12. This means well over 5,000 people are exiting from Oakmont to Highway 12. Recently we met with Deanna McDonald, our city council representative, as well as Amy Lyle on a separate meeting. Amy Nicholson and Beatrice Guerrero. This meeting was very productive and we appreciate them for taking the time to help clarify some of our concerns. Oakmont asked that the planning department consider a favorable vote on our proposed amendments to help protect the 5,000 Oakmont and Wildo residents from decisions that might make our evacuation process more difficult. Oakmont asked that the planners associated with the center of the forward project look into the issues we have raised throughout the new general plan. It is not sufficient to include this as a minor element in the noise and safety element. Finally, Oakmont asked that the planning department require a proposed development likely to impact Oakmont's wild safety and evacuation to submit an evaluation of how the development will impact Oakmont. We specifically asked that the ELNOCA project submit such an evaluation. We thank you for listening to our concerns and hope you take these into consideration as Oakmont does not want to be the next paradise. Thank you. Next we have Gregory. Gregory, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your full name for the record. Yes, thank you. My name is Gregory Farron. Some of you know that I'm very active in the homeless and the homeless housing industry. I have done more regular and upscale housing. I wanted to point out two things in particular one is I'm pleased with the report that's been developed. From the point of view of it being informative from the point of view of being comprehensive from the point of view of having such excellent staff. I would like to call their energy into trying to at least identify what we've done in the past, what the failings of it are, and what we're trying to do in the future. I'm particularly not curious but interested in the fact that for the first time I've ever seen you've actually put into the housing element. A category of income that we all know in the homeless industry exists, but I've never seen it on paper. And I'm really pleased that you've got it in there. People who have no more than $10,000 in income deserve to be on somebody's chart and you hopefully in the future might actually build some housing for them. Now you all know that the housing element has changed reflecting the fact that there are lots of new kinds of housing. I don't want to say that the homeless community represents half of what Oakmont has in residence, but we do. And they're spread all over the city and their needs need to be reflected and I think you've taken a good step in trying to identify how the housing element and the general plan can respond to the creative ways in which a lot of us are trying to figure out a way of housing. And I want to point out that you have not really done a very good job in my opinion of reaching out to as much as you wanted to the whole of the community about these reports and about your decision making. You could do a better job, and I'm helping you hopefully by trying to take your reports. I put it on a Google blog and send it to everybody I know. And I also included in that blog, John Lowry's excellent paper that he put out about how hard it is to build low income housing. So both of those. There's a link on your YouTube channel to the blog that has both of those and I'll continue to try to get more We'll have eyes on your report and on this meeting and on the city because we do need to have everybody into this process of making decisions. One last comment, if you're going to try and give away some of your allocation to the county and take on some of it, you might want to ask them to share some of the services more intensely than they do to residents of the city like rental relief and other things that one of your commissioners talked about. And you need to get your trade off and you need to get something back if you're going to take on more of this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Farron. Okay, next we have Margaret Margaret you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Good morning, everyone. My name is Margaret's Mario, and I am the housing policy attorney at legal aid of Sonoma County. And I'm also a member of a Bay Area working group on housing elements. And I was on the advisory committee for housing element for permit Sonoma at the county level. I'm pretty well versed in it, although it is up to subjects. But I did want to start by thanking you for the report. I, I am curious as to who the stakeholders were that were outreach. That's the first, you know, legal aid of Sonoma County. We work with low income individuals in Santa Rosa, primarily. You know, they have to income qualify for our services and they are one of the more vulnerable populations in the county. They are immigrants, farm workers, survivors of domestic violence, low income tenants who are at risk of eviction and displacement and who are frequently displaced from Sonoma County. You know, some of our partners have got Sonoma County tenant union, North Bay organizing project and others. But to my knowledge, haven't had any input yet. And, you know, I appreciate that we still have an opportunity for input and we will be providing it. Once we get through the, the large plan. I just want to just highlight a couple of things that I didn't find in there. You know, it, if we just focus on building housing and where we're going to put it and, you know, how we're going to meet our arena numbers. It's easy to overlook the fact that, you know, even in the survey, more people responded to our renters than homeowners. There's a large renter population and they're constantly under the threat of displacement over the pandemic. We've seen a reduction in unlawful detainer filings which are, you know, court cases to evict people because of the Sonoma County moratorium, the just cause moratorium. And that expires, which will be October 1, you know, that's the eviction cliff that everybody's been kind of talking about being linked to the pandemic. That's when it's really going to happen. And this is an opportunity to address that crisis through a long term progressive plan for Sonoma for Santa Rosa. I think she is interested in it and, you know, Petaluma is interested in it. And I just, I highly encourage you to think about tenants when you're drafting this plan because they make up such a large and important part of Santa Rosa and affordability of living here is such an issue right now and will continue to be. Thank you so much. Thank you. We have a color ending in 5549. If you could please start by stating your name for the record, please. Hello. Hello, we can hear you now