 Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and call to order tonight's meeting of the city of Santa Rosa Planning Commission and ask for roll call, please Let the record reflect the all commissioners are present except for Commissioner Peterson Okay Tonight we have no minutes To approve So I'm gonna go ahead and move on to public comments Which is a time for any member of the public to speak to the Commission on matters of interest to the Commission That aren't listed tonight as a public hearing or listed tonight as our report item So you don't have to have filled out a card if anyone wants to speak under public comments if you'll move up to a microphone and State your name when I'm not seeing anybody wanting to do that. So I'll go ahead and Close by public comments, even though I didn't really hit the gavel to open it And move on to planning commissioners report any reports tonight from Planning commissioners Okay I'll just make a short one that Vice chair weeks and I walked in the Rose Parade on Saturday in the rain it was It was fun, but it was wet and yeah, so Mayor Schwenwell-Helm had his little dog buddy and Vice mayor Chris Rogers had his little three-legged dog, which was a big hit. So Anyway, just letting you know we we walked Okay, with that we'll move on to department reports very great Quick update on a couple appeals of Planning Commission actions that are headed to the City Council Rosalind Village had been scheduled for its appeal hearing on May 28th, which is next Tuesday. However, it has been continued to June 25th just to make sure all parties can be present and then also on June 25th As previously scheduled and announced the Dutton Meadows appeal Which is a different type of appeal because the Commission had denied that that action and that's on appeal for that reason a couple updates on general plan update engagement process we are Nearing midway on some preliminary outreach. We call community conversations where we are Engaging the community and talking about What is a general plan why it should matter to every citizen in Santa Rosa? Now we're reaching out to various areas of the cities We have several still coming up and citizens can go to any of these we have one on Saturday, June 1st At the round barn, we're also doing these at different days and times so that it can a Citizen can go to one of these and in terms of their busy schedules So the next one Saturday June 1st at 10 a.m. In the round barn Followed by one on Tuesday June 4th at 11 a.m. And then Saturday June 8th at 10 a.m. We had a series of four evening meetings and those were attended and we were able to Discuss general plan topics and engage with the members of the community that took the time to come out We also have a Spanish only language event coming up related to that outreach June 13th It's at 10 to 10 a.m. At the Roseland Neighborhood Center that one will be entirely in Spanish In addition Wednesday night market started up It was a beautiful day yesterday, but our presence there will start at the next Wednesday night market In fact, we'll be at the next five Wednesday night markets and with that we'll have a table and we'll be outreaching With both the general plan update process as well as the downtown process So that's your update on those items Great. Thanks Statements of the extension my commissioners anyone of standing tonight not seeing any okay So with that we're going to go ahead and move on to our report item Which is 8.1 the southeast Greenway Environmental Impact Report general plan amendments rezoning and zoning context amendment and Jessica Jones is The senior planner giving the presentation Alright, thank you, and if we could let me get the screen up. Thank you Good afternoon chair Cisco and members of the Commission. I will be Starting off our presentation tonight Going over some of the history of this project, and I'm going to hand it over to our consultant team Bruce Brubaker and Steve Noack from place works who will be going over The specifics of the proposed project that is before you as well as the environmental impact report Just to quickly go over the the generalities of the project and what's before you This is a request for a general plan amendment which includes both text amendments as well as proposed land use amendments to our land use diagram as well as zoning code text amendments and rezoning to address the proposed Changes an environmental impact report was prepared the implementation and adoption of the proposed amendments would potentially result in up to about 47 acres of new park and open space in the city Santa Rosa as well as up to 244 multi-family units and about 1200 twice excuse me 12,000 square feet of commercial space these are anticipated Developments within this area based on the proposed land use changes There are no actual physical changes being proposed at this time So this is the project location gives you a general idea of the area that we're talking about And this is the southeast Greenway area It is an area of land that was previously identified as a future extension of Highway 12 This area is currently owned by Caltrans and with the proposed land use changes that would allow Caltrans to put together Cost estimates of what this area is worth so that they could sell it So the area is generally from Farmers Lane East Towards spring lake regional park. It's about 57 acres of land in about 1.9 linear miles This is a aerial map showing the same area So as you can see it is it was because it was previously identified for a future extension of the highway There's currently no development in this area. It's currently open grassland So there is quite a bit of history on this project This the project was before the planning commission In September of 2017 Where we held a public hearing for both the draft EIR as well as for the proposed project amendments Because we held that public hearing at that time the zoning code or the the city code does not require A second public hearing for a project, which is why this item is before you as a report just for clarification But because there has been a pretty significant amount of time since that last