 Okay, folks, I have it at 430, so if we could all put our videos on, that'd be great. Okay, so with that, I'd like to call to order the February 23rd, 2023 meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission to order. But before we started, I'd like to welcome Terry Sanders to the Planning Commission. This is his first meeting, so welcome, Terry. Also, for anyone tuning in for item 8.2, staff has requested a continuance, so when we get to the public hearing items, I'd like to take them in reverse order, and I will ask at that time for a motion to continue the item. And for the last time, I'd like to be the following statement. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders, N-25-20 and N-29-20, which has been certain requirements for the Brown Act in the order of the health officer of the County of Sonoma to Shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Planning Commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and or and or practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item 3 or public comment time or during our public hearing item will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, I'd like to ask a roll call. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present. Thank you. And we have item 2 approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes, one for January 12th, so it and one for January 26th are there any changes or corrections for either one of those sets of minutes. Okay. Seeing none, those will stand as approved. And then we'll go ahead and move on to public comments. So we're now taking public comments on item 3 non-agenda matters. This is the time when any person may address the commission on matters not listed on the agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee. So if you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute yourself once called upon. So are there any hands raised? Chair Weeks, I don't see any hands raised at this time. Thank you. So with that, I'll go ahead and close the public comment portion and we'll move on to item 4 planning commissioners report. So as I typically do, I will go ahead and read 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 plans, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed. So with that, we'll move on to item 4.2 subdivision and waterway advisory committee reports. Are there any from the subdivision committee? Yeah, I believe we met the subdivision committee met since we last met and approved a subdivision for six locks on brush Creek property. We had previously seen as a rezoning and annexation and it was approved by the subcommittee. Thank you, Commissioner Carter. So we'll move on to commissioner reports and I'd like to start off by appointing our newest commissioner, Commissioner Sanders to the waterways advisory committee. So with that, are there any other comments any commissioners would like to make? Commissioner Sanders? Yeah, can everyone hear me okay? Yes. Good, and I did it right. That's step number one. I've been following the planning commission and your guys' work for some time and I just have to say bravo to you all because you all and staff for the work that you guys do in serving our community and moving Santa Rosa in a positive direction. So I'm just tickle pink to be here. I want to thank Vice Mayor McDonald for giving me this opportunity to serve alongside with you all to serve our community. And really I guess I should be thanking the entirety of the Santa Rosa City Council for appointing you all because you really do fantastic work and I'm just humbled and honored to be able to be a part of the team. So I look forward to meeting you all in person. Zoom is cool, but you know, I'm more of a handshake kind of person. And as an aside, this will be the first time that I've met Mr. Carter outside of his front door. I don't know if you remember that. So thank you guys. Thank you, Commissioner Sanders. We're delighted to have you. Any other commissioner reports at this time? Okay, so we'll go on to department reports. Yes. Good afternoon chair weeks and members of the commission. Jessica Jones staff liaison to the planning commission. Good afternoon to everybody and I just want to quickly say a welcome to Commissioner Sanders. We're super excited to have you on board. You're joining an amazing team here. We've got just a great breadth of experience and expertise here on our planning commission. And we're just very excited to have you join the team. So welcome. And as was I think somewhat indicated in some of the comments, just a quick reminder to everybody that this is your last zoom meeting. So we're very excited to be going back to in person meetings. So as of your next meeting, which is scheduled for March 9th, and we do have one item. Which will, if the commission continues item tonight for Britain Lane, that item will be moving to the March 9th meeting. So we will have a meeting on March 9th in our chambers. So we're very excited to see you all back in person. Staff will be there along with you as well as members of the public. But we will continue to have an option for anybody from the public who wants to participate via zoom or the the phone number ability on zoom. They can still continue to do that. We found it to be very helpful in helping to get more people participating in our meetings. So that is all I have for you tonight. Thank you. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that we'll still have that public option because I do think it is helpful. So with that, we'll go into statement of the abstentions. Any abstentions today? Okay, seeing none. We have no consent items and so we'll move on to our public hearing items. And as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting due to a noticing deficiency, staff is requesting a continuance to a date certain March 9th for item 8.2. There will be a re noticing of the item as we will be in chambers of the ninth. So with that, do I have a motion and a second to continue the item to a date certain of March 9th? Vice Chair Peterson. I move to continue the item to a date certain. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Carter. Okay, so that was moved by Vice Chair Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Carter. Is there any discussion about that before we call for the vote? Okay, so can we go ahead and I just want to confirm with the city attorney and with Ms. Jones that they have what they need to put this on the agenda on March 9th. Yes, we do. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, so with that, if we could call for the vote on the item. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Cisco. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Commissioner Sanders. Aye. Vice Chair Peterson. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with seven ayes. So we will see that on our March 9th meeting. So with that, we'd like to go back to item 8.1. It's a public hearing. Meadowwood Ranch subdivision. It's a statutorily exempt per GC section 65457. Secret Guidelines section 15182 15183. It is at 2853 and 2875. Meadow PRJ 21-021. CUP 21-079 MAJ 21-003. And we have Planner Wolski. It's the first time that we have seen you. So welcome to Santa Rosa. Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, let me see if I can do my screen share correctly and then we'll get rolling just a second. Okay. If you can give me a verbal, if you can see my PowerPoint. Yes, we can. Okay. I'll get it into screen to slide share mode. That look good? Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Great. Let me move a couple of things around so I can actually see your faces. Okay. Thank you for the warm welcome, Chair Weeks. And good evening to all the rest of you planning commissioners. My name is Sheila Wolski, city planner with city of Santa Rosa. And the item before you tonight is the Meadowwood ranch subdivision. This is a request for small lot subdivision and tentative map approval to subdivide 11.21 acres into 89 lots. Proposed construction on the 89 lots would include seven single family detached homes. 82 single family attached duplexes and 48 accessory dwelling units, which I may refer to later as ADUs. And that equals a total of 137 units. The project is a market rate rental community, which the applicant describes as an opportunity for residents who are priced out of home ownership and are looking for a rental without neighbors above or below that offers private space and amenities. This slide shows you where the project is located in the city of Santa Rosa, which is in the Southwest Quadrant. And are you looking at the aerial right now or are you seeing the, it looks like my slides got a little funny. We have the map with the project site as a star. Okay, well, I have two separate slides like that. Isn't an aerial or a base map? Base map. Okay. So that's where it is in the Southwest Quadrant. We'll move to the next. This is the neighborhood aerial. The project site is highlighted in blue. The project site is located in the Roseland area, Sebastopol Road priority development area. The site's general plan land use designation is low density residential and low density residential open space. And the site is zoned R 1 6, which allows for single family and single family attached housing. The proposed residential development would achieve a density of 7.9 units per acre, which falls within the allowed density of two to eight units per acre. Additionally, there are 48 accessory dwelling units or ADUs proposed at less than 750 square feet. ADUs cannot be counted toward density based on the city's zoning code. The site zoning is R 1 6 and allows for detached and attached single family homes as well as accessory unit uses, all of which this project incorporates. This project does have a long history over 15 years ago. It was approved as a 78 small lot subdivision project. However, project approvals expired and the applicant has submitted a new application with 11 additional lots and 48 ADUs, which has been reviewed as a new project. These are the discretionary entitlements the applicant is requesting from the planning commission. The applicant is seeking small lot subdivision and tentative map approval because the project site is located in a priority development area. The zoning code allows design review of the project to be delegated to the zoning administrator. It should be noted that the project went before the design review board for concept design review in 2021 and the applicant has made design changes based on the design review board's comments. The zoning administrator meeting for design review is tentatively scheduled for late March 2023. This slide highlights the project details. The first bullet details the proposed construction on the 89 lots. Again, this would be for 70 touch single family units, 82 single family attached, and 48 ADUs. Amenities would be that there would be a market rate rental community, including on-site management. And I believe the applicant will delve further into what that would include a swimming pool, a recreation pool, a swimming pool, a recreation center and eating and gathering areas. The lot sizes would range from 2,352 square feet to 5,183 square feet. And some of the infrastructure improvements would include new roads, curb, gutter, right-of-way improvements. This includes the extension of Burgess Drive through to Dutton Meadow and frontage improvements on Dutton Meadow. One of the entitlements is to request approval of the small lot subdivision as provided for in zoning code section 2442-140. The section of the code is intended to increase the supply of smaller dwelling units and rental housing units by allowing the creation of subdivisions with smaller lots and dwellings. The project complies with the standards outlined in this code section with two exceptions. The applicant is requesting one, a reduced front setback and two, reduced private open space requirements. These requests will be outlined in the following two slides. The first exception request is for a 2-foot reduction in the front setback from 10 feet to 8 feet. The applicant is requesting this based on the rationale that all the units would be provided with front porches, which provides private open space and encourages an active streetscape. The reduction in the front setback would provide more distance between the primary unit and the garage in the back allowing for more backyard space. It's also noted that a reduced front setback condition exists in some of the surrounding developments. The zoning code small lot subdivision section allows the planning commission to approve different setbacks if the review authority determines the alternative approach is more appropriate to the characteristics of the site and surroundings. The second exception request is a reduction in private open space requirements. The applicant is requesting a 20% reduction in the requirement for 400 square feet of private open space. This would result in a reduction of 80 square feet, as well as a reduction in the minimum dimension of open space from 15 feet to 11 feet. This 11 feet would be the depth of the backyard. The applicant's rationale for this is that the private porches as well as the community amenities provided fulfill the intent of private open space. The zoning code allows the planning commission to allow changes to design alternatives through conditional use permit approval. This slide shows the site plan for the project. This project would provide for the extension of Burgess Drive, which currently dead ends right here at the project site. Burgess Drive provides a direct connection to L.C. Allen High School over here to the west. And the extension of this road through the project site to Denton Meadow has been long anticipated in both the city's general plan and the Rosalind area, Sebastopol Road, specific plan roadway network. This extension will provide another means to access L.C. Allen High School and another circulation option for residents in the area. New roadway extensions will be made in the Meadowood Ranch subdivision connecting it to the new Bellevue Ranch 7 subdivision to the south. There will also be improvements to Denton Meadow to include curb, gutter, sidewalk and a bus turnout where there were no improvements before. This is the landscape plan for the site. The project has been conditioned to be compliant with the city's water efficient landscape ordinance