if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Hello. My name is Dwayne D. Witt. I'm with the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group, which for over a quarter of a century has been advocating for Santa Rosa to build more affordable rental residential housing. In that quarter of a century, which is this entire century so far, the city of Santa Rosa has not met any of those rena numbers and has basically perhaps even a cavalier disregard for trying to fulfill those numbers. One example of one of these difficulties is a Burbank housing project that took over 13 years, was supposed to be rental originally called Lantana, and then got turned into owner occupied. That's not helping all of these poorer people. During the discussions today, one of the things that's been brought up is you folks feel you're doing a great job. You've done a survey which from the numbers that you discussed has brought in less than 1% of Santa Rosa's population to give responses. And from what was also discussed by you folks, apparently one of the things that has been occurring is your outreach with the new health planner, Miss Beatrice Guerrero, I believe that's her name. I spoke with once in the past, has geared mostly towards helping some different organizations that are lobbying basically. An example of this might be Generation Housing, which is a lobbying organization, not a housing provider. As the advocacy group goes out of its way to try to get public policy to reflect what is needed. Those paid lobbyists and building groups are basically using up a lot of time and money, but not getting a lot of stuff done. And Burbank's an example of that. I like them. I know people that work for them. But our dilemma is in Santa Rosa, affordable rental housing for those most at need is not being put together, even with public subsidy of up to $600,000 per unit perhaps. So as I've listened tonight, the concerns I would like to bring forward is that you focus on some authentic community engagement that reaches out to many more stakeholders than the wealthy out on the east side and the poor in some other areas of the city. There are a number of people who are at risk of losing their housing. If our housing element is to be helpful. Mr. Dewitt. Mr. Dewitt. Yes. Your three minutes has expired now. I'd like to speak during public comment and thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Dewitt. The next speaker. Next we have Deborah. Deborah, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your full name for the record, please. Yes, my name is Deborah McKay. And I would like to know, I don't like to cut down another tree, but I'd like to know how to get a hard copy of your report. This is very lengthy and I find it very difficult to read online. So how does what I'd like to know, maybe I guess after my comments are finished, how the members of the public can get a hard copy of this report. And then as some of the other commenters have said, it doesn't seem like there's been enough of a public outreach yet. So I hope you will continue that effort now that this draft report is out to make it more available to the public, not just online to make it more widely available in the community and to continue this input process. It's a very important document. It's going to have long-term ramifications. And I think that it's really important that the community know that this report exists and has a really robust opportunity to give input. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McKay. I don't see any other hands raised for this item. That is correct. Okay. So with that, I'll go ahead and close this public comment portion on this study session item and bring it back to the Housing Authority and the Commission. And I'm going to start with some of the questions that were asked by the public before it goes back to the Housing Authority for comments and then the Commission for comments. So the folks from Oakmont talked about fire safety and wondered if, if you had some comments or answers or. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much. We have been talking with Oakmont and their community about the wildfire issues and their concerns related to housing. And we have been focused on the general plan update in Santa Rosa forward and how we can accommodate their needs as part of that larger project. For this housing element specifically, we do only have a few sites within the inventory that are located within the Oakmont area. And just looking at the little purple dots, I believe those are actually sites that are rebuilt sites where homes have been lost and maybe rebuilt. But those are the only sites that are identified as part of this housing element process. There are, of course, the discussion points around the wui and fire severity zones and whether we want to identify the sites, not just within Oakmont with within those wildfire areas in general, but that. And so that is something that we're looking forward to your comments on. But the sites that are identified within Oakmont are already established. So there's no increases in density as part of this particular project. Thank you. And then questions on outreach. The Attorney from Legal Aid mentioned it. Mr. Farron mentioned it. As McKay mentioned it. I know you're towards somewhat the end of the process or getting that near there. But is there a way to do more outreach? And specifically to go back to some of the people that you originally contacted, such as Burbank and see if you can get some responses. Absolutely. We actually have been working with our consultant team to add a few more organizations to that list specifically. And I know one of the commenters also asked about who we have engaged with this thus far. So on our Santa Rosa Forward website, we do have a synopsis of the outreach efforts and the comments that we've received. It's a good place to go just to get a better understanding of what we've done so far as part of that effort. And then of course within the housing element itself, it does include a pretty good detail of the outreach done specific to the housing element. But we are absolutely going to be doing more outreach as part of the general plan update. So as we provide this draft to HCD, we will have the opportunity to add more information, more programs at the next round when we submit it for our final review. Thank you. And then Ms. McKay asked about a hard copy. Yes. So we do have a hard copy available here in the office that she's welcome to come and view. And we will make sure that we do have hard copies in our public libraries as well. So it'll probably be the end of next week when we get those out. And one thing I failed to mention that I wanted to make sure to note is that we are creating a new tool on our website, although it's electronic and not printed. This is a huge document. So I would want it in paper two. We are creating a tool so so members of the public can go on our website and create comments within the document as you review it. And so we've never done that before, but that will be launching next week as well. So we will do an email blast when that goes live. And we hope to use that for future policy efforts as well. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. Okay, so with that, I think those were the questions that I heard from the public. And so we'll go back. I'll turn it back over to chair test for comments by the housing authority keeping in mind the two questions that Ms. Lyle asked us about at the beginning of the meeting. Regarding the wooey and then the arena number request from Sonoma County. So with that chair test. Thank you. On commissioners comments. Housing commissioners commissioner Burke. Thank you chair test and chair weeks covered a lot of ground here and I have just two comments and one has to do with. The supporting the increase. You know, and I don't know to what degree this can be done in the current updated version versus the next iteration, but I'm going to make the comment anywhere. You can decide how might be best address the support that increasing the focus on addressing neighborhoods and decline within the city of Santa Rosa. And this evidence in this in the survey to a degree. And how housing element draft. And I just consider it a major issue that's confronted the city for a long time and it tends to grow rather than diminish on its own. Once upon a time, we had a very robust neighborhood revitalization program. It was a major priority had all pretty much all departments of the city involved with it. As well as the private sector in the nonprofit sector, but it's been diminished for a variety of reasons. And I guess my main concern is if it's not restored, the neighborhood issues such as substandard housing and violence and illegal drug use and overcrowding will grow and become much more difficult to resolve. So anything that I can do to support that effort. I certainly want to emphasize how important I think it is. And then the second comment would be support finding support. And this isn't really addressed, I don't think to a large degree, but supporting finding ways to disperse affordable housing throughout the city to the greatest extent and to avoid the concentrations of certain income and ethnic groups in various portions of the city of Santa Rosa. See that more, a greater emphasis in the general plan. Those are my comments and I already commented on kind of an interest in participating some way somehow in the discussion on the request from the county for the 1800 units that would be transferred via the rena process into the city. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, chair. Commissioner Burke. Thank you. Any other comments from commissioners. I would echo commissioner Burke's comments regarding the ask from the county. I would like to hear more about it. And I believe that the city council. May have some direction for us on this matter. But I look forward to being part of that process. Thank you. Chair weeks. Okay, thank you, chair test. Okay, so commissioners comments, keeping in mind also those two questions from his Lyle. Who would like to go first, commissioner Cisco. As far as including the listed vacant sites that are also in the wui. I guess I don't see a problem with doing that, given that they are available, whether we put it in here or not based on the general plan designation, we can't take away people's development rights. So I think if, if I'm understanding that right, miss Lyle, there's really, they're vacant. Someone could develop on them, whether we put them in this list or not, I think it is helpful that it designates that they're part of the wui if somebody's considering that but I guess I don't see a reason to remove those, unless, or until there's some kind of a moratorium on that. And then a lot of concern about the county's request, it's kind of coming in late at a time that we're trying to find out what they want, whether we could do it or not with this particular timeline, I think, would not be beneficial. I think there's so many questions to be answered, like, how does that compromise our numbers, etc. So I would be concerned about taking that up now. And that was one of the reasons why I asked about, you know, an amendment at some point to the housing element, if it was found to be at some point past the deadline we have to make that this would be a good thing for Santa Rosa. And that would be the potential to go ahead and do an amendment past this deadline, but I just think it's really, really close to get the kind of information that we would need to accommodate that request so at this point I'm not in favor of that. And I definitely echo Commissioner Burke's desire to see more focus on the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. It was a phenomenal program when it was operating full speed. I would really love to see that happen again. It can only benefit Santa Rosa. So those are my comments. Thank you. Commissioner Holton or Commissioner Krapke? Who would like to go first? Commissioner Krapke? Go ahead. So to the two questions, let's do those first. I agree with Commissioner Sisko. We can't take away the development rights or the refilled rights of individuals. And if we're considering new construction, a subdivision or something like that. I don't believe the city right now requires an evacuation plan, but it's typically included for us to review. It's sort of an addition to, you know, because it's always a question that gets asked is, you know what, what's your evacuation procedure. And that does take, we do take that into account when we review though. So I'm okay with that. With the county transfer in theory, I'm okay with it. But as Commissioner Sisko said, the timeline and how long it's going to take to get worked out legally gives me concern. So I'm open to it. But so long as it doesn't impact us negatively on getting it done or reducing the buffer that we discussed, considerable, considerably, I should say. Let's see. One piece of information just because when we look at those Rena numbers, it's always kind of like we were supposed to build this much but we actually only built this much. I've asked for this before because it is kind of, it is a little bit positive and optimistic is if we can see what we're doing against other municipalities because we are going to outpace the other cities around us, especially considering how many we have to build. I guess when it comes back to us. I'd like to also see if there's some, some information on that AB 602 that I mentioned to see if that some sort of could have some sort of impact going forward on our ability to encourage