meeting we did want to go over The project history for those of you who may be new to the commission as well as maybe members of the public that were not Involved at that time and then just to remind the rest of us kind of where we were with this project So we are going to go through that history and then go over again the the specifics of the project So in 2009 the southeast greenway campaign was formed It was a group that was established to really look at this this area the 57 acres That's owned by caltrans and talk about what the potentials would be for this area In october of 2011 the city council adopted a resolution um that included goals and objectives specifically for the southeast greenway It identified acknowledging the southeast greenway community planning projects In april of 2013 the council adopted a second resolution reaffirming councils goals and policies for the southeast greenway and specifically to Support efforts of the southeast greenway campaign by monitoring and providing information In june of 2014 the City of santa rosa joined with the southeast greenway community partnership By signing a letter of mutual intent So at that time the partnership included the city santa rosa the sonoma county water agency The sonoma county regional parks Southeast the southeast greenway campaign and the campaign is made up of community members that are interested in in moving forward with this project As well as land paths See in august of 2014 the california transportation commission adopted a resolution that rescinded the freeway adoption Due to lack of operational need And local support and funding and this would allow The property to potentially be sold and transferred for future development So it was it it was really at that time in 2014 that caltrans determined that they did not want to move forward with an extension of highway 12 Let's go back here Also in 2014 Sonoma land trust joined the southeast greenway partnership and they are Contributing their expertise and effort towards this project and helping with the Potential purchase of this property from caltrans In july of 2015 the council approved a memorandum of understanding or mo u between caltrans sonoma land trust and the partnership Identifying that caltrans will collaborate and work Together towards the development of agreement for the transfer of the property In october of 2015 The council initiated a general plan amendment and rezoning an eir, which is the project that is before you this evening In june of 2016 the council approved the professional services agreement with Placeworks which is as i mentioned earlier the consulting team that is working with us on this project And they are the firm that has helped us Develop the proposed changes land use changes that are before you as well as preparation of the environmental impact report In august of 2016 the first community workshop was held There was about 200 participants We will be going over the specific Excuse me specifics of that project or that community workshop in just a moment. So i won't go into detail here The second workshop was held in october of 2016 with about 150 participants So both of them were very well attended In november of 2017 staff brought forward a joint planning commission and city council meeting with direction or it was to provide information to the the commission and the council on the proposed land use and circulation alternatives that were created out of those community workshops At that time the commission and council then gave direction to staff to create a single preferred alternative Based on the comments received at that meeting In march of 2017, we again went back to a joint meeting of the commission and council And asked for feedback on the singular preferred alternative that was developed And the commission gave some specific commission and council gave some specific direction for that which again We will go over in a little bit In may of 2017 Now we had the preferred alternative in hand We began working on the environmental impact report and a scoping meeting was held with the community to go over What should be included in the scope of the environmental impact report? And in august of 2017 the draft eir was released for a 45 day public review period During that public review period. We did hold a public hearing as i mentioned with the commission on both the draft EIR as well as the project We received comments from the commission and as well as the public During that 45 day public review period and and out of those comments that were received We did receive some additional Comments regarding the traffic analysis and request for additional analysis related to the project if it were to be Completed prior to the extension of the proposed farmers lane extension Because of those comments, we went back and and reanalyzed the traffic And some additional information was was identified Because of the additional impacts that were identified. We did do a prepared a revised environmental impact report Um Before we could do that as everybody is aware in october of 2017 The city was hit with massive fires that impacted the timeline of this project The planning commission meeting happened just prior to Those fires so as we were getting ready to start working on the additional traffic analysis We were hit with with that devastation In addition to that As well as existing priorities that staff was working on particularly related to housing This project was put on hold In november of 2018 We found that we had staff time now available to start working on the project again So that's that's really when it kicked back into gear And we finalized that additional traffic analysis that was necessary The revised draft EIR was released in january of 2019 for a 45 day public review period And you will likely remember in february of this year We held a public hearing for that revised draft EIR to receive public comment From the community as well as from the commission So, um, I'm going to now hand it over to bruce brubaker who's going to go over the project itself And that will be followed by steve noack to talk about the EIR Hi, can you hear