as well as a stormwater low impact development design. While the design review portion will be considered by the zoning administrator, I included a few slides to provide some design context for this project. The concept design review meeting before the design review board was held on May 6, 2021 and the elevations provided are responsive to the design review board's feedback. The project includes a mix of architectural styles mostly modern and mid-century. This slide shows the attached single family homes and the image at the bottom is a rendering of the recreation center. These are all various design examples of the attached units. And this final elevation slide shows you the proposed three car garages with the proposed accessory unit above. And you can see how they're differentiating a little bit with the orientation of the siding. This slide shows the breakdown in parking between covered and uncovered parking spaces. The project exceeds the city's parking requirements with a total of 354 spaces while 233 are required. This is an excess of 121 parking spaces beyond what the zoning code requires. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 7, 2021 which approximately 10 people attended. Neighbor concerns are listed on this slide and include concern about additional traffic being added to the area, water and sewer capacity and additional units since this project was initially approved in 2007. With regard to traffic the applicant provided a traffic impact study that determined that the various intersections in the vicinity would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the addition of the project's anticipated traffic generation. Water and sewer capacity were analyzed with the project submittal and both water and sewer main extensions have been added as conditions of approval for the project. In 2008 a sewer capacity study is not required and anticipated water use has been accounted for in the city's urban water management plan. Since the project was originally approved in 2007 at 78 lots, the number of total units has largely been increased with the addition of accessory dwelling units. The applicant has submitted all new application materials for consideration of the project including a traffic study, tentative map, arborist report, noise compliance report, and evaluation at increased units. The project continues to remain subsetively consistent with the city's general plan and zoning code with the two exception requests noted earlier in this presentation. Some of these concerns were also echoed and the correspondence received after noticing was sent to residents within 600 feet of this project site regarding this meeting. These included questions about reviewing development situations and areas. Responses to those questions were included in your packet. This is a very, this is a mouthful but it is important so I will read it. This is regarding the environmental portion of the project. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Sequa, the California Environmental Quality Act and has been determined to be reviewed from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15182, CEQA Guidelines sections 15183. And this is primarily because the project would develop a residential land use that implements and is consistent with previously adopted specific plan, the Roseland area, and no events subsequent to certification have required supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code 2116. The proposed project has been found to be consistent with the Santa Rosa General Plan and complies with all zoning code requirements subject to review authority discretion regarding small lot subdivisions. Review of the project has revealed no significant environmental impacts which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project in which we're not addressed the general plan EIR, nor is there any new information that shows that any environmental impacts will be more significant than as described in that EIR. Again, the exception requests are the two foot reduction in the front setback and the reduction in the private open space. Otherwise, there are no unresolved issues identified with this project. The planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission by resolutions approve a conditional use permit and adopt a tentative map for the Meadowood Ranch subdivision and 89 lot 137 unit residential small lot subdivision located at 2853 and 2875 Dutton Meadow Assessors' Parcel Numbers 043-111-005 and 043-111-005 and 043-111-006 and 043-111-006 This is my contact information. If anyone's calling in, that's S-W-O-L-S-K-I at srcity.org or 707-543-4705 and I am available available for questions. I know the project applicants are also here and have a presentation prepared as well and that concludes my report or presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Planner Wolski before we hear from the applicant? Okay, so then if we could hear from the applicant now that would be great. I did have one question. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Holton. No worries. I did know that the traffic study at least what I read indicated that that study was conducted in 2015. Is that correct? No, I don't believe that's correct, but give me a moment and I'll find the study for you. I want to say it was 2021, but I'll look and get that information for you. I just looked on existing conditions and it said that the historical data was used to evaluate the study intersections and at Dutton Meadow and Heron Avenue the data was collected on January 29, 2015. The estimates of the 2021 volumes without the COVID-19 pandemic or growth rate was used to develop use upon information contained in the traffic impact study in the revised Dutton Meadow project. Can you hear me? Mr. Sprinkle, I think he's in the audience to talk about that or perhaps we should hear from let's hear from the applicant first. That's fine. Then we can circle back. That's okay with everybody. Can you please introduce yourself? Sure. I don't know if my video is on or not, but if you can hear me. We can hear you. Okay. My name is Peter Johnson. I'm with Newgrounds Living, one of the original founding members of the company that was founded in 2019. Dan Nethercott was planning to give a presentation this evening, but unfortunately technical difficulties got in the way with his Zoom capabilities. He's actually in Canada at the moment and I think Zoom is restricted for out of the country calls, so he's going to listen to me butcher his presentation this evening. Apologize to him. As to the traffic study, it was prepared in 2021 by a local company there. I'm sure that some of the data they used is probably, as they say in the study, was taken from prior data sets and updated based on regional growth patterns and historical growth. As I also said, it didn't make a lot of sense to start doing traffic counts in the middle of COVID, so they adjusted for that too. I can provide more detail if that's of use, otherwise that's it for that. Okay. Do you have another presentation to do? Yes. If I can share my screen, again, I'll talk through Diane's presentation because he's unable to do it with us. How do I share screen here? Can... Do