development. And the one thing I didn't want to point out so some of my questions kind of alluded to this. I was looking for the city's PCI updated PCI close to the I think we have a three year old with the pavement condition index I think is what that stands for. But it's like three years old and that's before, you know, we had cement trucks and 18 realers going down through rebuild areas. Specifically, I wanted to point out the areas on farm or on Dennis Lane, because the infrastructure there is aged. I have concerns about adding an increased amount of density there, considering that we have all those new houses going in. I think it's on like aubergine and landing on just on the north side there of Dennis Lane. You know, there's no sidewalks. There's the infrastructure is very, very poor. And, you know, that Dennis Lane is a major route for evacuation for about half of that that Northwest neighborhood to get out to Barnes Road. So I'm very concerned about adding density on Dennis Lane. And if it was up to me, I prefer to have those removed from the from the adequate sites list. And I believe those are all of my comments. Thank you. Mr Holton. Do you have any comments? In regard to the, including the vacant sites, that's fine again, as long as they have to develop the rights. That's, that's more than fine. And while I'm not a huge fan of absorbing the 1800 units. You know, I do think that it's just the timing is really off. But at the same time, it almost seems like I kept hearing Commissioner Cisco mentioned a deadline. I thought that there actually wasn't really a technical deadline just a matter of not adhering to SB 2. I wasn't sure. Is there an actual deadline then? Amy, can you maybe address that? Yeah, so we do have a state deadline to adopt the housing element by January 31st. Okay, that's what I thought. Okay, that's, okay, that's the deadline. I was confusing with my dad. Okay, great. Okay, so yeah, it's just, that's, yeah, I mean that gives us less than a month and a half. I just, I just don't see it. I think the timing is really bad. So I'm not really a fan of, I'm not going to support absorbing those 1800 units. In regard to the public and a lot of the public comments I've been hearing it, it appears is from what I'm hearing, the frustration from the public is, is that it seems like with everybody seeing these numbers and seeing that there's this huge, you know, buffer that we have for the, you know, more affluent residents is being produced. It really speaks volumes that we have such a long way. I mean, we still have a need. We've only built 685 units that are, you know, below low income units. And so I think that's really what I'm hearing is, it seems like there's a lot of red tape or that there's just not enough support for developers that are trying to, you know, developers like Darren Farron, I guess his name is, he was speaking about difficulties in actually getting funding and getting to actually to build these under low income units. So I just hope that going forward that there's more efforts or more comprehensive plans to promote building more under low income units and finding a way that we can start to at least close that buffer a little bit more. And that's about all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cisco. Yeah, I just wanted to add to my comments. If the discussion goes forward on taking the county's 1800 units. What Ms. Lyle say earlier is, you know, we aren't meeting our current rena numbers. We have the availability. We aren't meeting them that there can be some type of sanction. And I guess my concern is, and I hope it's taken up at this discussion goes forward, would we be adding more numbers that we would fail to build and we pay the price for that on some level, whether it's SB 35 or some other, you know, way that we aren't able to approve our own building. So I just wanted to add that to throw that into the discussion if it goes forward. Thank you. Thank you. So I just have a couple quick comments on the rena numbers. I just on the surface. I'm not in favor of it. I'm not in favor of the transfer for a variety of reasons that have already been stated. If and when there's an annexation of the Moreland area, which I know the mayor has mentioned and has been mentioned. I believe at the goal setting of the council, we're probably going to be asked to absorb more rena numbers. So anyway, I at this point, I think it's, I'm not in favor of it. And with the wooey, I agree with Commissioner Cisco's observation about Commissioner Krepke about the private property rights. So I think it needs to stay at it as it is. And amazingly, that's all the comments I have. So with that, that can look include the joint session of the planning commission, the housing authority and the housing authority may leave us now or stay on for our next item. Thank you. Thank you. So planning commission. We've been at it for two hours and 15 minutes. So I think we'll take. I know I could use a five minute break and I'm sure staff could choose. So we'll come. We'll take about a five minute break if that works for everybody. Ms Montoya, are we ready? Do you think. Yes, we're ready over here if you're ready. Okay, yes. We'll call them meeting back to order. Thank you for a short recess. I appreciate that. So with that, we will start our regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission. Item three is approval of minutes, which we don't have any today. And then item four is public comments for items not on the agenda. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of the three minutes. So with that, it looks like we have one person. So please call us. Caller 5549 you should be able to press star six to unmute and if you could please start by stating your full name for the record, please. You hear me. Yes, we can hear you go ahead. I'm from Roseland. And thank you for the opportunity to make this comment. It's very difficult for poor folks who try to use the local technology to actually participate in the public policy discussions. They're so vital and have been occurring behind the scenes for over two years now due to the COVID restrictions. The library today was able to finally find a way to get into this process, but the library closes their computers at 10 minutes to six. And also they do not allow comments to be made on their computers. You can only listen. So we're doing this by phone right now and basically what I'd like to ask you folks to do is open up what you're calling Santa Rosa forward. Because it's almost a black box. Many people in my poor neighborhood of Roseland, which according to the portrait of Sonoma County, update 2021 is the most disadvantaged, overburdened and underserved community of all of Sonoma County. It's hard to limolize in the fact that many people are not tuned into the