me? Thanks, Jessica. It's a pleasure to be here It's been a great project. It's really exciting for me personally to see it. Hopefully moving forward after so much Work sweat interest on the part of the community and the decision makers as well to move this forward And I just wanted to mention that zack madly from w trans is here on our team to help answer any questions about transportation But i'll talk about the process and then hand it to steve to talk about the findings from the EIR So the process was great. I thought we had three workshops and they were huge and very well attended The first workshop had about 200, uh, folks at the high school in montgomery high Um, we colored maps together in groups and uh, there was a report back So we had a lot of ideas and and I tried to get some vision Flowing for what the greenway could be There were also concerns stated at that meeting. We put that together And worked with staff to formulate three alternatives that we thought encapsulated the various Um, focuses of the community members We turned to another community workshop in october of 2016 2016, you know And that was uh, also a large workshop where we were able to show them three alternatives And this was one where community members were able to weigh in on which the alternatives they preferred or perhaps they like to join Two together And that is what happened. Uh, there was there was a land use alternative one That was combined with a different circulation alternative and we came up with a preferred alternative after that meeting In working with Yourselves the planning commission and council in a in a joint study session So we we gave the input from the community meetings and also a fairly large survey That we had run that had over 400 responses That also weighed in on the alternatives and We heard from the commission and the council And got direction about how to develop the preferred alternatives We did that We got direction and Created a set of guiding principles and a preferred alternative for the plan for the project And this show is the land use and circulation concept. So This is an illustration. This is not that actually General plan amendment, but it illustrates the goals for the the property That were stated by the community members as well as commission and council To for what should happen On the the greenway and clearly overridingly The idea of the greenway being a A multimodal connection From one side to the other From connecting what what links to other connection routes to downtown To farmers lane, but then having a separated safe Welcoming attractive circulation path that would go from farmers lane up to spring lake park and the Kind of something that the the neighborhood and the city could be proud of this is what really came out of the process And along the way, there's a different land use is illustrated here some housing of different densities Shown in different parts of the property Some uses near the montgomery high school that could be used for school uses like outdoor classrooms and so forth Other parts of the greenway that could have additional housing at yulupa And then different types of open space. So open space that might be passive open space that might be more recreational and some that would be more restoration Open space. So this was the overall Concept behind the plan The commission and council gave this guidance regarding the plan that it should be a continuous greenway With separate bike and pedestrian plans paths That it shouldn't be a single multi-use path, but that those could be should be separated from each other That it would connect to planned and existing bike routes and pedestrian routes into downtown That there should be housing provided in key locations along the greenway That there should be as much as possible surveillance from neighbors from Maybe new housing at the greenway and and passersby along the streets across the greenway just to ensure Safe environment in the on the greenway that there'd be a lot of eyes to watch what was happening there And there wouldn't be hidden spots to for bad things to happen Also, we we had a proposal to potentially change the on ramp to the freeway And the direction was given to to leave the freeway on on ramp as as it is today To look at maximizing shared parking opportunities. This could happen with the school It could also potentially happen with nearby businesses at border the site to restore the remnant orchards that are there that are They're they're amazing trees older oak walnut trees and other fruit trees And then to ensure that the plan is financially feasible. Those were the main directions from commission The general plan text amendment which is the way the this concept is being put into code is To amend we've we've provided a general plan land use to amendment which is in your packet But it amends the land use and livability element It amends the transportation element and the public services and facilities element of the general plan As as part of that it includes a description of the southeast greenway land use in the land use chapter And it adds new goals and policies that address and implement communities vision for the southeast greenway And they're specifically called out as southeast greenway goals and vision This shows the general plan land use diagram the General plan land use is primarily parks and recreation But there's other land uses including medium high density residential and medium density residential um I think those are the the key land general plan land uses And then the zoning will also be amended And the the zoning is shown here. It's primarily open space and recreation zoning with again other zones where there's envision to be housing Or commercial there's some the area near farmers lane is sizeable enough to accommodate both housing and a small amount of commercial retail So that's a that's more or less a mixed use site at the far west end of the greenway And i'll pass it over to steve to talk about uh sequel findings Thank you bruce So i'll just do a quick overview of the california environmental equality act It's the state's primary environmental protection law