I need to raise my hand? This is a slightly different Zoom screen than I used to. Can staff help Mr. Johnson on this? There we go. Okay, sure. So that's our presentation. Thank you, Sheila. As I said before, New Rose Living is a relatively new company. We have other projects in Sacramento, which are currently under construction. Our mission is basically to provide relatively affordable housing for folks that are either aged out or priced out of home ownership or apartments. Generally, we try to build communities. If we go to the next slide, that probably is better. We focus on community design rather than just building rental units. Our typical rental projects are much lower density than your normal apartment dwelling projects. But we don't maximize the size of the houses on the lofts. We tend to favor right sizing the house so that we can deliver that missing middle housing, which we're so lacking across the whole country, but particularly in Santa Rosa, so that we don't need a 2,800 square foot three bedroom house to have a rental home that works very well for a tenant. One of the things we do do is with our full-time on-site professional management, we maintain all of the front and rear yards. We think this is particularly important because it keeps the community looking at feeling as it was designed and doesn't allow things to deteriorate. We also are proud of our architecture. We think that we do a better than average job in creating architecture that creates a friendly living environment and a place that people will want to be. As Dan put it, we don't build houses, we build neighborhoods. We can jump to the next slide. Obviously the missing middle housing is front and center in Santa Rosa's mind in terms of how to deal with it and how to address it. We think that we've got a really good solution. As we know, housing inventories are historic lows and meanwhile prices continue to rise even though interest rates are going up and housing becomes even more unaffordable to the average person. So we think that by clustering a community of small single-family homes and with the AD use, we've sort of cracked the code on how to deliver that missing middle housing that works for young families as well as potentially move down renters that are done with home ownership or don't have the option for home ownership. Next slide. I apologize, I'm not as prepared as I might be because this was Dan's presentation, but we believe that our communities of purpose-built rental housing provide a lot of options to tenants that are not otherwise available in apartment dwelling. We focus on a form-based design. We like to activate the streetscapes, which is one of the reasons we like to move the front of the units closer to the streets so that we have a more friendly streetscape with the front porches and there becomes more interaction with the public space. And we think that our product, again, meets the needs and desires of renters today. Most people would rather not live in a stacked apartment with neighbors above and below, and this is a solution that we've developed that we think works really well for that. The other thing that this does by clustering all of these rentals together, it provides a better solution than for the scattered single-family rentals that typically you find in residential communities. I did want to speak briefly here to the professional management process. You know, that basically operates the same as a conventional apartment development where you walk into a leasing office and you meet with a representative and the project basically will have two or more full-time employed maintenance people that will be concerned with enforcing regulations, one of which I think is important to point out, and I know there's been a fair amount of concern raised by various commenters around parking. One thing we have in our leases is an obligation that a garage is a garage and it's for parking and not for storage. It's not for ping-pong tables, it's for cars. And we enforce this in all of our communities so that we can be certain that when we say we have 340 or 360 parking spaces, we have truly 360 parking spaces and none of those will be preempted or co-opted with storage facilities. We wanted to just kind of mention that. Next slide, and I think Sheila did a particularly great job of introducing the context of the project, so this is obviously the community location map that we offered up at one of our earlier meetings. The next slide is the site plan that shows the landscaping and you can see how the rec center is situated, adjacent to what will be a small dog park just below it and the improvements that we're bringing to the project include a linear park along Reindaz, which is the west edge of the property that will be extending the regional mixed-use trail towards the south and connecting it to Common Way where it will continue eventually south all the way to the creek. One important attribute here that I think maybe the next slide is, yeah. There we go, yes. So just to go briefly down this list of attributes for the project, we talked already about the fact that we have a professionally managed community. We think our architecture is interesting and innovative. It draws on the tradition of the farmhouse and farming community in the region and it also lends a slightly more modern approach to that vernacular. We believe that we're solidly targeting that missing middle renter opportunity. One thing that we do have here is every single unit will have access to a secure parking garage, which will be enclosed. So a one-car garage for every tenant in addition to all the extra parking that's scattered around the site. Everybody will also have their own private outdoor space. Our researchers told us that over 35% of renters today have pets and we think it's important to address that feature in the rental project. As we mentioned earlier, for 137 total units, including the ADUs, we have 366 on-site parking spaces, which is about 120 more than code requires. We did that intentionally recognizing that the ADUs, even though they're not required to be recognized by the zoning code as requiring parking, they are going to have cars. So we've provided, as I mentioned, over 120 extra parking spaces to accommodate that. The Private Recreation Center will include a pool, indoor and outdoor gathering spaces for cooking or sitting and reading a small workout facility. The project also does, as began with Sheila mentioned, it delivers an important roadway connection from Burgess across to Devin Meadow that we think will provide between that and the sidewalk and bus improvements on Devin Meadow will help provide a safer, more accessible route for kids to get to the school and people generally to travel east-west across this part of the city. Sewer extension in Devin will also then become available to the existing residents. That follows the Devin that I've to date had no city sewer and I think the bus stop will be a huge improvement over the post that's planted in the dirt next to Devin Meadow. So we can flip through, again, Sheila did a great job of showing you the typical street scene in architecture, so I won't waste your time by going through