technocratic approach like you folks are. You folks are basically from the middle class and upper middle class and you've got the goods. People out in Roseland don't have all that. But Roseland was decided to be a priority development area by the city. And much new development has been occurring there since the fires. And basically when you ask the city planning department about those numbers, they don't even have all that put together. We know the 200 departments were put in by Bill Gallagher off of Sebastopol Road near Stony Point Road starting about four years ago. It was in the plan and that came to fruition. And then hundreds upon hundreds of more housing units have been put in along Sebastopol Road at Boyd Street and out at Dutton Avenue. So we're getting lots of housing built out in our area, but no infrastructure to keep up with it. And our roads are in disarray. What about the water? There's all kinds of questions that need to be addressed and it should happen with some sort of community meetings where you planning commissioners come out and talk to people in Roseland and actually get the real news to use. I'm hoping that you'll do that, especially with the new city council member, Mr. Alvarez for District One where Roseland lies within. Please work with us. Don't run over us. Have us be partners with you in a collaborative effort rather than just stragglers that get informed after the fact what you've decided to do to us. Thank you for your time and enjoy the nice warm day. Okay, I don't see anybody else with their hands raised, so I'll go ahead and close the public comment portion and bring it back to the commission. And we'll start item five, which is our excuse me, which is our statement of purpose. The planning commission is charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws in the city of Santa Rosa duties include implementing of plans ordinances and policies relating to land use matters. Assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plan, holding public meetings and hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code. Zoning map general plan tentative subdivision maps and undertaking special planning status as needed. So, are there any commissioner reports? Okay. Any department reports item six. Yeah, so I want to give a couple of updates one. Just a recognition that we're, we had 15 vacancies in our department as of May 15 and this is across the board. So our admin teams are professional plan reviewers inspectors managers so it's sort of ran the gamut there. We're doing well in our recruitment process. And as deputy director Jones noted, we're doing quite well. We had five vacancies for in the city planner classification alone. Several of them are limited terms grant funded. And so we've had some internal promotions which is great but also creates vacancies that you have to then fill. So anyway, I think we're in a great spot. We still have a handful out of the 15 we still have a handful more to go over the next few months, but it's looking good so just wanted to shout out about that and you'll get to see. I don't think ever in our history we've been short five actually not just five but literally every city planner position is vacant. It's just that's that's just where we're at, you know, with the changes in movement that we've had, but it's looking good and we're going to get a great team and I'm excited to have them start working with us. In other news, we, I wanted to shout out about some special art projects that we, the department's been working on. And I maybe you've already heard because it's out and up, but just for the sake of the public, we were able to complete a new mural project on the fifth street parking garage. And so this this mural is called help each other grow. And it was designed by rough edge collective, which is MJ, Linda lawyer and Joshua lawyer. And it's really, it's an interesting project with lots of benefits, you know, we're trying to really activate all avenues for activating our streets and our community spaces and in more ways than we've maybe done traditionally so we're really making a concert effort to do these things. And the mural is going to increase the often overlooked fifth street garage. Luckily, that's how we call it because then you know where it is. And then when you drive by some of them, you know, these parking grudges are are in sort of a drab gray cement block structure so you might miss it so we are working as with art as a way of way finding and neighborhood identification so pretty, pretty cool it's out go take a look. If you want to know more about the project, our website, www.src.org slash fifth street garage art, you can learn more about that. So and that's that's the end of my report. Thank you. It's a cool mural I saw today. With that. Are there any statements of upset abstentions. Good. And no consent items so we'll move into our scheduled item which is item 9.1 public hearing cherry ranch development. Planning project 930 Fresno Avenue PRJ. 20 dash 018. This is an expert a item. So, we'll start with Commissioner Cisco. I'm familiar with the site. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I visited the site and I have nothing disclosed. Thank you, Commissioner Krapke visited site and I'm nothing further disclosed. Thank you. I visited the site and also had a just a brief conversation with the architect at city hall when I picked up my housing element. Nothing further to disclose. So with that, Miss Chicago is going to give us the item tonight. Thank you. Thank you chair weeks and good evening members of the planning commission. I will present this project to you today just look we share my screen. There you go. So, a brief project description. Let me turn my camera off. Okay, there you go. So, the applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.87 acre parcel into 67 small lots 62 dwelling units would be attached and five units would be detached. As you mentioned, they are located at 930 Fresno Avenue. The project site is located in the cities southwest area on the east side of Fresno Avenue. And is within the Sebastopol Road corridor priority development area, which permits multi family residential development by right and it reduces the review authority for design review. From the design review board to the zoning administrator, the design review board providing concept design review prior to the zoning administrator hearing. And as you can see here, this site is currently undeveloped land and is next to a former A strip on the east side. And across from the project site, there are several single family and rural residential developments. Above zone, the property is zoned R16 consistent with the general plan land designation of median low density residential, which allows for a maximum density of 13 units per acre. The proposed project meets the midpoint density, which is 9.75. A brief project history on July of 2019, a pre application neighborhood meeting was held at the neighborhood meeting attendees express concerns about the proposed 83 units. At that time, it was 83 units project and they believe the project conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood character. 