And uh sequel requires that public agencies disclose environmental impacts of projects That have the potential for a physical effect on the environment So and it's really important and eir is an informational document and eir does not Approve or disapprove a project the the essence is it we go through a long series of analysis on a number of topics and we The document itself discloses information about the effects that the project could have on the environment And it identifies mitigation measures It also describes feasible alternatives to the proposed project where mitigation measures may not be able to fully Take us an impact to a less insignificant level An eir must be certified project prior to a project approval and adoption In this case the eir evaluated the impacts of the general plan amendment and rezoning on a programmatic level And that's an important distinction because chances are most eir's that come before you are for specific projects This document really looked at the overall Uh changes of the amendment and of the zoning and then looking at the build out of the areas that are designated for Development so we looked at a kind of a build out horizon on the project and a program level eir It doesn't evaluate impacts of specific individual projects. It's the big picture In terms of um The circulation of the draft eir Uh, we received 51 letters and emails of comments on that document And uh, 26 letters and emails on the revised draft eir in 2019 We released the final eir in may of this month 2019 and the final document includes all responses to all comments And typically would make revisions to the document itself if new information has been Provided where we feel it's appropriate to change a document In this case, we did not need to make any changes to the draft eir in the final eir, which is before you now So the eir identified nine impacts that are significant and unavoidable meaning that Um mitigation was either infeasible or other reasons that uh mitigation could not Reduce those impacts to less than significant level the key here In addition to the transportation impacts most of which were found to be unfeasible for other reasons The eir quality impacts looked at long-term Uh development of the site uh because we did not model any construction Uh activity because uh, there's no projects before us now at this point It determined that the potential for significant and unavoidable impacts any construction emissions now each project will go through its own level of environmental review And uh mitigation measures for air quality will be applied So this is really looking at it at a big picture very conservative approach to making that determination Um and so in order to improve the project with these uh significant unavoidable impacts Uh a written statement must be included that include uh that really notes what the benefits of the project are And although there are environmental impacts those benefits outweigh the Identified impacts and this is done through the statement of overriding considerations Which is part of the adopting or the certifying of resolution for the project So that really concludes our um presentation. Um the recommendation before the planning commission tonight Is that the commission? Adopt we have five resolutions before you. Um recommending that the council Um certify the so the first is um that Recommending that the council certify the environmental impact report The second is for adoption of the findings of fact Pursuant to the california environmental quality act as well as the statement of overriding considerations that was just mentioned The third is for recommendation for adoption of the general plan text and land use amendments Uh the fourth is for um recommendation for adoption of the zoning code text amendments And then the fifth is for recommendation of adoption of the proposed zoning districts that would implement the general plan land use designations Um, so while there are four bullets here, there are five resolutions before you Um myself and the applicant team are here to answer any questions that you may have okay So commissioners often I have us wait to do our questions till after a public hearing since this is a report item tonight um, I want to I want us out in front of this so Any questions that you have about? Anything that's been presented so far Yeah, commissioner dig in Uh, yeah, I've got um just a couple of questions I noticed in the response to the comments and this is basically to cal trans Comments on 5 23 and I think it happened a couple times it said um a statement the city acknowledges cal fans his request to establish whatever and Let's see information will basically be forwarded to the decision making bodies as part of the final eir for consideration And I wondered if there was any additional things that you wanted to mention about any of the the comments that that we could um Have any sort of say in It happened a couple of times on a couple of different cal trans comments I think it was on a 030 5 and a 0306 Really with w trans. Let me uh, let me find my my way around here. You said a 05 a 0305 5 and a 0306 Okay, um a 0305 regarded cal trans asking for um trip reduction vmt mitigation type analyses And at this point the city center that has not uh adopted vmt threshold So we're not looking at vmt from a sequel perspective. We're still using los until that switch is made which is coming And so this is uh, I think just acknowledging that and indicating that yes, there are certain sorts of um Trip reduction measures that could be made those really are more applicable to individual projects that might come forth rather than Again, this is a programmatic plan. Uh, so the city is acknowledging A cal trans request and and saying yes, those would those would occur at a later time National projects as projects come forward exactly in the same way area. Okay, correct. All right. Thank you Any other questions down here? Yeah, commissioner carter My question has largely to do with the The process and it's maybe gaps in my knowledge, but I notice there are a lot of Actions from this project that border on school sites and there's