it all again, but we can just flip through these and you can see the floor plans. If anybody has any specific questions about any of these slides I'm very happy to answer them. The landscaping and tree planting palette is one that we've worked with the city on as part of the application process and we think we've made some positive changes to our original plan that included some better variety of oaks and other trees that were noted during our preliminary design review hearing process. And that pretty much wraps it up and it's been a long time getting here. We first sat down with the city in October of 2021, I'm sorry, 2020. And so two and a half years later, here we are and we're excited to be here and look forward to deliverance to the city. I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any or I think that's probably the last slide that we used were some additional slides that we had included in case anybody was interested in some of the typical features about community. Happy to walk through those if you wish. Otherwise, I'll be respectful of your time and open up to any questions. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of the applicant? So we'll start with Commissioner Cisco. Yes, Mr. Johnson. This is sort of an operational question. With the ADUs, are you taking full responsibility for renting each of those out or would somebody who was renting, you know, one of the duplexes also have the opportunity to rent that space and then rent it to someone else? I'm just kind of curious about how are you going to deal with the ADUs and who's responsible for the rentals of those? We will retain responsibility for all of that and we will treat each ADU as if they were separate but all of them are parking. So operate this as a 137 unit apartment community. And you know, within each cluster with the ADUs behind one half of the duplex and underneath the ADUs are three separate one car garages. So each tenant, one for the ADU and one for each of the duplex units in front will get, with their lease, they will get a single car garage included. So. Thanks. Commissioner Sanders. You may have answered this. Let me ask it again. Are you saying that the ADU is going to get the garage that's below that ADU or no? That's correct. It will get one of the three garages that's below the ADU. So I don't know if we want to jump back to the presentation. There's an elevation of the eight building that you can see underneath that ADU are, there are three one car garages and each one of those will be allocated to one of the three tenants in that cluster of units. Well, one of the three tenants in the cluster of units or one of the three ADU tenants, I guess what my question is, is if I, if someone is living in the ADU above a garage and their car is not in that garage, someone else's car is in that garage, that garage door is going up and down, there's idling cars. What about the noise of that person who's living in that ADU who doesn't, you know, does that make sense? I understand the concern and we share the same concerns. So we've developed a floor assembly for that unit above the garage that includes extra sound attenuation, whether it's double plywood or a lightweight concrete that basically creates a higher level of sound attenuation than you would typically have in a single family home if you've got the kids bedrooms over the garage. We also anticipate that the ADU tenants garage will be the space that's underneath the bedroom end of his unit. So if he's in bed at night, it's unlikely his door is going to be the one that will be disturbing him. Okay. And I want to circle back to Commissioner Holton and the traffic study. And if we could just verify that it was done later than 2015. Yeah, I was speaking. The traffic report was prepared by WTrans in Santa Rosa and it's dated September 2nd, 2021. So can we, Mr. Sprinkle, do you have anything you want to add to that? Yeah, I could hopefully provide some clarification. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Mr. Peterson, members of the commission, Rob Sprinkle, traffic engineer from the city of Santa Rosa. So this is a typical result that we've had during the time of COVID when we had projects moving forward. A lot of times the counts were drastically different than what we would expect during that time period with much less use of vehicle traffic on the streets. Schools were not in session or they had hybrid schedules or a different amount of attendance during that time. So we saw, especially in this area around where there's a high school and there's elementary school, there was a drastic difference in the counts. So we worked with WTrans and developed and approved their method to use the older counts and then adjust them up to get what would be a realistic projection of what the counts would be moving forward. And even today we're seeing, I think, less counts on the road and we are seeing less counts than we anticipated with a lot of people doing remote working from home. So we're still even seeing today kind of a less amount of traffic that we projected likely with this scenario that was presented in the traffic study. So this is actually a conservative look, in my opinion, of what the traffic situation will be like. And I'm just curious, what is an acceptable level? Because I don't know if anybody has ever been on her any time recently or driven on her or even tried to take a left off of San Jose Avenue onto her. Has anyone done that? And I'm really, really concerned about what an additional 370 cars are going to do. I'm sorry to stand. And I have some questions. Go ahead. Mr. Sprinkel, go ahead. Yes. So we do have a big capacity issue down at her and we have a project that we have that has just been approved and funded by the City Council and that's the Her and Interchange project. The Her and Interchange will be widening that bridge, which is the bottleneck in that area from a two-lane facility with barely even any kind of pedestrian access on the south side to a five-lane facility with bike, pet access on both sides of the street and with a multi-use path as well on the south side of the street that will connect eventually to the smart multi-use path. That in itself will help alleviate that is the crux of the congestion in that area that does back up over the railroad tracks to the west and that will help immensely the circulation in that area. In combination with that also identified in the Roseland-specific area plan is the new alignment of Dutton Meadow that actually is a little different than the current alignment and it crosses over to actually over to Dutton Avenue and connects Dutton to the north of Hern down to Dutton to the south of Hern where there currently isn't a street. Creates another network of arterial streets to help with the circulation in the area. So is the Hern Change Project scheduled to begin and when is it scheduled to be at its completion? Because my concern is that this additional 370 cars comes in prior to construction in the beginning or even as we all witnessed with the widening of 101, how long is that taking? So I'm just really, really concerned about the additional cars without the actual completion of the project. So the