2020, the design review board review the project as a concept item and the applicant would use the project from 83 units to 67 units. And October of 2020, the applicant submitted the 10 team map and conditional use permit for this project. So a brief detail about the proposed small lot subdivision conditional use permit. As I mentioned, the project is zoned R16, which requires a minimum log size of 6,000 square feet. But the applicant request approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow the creation of a small lot subdivision, which would allow the project to create parcels that range from 2300 to 1 square feet to 5129 square feet. Also, the applicant request a reduction of second story setback standards from 8 feet to 5 feet or for all lots and reduction of rear setbacks from 15 feet to 10 feet on 36 lots. The reason for second story setback modifications to accommodate modular constructions, which usually don't have that second story setbacks. And also the reason for the rear setback reduction is to maximize the development potential of the project while maintaining the minimum required 400 square feet private open space. That can go into more detail the reason for this setback reduction. And also these modifications are allowed by the code with the planning commissions approval. And this project complies with all other development standards. And here is a proposed team map. The project site would be accessed from three separate ingress and egress points along Fresno Avenue, which is required to be improved to include tern blade, travel lane, class two bike lane and parking lane. All compliant with the applicable city standards and all fire cost standards. So about SICWAT, the project has been found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, which I'm going to explain here in the slide. So in April 1994, the city council certified the south with Santa Rosa area plan master environmental impact report to analyze the impact of implementing the south with Santa Rosa area plan. Then in May 2006, the city council certified the subsequent EIR for the sadness area project, which analyzed the environmental impact of 39 units residential development to be located at the same site. And then an addendum to the subsequent EIR was prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project in compliance with the SICWA guidelines, which concluded that with incorporation of mitigation measures, the project would not cause significant environmental impacts or substantial increase in the severity of significant effect beyond those previously identified. So the notice for tonight's planning commission meeting has been mailed out to property owners and tenants between 600 feet of the project site. However, the onsite sign supposed to be posted 10 days prior to meeting, but it was posted eight days prior to the public hearing meeting. Our zoning code requires a person to our zoning code failure in the notice procedure shall not affect the jurisdiction or authority of a review authority to take action. So recommending that the planning commission provide a review of the requested tenant in map and minor conditional use permit at this meeting because the public has been sufficiently notified about the project application through notice of application, notice of neighborhood meeting and notes of concept design review and also notice for tonight's meeting. So, here, so at this slide, I'm going to go over some of the comments and concerns we have received from neighbors. A concern was expressed that the project would result in storm drainage that would flow into adjacent properties. The project has been reviewed by the city engineering department and approved conditions for further information regarding the civil engineer design. We will defer to the applicant to answer if there are any questions. Now, a concern was also expressed regarding potential for work to be performed on adjacent properties. The applicant has confirmed that all work will take place entirely on the property located at 930 Fresno Avenue, which is the project site. The concerns were expressed regarding the status and plans for the existing and proposed fencing on the project site. The applicant has indicated that staff turn ban defense will remain in place and the eastern ban defense will be relocated. The email was received yesterday about the fence along the east side of the property asking the planning commission to add a condition to the resolution to address the fencing issue. The request is to provide a temporary fencing on the east side of the project to be installed before the removal of the existing fencing to prevent sensitive habitat area and to remain in place until a permanent fencing for the subdivision is constructed. So staff in consultation with the applicant today proposed the following condition. I'm going to read it to you right now. So the condition is the applicant shall install temporary fencing along the east edge of the cherry ranch prior to removing the existing fencing to keep the start secure at all times. The applicant shall remove the temporary fence following the construction of a new permanent fence. I will go over that again at the end. So again about the concerns. Another concern was about the increased water demand as a result of the proposed project. So staff response is that the city of Santa Rosa's long term water supply planning means that occurrences of single and multiple dry years do not automatically mean water supply capacity is limited for plant development. Additionally, new development is required to be extremely water efficient, complying with the city's water efficient landscape ordinance and also comply with the Calgary building code. That requirement requires new developments to be 20% more water efficient than existing development. New developments usually exceed this target. And what affordability? A concern was expressed regarding the project's lack of affordability on site. This project is providing market rate housing which provides additional housing opportunities for new and existing residents of the city. And it achieves a cancelled goal of providing housing for all. And another concern was received about biological impacts to wildlife. Staff response is that the project has been reviewed in compliance with SICWA and with the incorporation of mitigation measures included in the Southwest Area Project SEIR, no additional