improved Safe routes to schools, but I don't see much commentary from school districts And I don't see them as part of the The team of agencies can someone enlighten me as to where the school districts are on this and why there's So little comment from So the school districts were included in the You know invitation for the workshops. I can our our applicant our consulting team can probably speak a little bit more to this But we also notices for this project Were sent to properties within 500 feet of the project site and that includes the entirety of the project site So the school district and the specific schools would have been notified through that process and I'll I'll let them speak to any specifics Thanks all of our workshops were actually at the school We had a I don't remember the name of the committee. It was a technical advisory committee Probably is what it was called And the school district was invited to be on that committee to be part of the process and they They engaged somewhat with us and they were supportive of the project very supportive and I also recall that the Ex principal at that time Participated heavily in the workshops and kind of gave a view of the school's Thinking at that time Down here Down here no questions. Okay. Um, I just have a couple Our role tonight is to Find whether or not the EIR is adequate To recommend approval of this statement of overriding considerations, etc. And it's at the land use So I'm wondering if you could tell us in the public a little bit more about what what'll be the next steps If this goes forward assuming it will Council adopts this What are the next steps in terms of? The acquisition of the property Ultimate development of the property just so we have a picture of what's ahead Sure. So, uh, yes, so if the commission Acts tonight Adopting the resolutions that are before you The next step would be to take the project to the city council for final approval If the council does approve the project We're anticipating that to be sometime in mid-summer of this year Then the next step would be for Caltrans to land paths had or excuse me, uh, Sonoma land trust has been working with Caltrans on Putting together appraisal of the property as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation Because this area was identified for an extension of highway 12 There are currently no land use designations, which means that We don't know what could be built there without knowing what can be built there. You can't Appraise a property and determine what its worth is. So with the land use designations identified then Caltrans can Properly appraise the property And identify a sales price So, um, Sonoma land trust is working with the southeast greenway campaign to Obtain grant funding as well as donations from people in the community for the purchase ultimate purchase of the property My understanding is that they would be looking at purchasing the area that is identified for recreation and parks And then the area between Farmers Lane, I'm going to pull up the map here while I'm talking So actually I'm going to go back. So the to this is our general plan land use proposal. So the area between farmers lane and Summerfield that is identified in the green, which is the recreation and parks That area then would be Handed over to the city How that works? I'm not a hundred percent sure right now. But anyway, that that would ultimately come under the jurisdiction of the city for future Park planning for that area The area from summerfield east to spring lake Would go to the Sonoma county water agency and they would be working with regional parks to To manage that area The areas that are identified for potential development of housing and retail would be maintained by caltrans and and sold to A developer to develop those sites for the area that the city would be Obtaining for future parks So that would be that would go in under the the list of numerous Long list right now of of future parks in the city and would be prioritized through that The first thing that would have to happen before it can be developed into a park is Park master planning has to take place. So there would be a significant significant amount of outreach with the community they would use the illustrative map that was shown up here before this map here is kind of a baseline um and move from there to to get more specifics into the park master planning and then of course Environmental environmental review would be done On that specific park planning once the master plan is in place Then the park can be developed. So it's a it's a long-term process. But that that's generally the process Okay, and then uh Next we did receive a letter from noah housh and that made several recommendations And could you go through those and kind of give us what your response is to that communication? Yes, so there were a number of recommendations generally the the letter Request that we be As flexible as we can in our language and in particular in the the proposed policies that are before you For the general plan You know, I I think that the Requested changes Would be fine if the commission chooses to move forward with them I don't know that they're necessary for flexibility. I think that the proposed policies that are before you do provide that flexibility I can go into specifics if if you want, but there was one Point related to the under crossing of highway 12 that i'm actually going to ask Zach matley from w trans to come up and respond to On that one mr. Housh a question The viability of the option that includes the underpass of the highway 12 westbound on ramp the plan Looks at a couple different ways. How do we get the pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to that triangular mixed-use area between there and the green way And both of them involve caltrans and so there's some uncertainties So one of them includes modifying that ramp to make sure that you can At a surface level safely cross pedestrians and bicyclists across that ramp which requires some real modifications from what's out there right now The other is an option to actually punch underneath and put a A pedestrian underpass