project is going to, they call it RTL which is forgetting the acronym now, there's too many acronyms in this business. Ready to list and that's ready to list in April that will get its final trip to the California, the CAC, it's another acronym, I'm sorry. California, something commissioned and they'll give it their final approval in June. It's supposed to go out to bid shortly after that and the anticipation is that construction will start this fall of 2023. And is there any indication of what the tentative duration of this construction is going to be? Because that sounds like a pretty hefty project. It's a huge project. It absolutely is. I believe it's about a two-year timeframe for full completion and during that time, it will be congested in the area as well but they are required to keep one lane open during the day time in each direction as it is now and then in the nighttime I believe overnight they will have some detours potentially when they need to do some work on the structure itself. So in the most optimistic timeline, we're looking at 2025, this work is to be completed or even actually 2026 likely is when this work would be hopefully completed in the most optimistic timeline? I would say yes. I say by 2026, again, if there are any other delays, that is the schedule that moved. And this new neighborhood, the timeline for it to be completed? I don't know. So let's ask that question of Mr. Johnson. Could you talk to us about timeline? We anticipate beginning horizontal construction towards the end of this year, assuming a positive outcome today obviously. And there's probably six months of horizontal construction before we begin our vertical and the vertical will take a total of probably 18 months up to 24 months. At least that will happen, you know, probably six months after that. Okay, thank you. Mr. Holton, do you have any other questions? No, that's going to do it. Thank you very much. Thank you. So if there's no, okay, Commissioner Carter. Yeah, sort of piggybacking on Commissioner Holden's question. If Mr. Sprinkle is still available, can he refresh my memory as to when they're anticipating the completion of the specific plan roadway network, specifically the extension of Dutton Meadow and Dutton around these neighborhoods. So yeah, I will do my best. Some of it's related to other development in the area. So there's the phase two, I believe, of Dutton. It was the development to the north. It's a rather large development. I mean, 130-ish units. That development is responsible for doing a lot of the roadway construction. The Bellevue Ranch? Not Bellevue Ranch, Bellevue. Oh yeah, the other Bellevue. Maybe it's Dutton Ranch, phase two. And sorry for not having that, my tongue. I'm not sure when their construction is planned for. And but there is, we do have the Heron Community Hub that is being planned to be constructed and extend the Dutton to south and will connect to the Dutton Ranch phase two roadway network. So that is planned to be constructed. I believe we're moving forward to try to complete that project within the next two to three years. And I don't have a firm date on that. That's just in its beginning in the seat of that project. And then isn't there one additional project as well, right at the end of Herne and Stoney Point? I know, I believe it's the Olsen firm, the construction company that's completing that one. And that's another like really condensed high occupancy department complex that just is about to go up. And they're going to be extending that road as well into Stoney Point, I think, correct? Or am I wrong on that one? I might be wrong on that one. Sorry. I'm not familiar. That one's not. I'm going to have to look in my folder here. So if I could find what project that's because I mean, we're yet to see the impacts of that new apartment complex hit Herne and see what's going to happen to Herne. I'm just really convinced. I mean, the study that was done, the Rosalind annexation study, that included a lot of this infrastructure and the build out in its estimates as well as the full build out with the land use that was identified in that. So we are building out to that plan. Unfortunately, a lot of times the infrastructure side of it comes behind the development side of it. So that's it's a challenge that we are continuing to follow. So I'd like to go back to Commissioner Carter. Did you get your question answered? Okay. So any other questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing? Okay. So with that, I'd like to go ahead and open the public hearing. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. A countdown timer will be showing on the screen. For your convenience as well as viewers, please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown. So with that, I saw a couple of hands raised, I believe, or one hand raised. Yes. Anthony Westergaard. I'm going to send you a prop to unmute yourself. Please set your name for the record. Anthony Westergaard. Thank you. Go ahead. I have a few questions. Thanks for letting me speak tonight. We have a two eight, two seven, five generations at that address. My first question is about the sewer. Is the sewer going to be going all the way from Marine to Marine? Or where are they getting the sewer out front? So go ahead and ask your questions, and then we'll bring it back to the applicant. Okay, so that's number one. Number two, Dutton Meadow widening. Is there any plan to widen Dutton Meadow? Because right now it's all the new housing they built since I've been there 40 years. You sit at the school there for like 20 minutes sometimes and you can't get through with another 300 cars. What's that going to do? Any widening of the road or putting a turn lane in? Next question is, is a tree in the field on the north side of that field, that 12 acre field, it's right next to my house. It's probably where Ashlyn and Luke Road are going to intersect. The tree right there for the last 40 years has been red-tailed hawks and white hawks nesting in that tree. Is there any talk about what they're going to do about that or what they thought about that at all? They've been nesting there for 40 years. We also heard a rumor that part of that 12 acres at some point might have been a wetland area because of salamanders. Is there any talk about that? Those are my questions so far. Okay, so you have one turn and public comments. So if you have other questions, please ask them now and then we can bring it back to the applicants. That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure that would be another meeting though, right? Is this the only meeting? This is the meeting for this project. 