analysis is required. And there was a comment above noise, the project construction and staff response is that the project construction and operation will be required to comply with the city's noise ordinance. And a comment was received about speeding on Fresno Avenue while staff understand the safety concerns related to driving at speeds that exceed posted limits. This concern is not project specific, but it is a police enforcement issue. And last, there was a comment received about city utility connection. Neighbors are also interested in connecting to city utilities. This is also not a project specific concern. To connect to city utilities, any neighbor can contact city water department for more information. And with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by Resolution, Planning Commission by Tree Resolution, one adopts an addendum to the Southwest Area Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to approve a minor conditional use permit for a small law subdivision and Tree adopts a tenancy map for the Cherry Ranch Subdivision, which is a 67 law subdivision located at 930 Fresno Avenue, file number PRJ20-018, and also to add one additional condition to the resolution regarding the fence on the east side. And that was my presentation. I'm available to answer a question that we can use also available. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Commissioner Siscoe. Yeah, I want to ask this question now because it really doesn't have to do with this particular project, but the prior project that was approved and it's in the environmental documents had historic barns on it. And there was an indication that the developer needed to place, there were big signs and the community felt were of historic significance. And so the environmental documents say that they did place those signs and the historic survey and environmental documents with the Sonoma County Library. And my question is, how does the city keep track of that? Is there like, how do they show, how does the developer show that that's been done and has that in fact been done because I like those signs. I want to know what happened to them. So the document is in the library, but I think the signs themselves are somewhere, it might be Ashley or maybe Jessica if you can help me. The document about the signs is in the library, I was able to find it. But they find themselves, I believe they are, they might be in Sonoma Museum. I have to look for that, but I was able to locate the environmental document at the library. Well, that would be a better place for them than the library. But does the city typically get a receipt or how do you guys know that that was actually done so that we're satisfied that they're protected. So thanks. Great question. Deputy Director Jones. Yes, as money mentioned, and we were able to locate the report at the library to respond to the question that you just asked about documentation. We do require documentation to demonstrate that mitigation measures have been completed. That was done, I believe quite some time ago. So we would need to do a little bit of research to look into that, which we definitely can do and respond back to the commission at a later time. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of staff before I open the public hearing. Okay. So with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Just one quick question of the second story setback request. I was, could you elaborate a little more and in regard to modulars. I don't know if I heard that right, but you said that modules didn't need a setback is that what. I didn't. It just, if you could elaborate a little more on this. I would, I would refer that the applicant can explain it better because they are applying for the future design of that project site and they might use modular buildings. But I would suggest the applicant to explain to you the reason for request of the setback reduction. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The applicant raised their hand or thank you. Can you unmute Mr. Hilberman? Oh, he is unmuted. Okay. Did that work? Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, we can. Wonderful. Okay. Yes. My name is Doug Hilberman. I'm the president of AC architects by 40 Mendocino Avenue and wanted to give just a brief. First, thank you for having us tonight. I know you've had almost three hours worth of housing information. So we'll keep our comments brief. Let me start just by giving just a little bit of additional information and then commissioner Holt and I'll address your question directly there. I wanted to let you know when we started on this project with the owners. The goal in the vision was to create attractive family workforce housing at an accessible price. As the staff noted, we started with a project that had a little more diversity to the housing types who included apartments in there and had a little more density to the project. Most of the comments that the staff has presented to you actually came from the previous, the design review, which, which was the concept design review. And I believe in, in regards to those, we addressed most of those also responded to the neighborhood by reducing density, going to more of a traditional subdivision format. Again, creating some diversity in what we were offering in the subdivision format with one story and two story housing elements that we thought or excuse me housing types that we thought would be very responsive to their desires to see. A little reduction in the density. In regards to your question. Commissioner Holton. We're fortunate in the fact that the owner of the property here has good experience with modular construction, and they believe this is an opportunity to really bring the housing to fruition and occupancy. And in doing so, particularly in this environment where there's so many constraints right now in terms of materials and labor to come to to fruition. This was an opportunity to perhaps, you know, create and build on site in a quicker manner. And so you stack a first floor to a second floor, and the bearing wants to come down one on top of the other so if in doing so the idea of setting back an upper story doesn't work as well and really starts to reduce the, the both the economies and the functionality of the modular construction. And so that's the reason that the applicant was asking for relief. They also say they also want to keep an asterisk next to the modular construction because unfortunately the modular industry has also been affected by a lot of these supply and distribution channel channel constraints. So, while this is their desired approach, subject to what's happening in the modular markets right now and the lead times for the modular companies, they also want to reserve the right to look at stick built options too. Thank you, Mr. Hilberman. And I will say before I really myself of the Mike here, we have in addition to myself the civil engineer and the landscape architect here we're all available for questions. If you have any. So with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this. If you wish to make a comment via zoom please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing and via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand each speaker will have three minutes. There will be a countdown timer on the screen. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're asked to and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown time. So, I don't see any hands raised. Is that correct. That is correct. I'm not seeing any hands at this time. Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this and bring it back to the commission. This item has three resolutions and Miss Shekali could you remind us which resolution would need to be amended. There is one condition we need to add. I think we can add it to the conditional use permit. If you want, I can read that condition. Why don't you hold on right now and get ready to read it. So with somebody what I'd like to do as we typically do is talk about the project as a whole. Well, if somebody could enter the first resolution, which is the addendum to the EIR. And then thank you, Commissioner Krapke. I move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa adopting an addendum to the Southwest Area Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse number two zero zero two zero nine two zero one six for the Cherry Ranch subdivision located at nine three zero Fresno Avenue. Council member zero three five dash one zero one dash zero zero four file number PRJ two zero dash zero one eight wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Krapke seconded by Commissioner Cisco. Any comments on the project. You can tell the heat's getting to me sorry. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I don't have much to say. I can make all the required findings and with the including also be in support of the condition for the fences when that comes up. But yeah, I'll be in support of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I'm also in support of the project. And I really hope they get to use the modular structures. That would be great. I can make all the required findings for the EIR and I will be happy to approve what the addition to the conditional use permit. Thank you. And Commissioner Holton. And I'd also like to echo Commissioner Cisco sentiment I too am excited about the modular. That's why I was so curious as to why they didn't need a setback but okay thank you for the answer by the way applicant. I'm also in support of the minor conditional use permit to adopt an addendum to the SCIR and also to approve the tentative map. So, yeah, I'm in support of this project and good luck. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings on this. So with that, could you ask for a roll call vote? And that was moved by Commissioner Krepke seconded by Commissioner Cisco. Yes, thank you. Commissioner Cisco. Commissioner Cisco. Commissioner Cisco for roll call vote. Oh, I'm sorry I was blanked out. Hi. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. Hi. Commissioner Krepke. Hi. And Chair Weeks. Hi. So, and now we need Mr. Chakali back to read what we need to add to the conditional use permit. Okay. Resolution. So, the applicant shall install temporary fencing along the east edge of Cherry Ranch prior to removing the existing fencing. To keep the site secure at all times. The applicant shall remove the temporary fence following the construction of the new permanent fence. Great. Thank you. And with somebody like to enter that resolution. Commissioner Krepke. Yeah, just real quick. Miss Crocker, can I just add the, read the resolution, adding the condition as presented by staff. Is that sufficient or not to repeat the entire thing? No, they would be perfect for you to read the resolution as amended by planner Chakali. All right, thank you. All right, so I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving conditional use permit for the Cherry Ranch subdivision. Thank you. Thank you. And is there a second? Second. Thank you. So that was moved by commissioner Krepke, seconded by commissioner Cisco. Can you go ahead and call the vote? Sorry. Yes. Oh, excuse me, chair weeks. Oh, we need to make the findings. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. So let's start with commissioner Cisco. I can make the findings presented in the conditional use permit. Okay. Commissioner Holton. I can also make the findings presented in the conditional use permit. Okay. Commissioner Holton. I can also make the findings presented in the conditional use permit. Commissioner Krepke. I can also make the findings presented in the conditional use permit. Commissioner Krepke. I can make all the findings for the CUP. And I also can make all the findings for the CUP. Okay. Now, Miss Montoya. Okay. Perfect. Commissioner Cisco. I. Commissioner Holton. I. Commissioner Krepke. I. And chair weeks. I. So that passes with four eyes, three absent. Now we'll go on to the third resolution. Commissioner Krepke. And I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, approving a tentative map for the cherry ranch subdivision to subdivide a 6.87 acre parcel into 67 lots located at 930 Fresno Avenue. APN 035-101-004 file number PRJ to 0-018 and wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Second. Commissioner. Council member please make the findings for the tentative map. Those are a plan Mart fecal. Okay. Thank you. So that was moved by los your crap case. I can did by Commissioner Cisco. Commissioner Cisco. Can you make the findings? I can make the findings for the tentative map. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. Thank you, you are a crock erase. I can also make the findings for the tentative map. I'm commissioner sisco. Hi. Commissioner Holton. Hi. Commissioner Okrepke. Hi. And chair weeks. Hi. So that passes with four eyes, three absence. And please note that this action is final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of today's action. The time limit will extend to the following business day if the last day falls on a day that the city is closed. For information on how to submit an appeal form, please contact the project planner. And if there's no other business, I do want to ask, add a reminder about the actions taken at this meeting are final unless an appeal is filed within 10 business days or it's within 10 calendar days of today's action. The time limit will extend to the following business day if the last day falls on a day that the city is closed. So with that, we will adjourn to our next scheduled meeting. Thank you all.