under the embankment of that ramp and that second one Mr. Housh was was questioning. Is that really a realistic and I think that we I think everyone agrees that it's not the it's not the desired option That being able to have an at-grade crossing is the preferred option I think through the planning process of the plan We just wanted to make sure that you've got a couple different bites at the apple to make sure that one way or another We're able to going to maintain that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to that area And I certainly would expect that the preferred option would not be that underpass But we wanted to have it in there just as a plan be I would say Okay, and then um There was one comment Consider expanding the funding policy language to require development impact fees Generated from the greenway to be expended on the greenway. How how would that work with our current policies? So, um, I mean that that's certainly something that could be considered I think again, I think the policy as written is is broad enough that it wouldn't preclude that So, you know, I think that that could be addressed through future development when it comes comes forward But again, you know, if the commission feels strongly about it, we could certainly add language to the policy Okay Yeah vice chair weeks Follow-up jessica, um Do you think this will go to council this summer in the fall? So if the commission Acts tonight and adopts the resolutions that you have before you At this point, we are tentatively scheduling the item for the july 9th city council meeting any other questions before I go to Public comments, okay Great. Thanks for that very very thorough and complete. So Okay So this is a public meeting not a public hearing But it's going to be handled the same way and I think most of you have been here enough times to know what the drill is I'm going to call your name and move to one of the microphones at the top If you'd state your name for the record when you begin that's always helpful to us You have three minutes and I'm a very strict time keeper So when you begin to speak watch the little light bar in front of you It'll start from green and as you get closer to the end of your three minutes It'll move to red and then when the buzzer goes off I'm going to ask that you just stop so we can be fair to everybody here So with that I'm going to start with Ann Sealy followed by Peter Bassing Good afternoon commission. Ann Sealy speaking for concerned citizens for Santa Rosa One element that's not included in this EIR is commercial community happiness If it were this project would have a very high rating that you'd see This project has been exquisitely planned and exposed to all relevant agencies Public commented to you and to the city council With all of its multiple benefits, please give this project your final approval The EIR. Thank you Thank you, Ann Next is Peter Bassing followed by Mike Raymond Yes, thank you. My name is Peter Bassing I'm going to speak specifically on traffic impact On that portion of Vallejo street east of farmers lane. It's just a short stub fairly narrow street in the comments on the draft EIR A point was made by me that the Draft didn't show any increased traffic going into or out of that portion of Vallejo street Not withstanding that it was the right of way that was going to serve 67 units of multifamily housing and one of the four I think they're calling them trail plazas to use the for the recreation recreational use of the EIR In the final EIR in the comments to To my comments The preparer said that there had been a coding error And that that's why that additional traffic didn't show up But the comments said it really didn't have any impact. They understandably Took a no harm no foul position on the error that they had made But when they actually give the numbers that result from the correction of the error There was a lot of harm both on the impact on Vallejo street and since Vallejo street intersects with farmers lane The impact in traffic on farmers lane specifically with regard to farmers lane even at this point aside from the impact on on Vallejo street the Increased from what they previously showed on traffic northbound on farmers lane across highway 12 increased 31 percent due to this coding error the Traffic south on farmers lane across highway 12 increased 18 percent And the traffic on to westbound 12 from farmers lane increases 360 percent This is hardly the the inconsequential Numbers that would be implied by the language they gave in the reply to To my comments on the EIR that intersection is already considered to have an Unacceptably low level now they say well the level of service doesn't change levels of service represent a range of of Traffic and it was already unacceptable and it remains unacceptable, but not all unacceptable is equal This is going to be a very high burden Largely due to the the planned housing just east of farmers lane a very high burden Both on Vallejo street, which cannot take it and on the Particularly the nearest major intersection on farmers lane, which is the intersection with with highway 12 I would suggest that the The commission take a hard look at that. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Bassing Next is mike raymond Followed by steve caden Yes, mike raymond Live in santa rosa Just tried to do a quick recap why we're here The fact that back several years ago a water retention pound was allowed to be built in the path of the highway 12 extension Along with several large communities being projected and built on the East side of the highway 12 Freeway oak moths Uh He had skyhawk farm and plus many others and there's still more in planning that are going to bring more traffic to the area Right now the westbound Overpass was built to alleviate traffic What's kind of troubling me or is the based on the er section four and 146 As far as the intermittent environmental impacts the proposed project could generate a substantial net increase in the missions That exceed the bay area quality management different district for significant threshold The other item as far as transportation goes