2825, 2827, 2829, 2831 do not have sewer right now. And they're on the north border. Is there a way to hook sewer the north to south instead of going all the way down to Dutton Manor? Because there is going to be a road right by my house. It looks like am I able to hook sewer from my house into that roadway? Okay. Any other questions in your seconds remaining? I think I had four or five and that was all of them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other hands raised? Sure weeks. I don't see any other hands raised at this time. Okay. Thank you. So with that. Sorry. I actually want to just line up. Okay. Caller 3366. I'm giving you a prompt to unmute yourself. You could do so by pressing star six. And then please state your name for the record. Hi. This is Dan Nethercott. I'm a developer. I'm a developer. I'm a developer. Unfortunately, the system won't allow me to, well, didn't allow me to do the presentation. So thank you. The applicant. Okay. Just a second. We have had the applicants presentation. So that was your, that was the chance for the applicant. To make comments. Should I. Okay. So Peters available to answer questions and. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So any, I don't see any other hands raised. Okay. That is correct. No other hands are raised. Thank you. So with that, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. And actually, if we could have the applicant answer the questions that Mr. Westergaard. I'm asked. So the question on the sewer. And hooking the sewer. Sure. Our project will be extending the public sewer in Dutton Meadow. Across the entire east frontage of the site. It will connect into the existing sewer at the south end of that stretch. And I'm not sure exactly where Mr. Westergaard's home is, but if he has frontage on Dutton Meadow along that section across from our frontage, then he will have sewer available to them. That's the sewer question. Dutton Meadow widening, Mr. Westergaard. Do you want to believe? Uh huh. We will be widening Dutton Meadow by between two and four feet along that entire frontage to bring the traffic lanes up to to the to the proper standard that they were never originally designed to. We will also be able to get to the proper standard that they were designed to. We will also be on Dutton Meadow providing a full overlay of the pavement there. So it will be a repavement of the entire street. And at our site entrance at Burgess, we will be installing left turn lanes in both directions. So coming south or north to Burgess turning into our project to go to the west, you will have a dedicated left turn lane at that location. And on the tree question, I'm not familiar with the specific tree, but we did do a tree study which was submitted as part of our submittal application and mitigation for any trees that we are going plan to remove as part of the subdivision will be incorporated into the project landscape plans. His question had to do with the red tailhawk that is sitting in that tree. Did you do any studies regarding that? I don't believe we studied any analysts that are not on the thing or protected species lists for the state or the or the federal government. But I can kind of follow into that question. The wetland area and the salamander area has been was studied at length for the previous targeted map that was in 2007. I think at the time about two and a half million dollars were paid for mitigation bank lands to set the impacts about the wetlands for the federal 401 and 404 permits as well as for the state California salamander habitat that was impacted. So that has all been studied and mitigated for many years at this point. So all those things have been taken care of in this area. Thank you. Ms. Wolski, do you have anything you wanted to add to any of those questions that Mr. Westergaard asked? No, I think, well, yes, I do. I think Peter did a good job of responding to all those questions regarding the trees. They are proposed to be removed and they did provide an arborist report to the design review board. The design review board commented that they'd like to see for onsite trees fewer ornamental and more native oaks, which the applicant has agreed to. And that's in their arborist report. So it's also been conditioned if there are any nesting birds, they cannot do removal. If there are any birds nesting during any removal processes. Thank you. So with that, I'm going to the commission. This item has two resolutions. So I'd like somebody to move the first resolution and we can talk. We can start discussion on the project as a whole. So is there somebody who'd like to do that? Mr. Cisco. I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for Meadowood Ranch subdivision and 89 parcel small lot subdivision located at 2853 and 2875 Meadow. Assessors parcel number 043-111-005 043-111-006 file number PR 121-021 CUP 21-079 and wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Is there a second? Vice Chair Peterson. I'll second. Thank you. Okay. So what we will do is we'll talk about the project as a whole even though there's two resolutions. So with that, I will go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter. Well, yeah, housing first, right? I generally support the project. I think it's a creative approach to rental housing. I'm a little bit concerned about the density. Given the fact that if you did have to count the ADUs would be beyond the single family, the low density that's out there now, but I think it's a reasonable addition to what is largely a single family neighborhood now. I continue to be concerned as I have been since I got on this commission about the building all of this housing on old country roads out in Southwest Santa Rosa. We have traffic reports that state that the intersections of interest will continue to function exceptably if we do the projects. I'm very anxious to see the implementation of the Rosewood specific plan roadway network. As the applicant said, they're building neighborhoods. We should try to do the same and make sure we have the infrastructure that's necessary to support the housing that we so desperately need. But that said, I will support the project and the slight reductions in landscape and lot configurations that the applicant is requesting and continue to hope that our infrastructure improvements keep pace with our housing. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I think this project is probably one of the most interesting ones we've maybe ever seen. I think it's really creative and innovative in terms of creating housing opportunities, rental housing opportunities. And you know, I think we also have to understand that that with the ADU ordinances, a lot of these single family dwellings out there could go ahead and add an ADU as well. I understand the concerns about the infrastructure. I wish it worked differently than it does. Really looking forward to the to the Hearn interchange, which has been a long time coming. This is how we get the infrastructure built on it's behind the housing. And I wish it was different, but it isn't. But I do find this project to be very innovative and I can make all of the findings required and I'll be voting for it. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. I'm also in support of the project. I don't have much more to add than have been said by Commissioner Cisco and Carter. I do thank the applicant for their thoughtful replies. I like the idea that they've already thought of the noise generated by the garage doors below the ADU when they've got a plan for that. I think that's over and above. I also like the fact that they're going to maintain ownership and control over the project. I think that'll go a lot towards making it a successful project. I share everybody's concern about Hearn Avenue. As it happens, I've been there twice this week early in the morning for dropping off and picking up cars. It's usually a nightmare. But other than that, I can make all the required findings and support the two asks on the conditional use permit for the small reduction in the private area and the reduced sitback. Thank you. Commissioner Holson. Okay, here we go. So, Mr. Johnson, great presentation. You did a great job and to echo the sentiment of Commissioner Cisco, I totally agree. I think this is a great idea. This is a very innovative approach to housing. And I would say I'm really in support of this project, but I drive down Hearn every day. And with the additional housing that's coming down the pipeline already that's already in place and already erected and already just basically getting the finish work done now, I'm waiting to see the impact of what it's going to do there. And while the Hearn interchange is definitely going to make a dramatic impact, that is not the only problem. If you go past Steve-Os, that little liquor store right there, it's a hot mess all the way down to Stony Point. And even at Stony Point, it's a hot mess. It's just, I don't think that in my opinion, it just doesn't feel like the neighborhood can sustain any more housing and we need housing right now, but the infrastructure won't support it. So with that being said, I probably will be the only commissioner today that is not going to be in support of this project, but that's kind of just where I stand. So I got to take this firm stance. I got to tell you thank you very much for a great, great presentation, a great innovative solution to housing. I just wish the infrastructure could support it. But as somebody that lives on that side of town, I deal with it every day. And it backs up all the way to Kiwana Springs Road. It doesn't just impact Herne and Santa Rosa Avenue. It impacts a myriad of roads that are all interconnected. I mean, even just trying to leave Trader Joe's and take a left to get on to Santa Rosa Ave is an absolute nightmare. I see an accident occur almost three to four times a day. I see people constantly running red lights. I see people constantly trying to make the cut in from the left turn lane into the right turn lane. It's just a hot mess. And there is no policing of that area at all. There is there's absolutely nothing. I mean, it's just, I just can't see it. So I'm sorry. I'll put my tirade here. I'll tell you thank you very much for all the hard work you did. And again, I'll probably I'll get out voted, but I'm just going to stand firm in where I'm at. So sorry. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. And we'll go to Commissioner Sanders. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's hard, hard to follow, but, um, I but I share Commissioner Holton's concerns about her and I drove down there today to take a look at the property and, you know, he's right. It's it's a hot mess at times, even trying to get on to the freeway. And at the same time, Commissioner Carter is correct. He's the one that's the one that's the one that's about that missing middle housing. And I think that this project addresses that. Yes, there are some infrastructure issues that are going to need to be taken care of and hopefully, you know, we'll do the best job and making sure that they get handled. They get taken care of, but I would rather have a place to live than not have a place to live because I don't want to be stuck in traffic. So I'm going to support the project and I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Weeks. I think we've heard all these different points, particularly every time one of these projects in this area comes up. Mr. Sprinkel said it, infrastructure follows development, unfortunately. And I think from my perspective, even if that were not true, even if the infrastructure preceded the development, we're not going to build our way out of this with roads. We see that with the 101 widening. It mitigates the worst of the problems, it doesn't solve it. So I think what we need overall is going to be smarter development, walkable neighborhoods, people can walk to the grocery store, walk to school, bike arounds, get a good bike and pedestrian master plan, separate bike lanes, all that sort of stuff can actually solve the problem that we're all concerned with. Because it is a mess. Everyone's described it well. It is impossible to get around there sometimes. And I agree with Commissioner Sanders. What we've got I think in front of us is the option between traffic and slumlords, substandard housing, homelessness, rent stress. I think the median apartment rent is $2,000 a month in Santa Rosa. It's hard to believe. So if that were the choice, I know which side my vote is. But separate from that, I feel that the project meets all the conditions. I can make all the required findings. These broader policy questions are not what we're trying to settle today in my view. So with that, this project has my support. Thank you. I also will be supporting the project and I can make all the required findings as has been stated. Infrastructure comes after the housing. It is an innovative project. And I like the idea of building a community with the rec center, the rec center, the gym, the pool, dog park. So I think that's very creative. So I will also be, as I said, supporting the project. So with that, we could have a vote on this first resolution. It was moved by commissioner Cisco and seconded by vice chair Peterson. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Cisco. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Nay. Commissioner Sanders. Aye. Vice chair Peterson. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with six eyes and window. And then we'll move on to the second resolution. If commissioner Cisco. Thank you. I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, approving a tentative map for the Meadowwood Ranch subdivision to subdivide two parcels totaling 11.21 acres into 89 lots located at 2853 and 2875.meadow. Assessors parcel numbers 043-111-005, 043-111-006, file number PRJ21-021-MAJ21-003 and wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Is there a second? Vice chair Peterson. Aye. Thank you. With that, if we could call the vote for this resolution. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Cisco. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Nay. Commissioner Sanders. Aye. Vice chair Peterson. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with six ayes and one no. 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 has closed. For information on how to submit an appeal form, please contact the project planner. So with that, I would like to adjourn the meeting in memory of a former planning commissioner who passed away, Mike Seneff. He, as well serving on the planning commission, Mike chaired the charter review committee, I believe twice. He was an incredible man who gave so much to the community and I just wanted to take this opportunity to remember him. So with that, we'll be adjourned to the next scheduled meeting of the planning commission in March and remember it's gonna be in person. So thank you all and try and stay warm.