There are several areas where the level of service on intersections are going from d to e to Uh, basically unacceptable levels Kind of in conclusion This will create traffic backup issues environmental issues quality issues emergency response issues There's 23 000 cars that go through that intersection If an overpass was built eastbound it would take all 10 000 cars going through the intersection And the level of service would drop from a level e to a more acceptable Proceeding with this it's going to be kind of like when Bart wanted to bring Trains up to the north bay in the 50s and marines shot it down and said no, we don't need this I believe this adequate is This er rather is inadequate should be revised because the impact As far as air quality and traffic is just going to get worse. Thank you Thank you. Mr. Raymond steve katin and followed by linda pru Excuse me. That's steve k-dark k-dark. Thank you. Um, my concerns are similar to the previous speaker Um, it was my I recently moved this A few years ago to santa rosa and it was my understanding that the That green what is designated as the greenway space was going to be a Basically an extension of highway 12 at some point. Well, right now we're facing This um Pretty severe congestion on farmers lean and the stub of highway 12 As it comes into this into the city limits And that's mostly traffic that comes down highway 12 from kenwood in that area in hulkmont now I don't know that's all on our city streets and and making that area hard to live in If this greenway instead were a parkway So we can take some of that traffic Away from that area the area I would really appreciate it I it seemed it seemed short-sighted 40 years ago when they were originally planning that It it seemed like a reasonable plan that it got shelled for a long And now and we bought the land Now we're gonna Not use it except for a greenway Seems like a waste Great. Thank you, mr. Kedar Next is linda pru Thanks for the parentheses on how to pronounce that followed by john mccall Thank you. Good afternoon This is linda pru and i'm speaking today on behalf of the southeast greenway campaign The general plan amendment eir and rezoning plan before you Are the culmination of a very open inclusive community oriented process The strength of this plan Is that it creates a solid framework for realizing a host of benefits for our city This greenway will convert unused land into urban open spaces inviting people to enjoy recreation community gardening educational opportunities And just getting together with friends We're going to be able to restore the land and its three main creeks This will offer climate benefits such as carbon sequestration Grand water capture and a healthier habitat for the birds insects and animals that live there The plan provides for up to 244 multifamily housing units to address housing needs And ensure that the greenway Is both active and that means safe The greenway is designed actually as an active transportation corridor Connecting our neighborhood with a network of paths so that we can walk and bike to local destinations Join me in just imagining How many vehicle miles traveled could be reduced if even 10 percent of the local population Walked or biked to the 18 schools Five shopping areas and 12 places of worship Located within one mile of the greenway The greenway will offer a new destination for recreation and ecotourism Revitalizing our neighborhood growing small businesses and contributing to our local economy This plan has benefited from community input The expertise of our consultants place works And each and every one of the greenway partners Of course the city of santa rosa leading this process Our partnership will continue to further this project through fundraising Grant writing community outreach stewardship and volunteerism Working together i'm confident that we can create and maintain this jewel for the city of santa rosa Thank you, and we hope that you will support and approve this tonight Great. Thank you And we don't Applaud You can raise your hand if you agree or appreciate what anyone says. Thank you Next is john mccall followed by bob harter Good afternoon commissioners. My name is john mccall. I work for sonoma land trust And mostly I wanted to be here today to answer any questions you might have about our role The land trust joined this coalition five years ago The greenway campaign has been Just an absolute stellar example of how a community can organize Around something as important as this project and we bring a role ourselves Both helping with fiscal sponsorship with the campaign Fundraising for acquisition costs for the open space and open recreational areas And very soon after you finish your good work in the city council votes on this We're going to move into negotiations with caltrans. We have to do once the zoning is established There are a lot of parcels out there. So we need to get a Consolidated parcel map that will help us with the appraisal process. There's a very specific process that caltrans has for appraising property But with your approval today in the cities We can get down to work to do what we can to get this land purchased and protected So happy to answer any questions Great. Well, thank you. Thank you Next is bob harter followed by catherine anderson Hi, my name is bob harter I presented comments to you two years ago about the plan I'm a supporter of the plan. It's been super studied Last time I can remember the city did such a thorough studies on prince greenway, which has a similar Benefit maybe even more so to the city The red flag, I guess I'd say that I raised then was a traffic issue about Not having been adequately studied for lack of a better term And I suggested at that time that one The study be redone to show what if you didn't have farmers lane, would it be better or worse farmers lane extension? We probably understood it would probably be worse and that turned out to be true And the other is that the study should at least provide a link In transportation lingo in the in the traffic model To see what if the bridge Which would be a city project not a caltrans project caltrans is it done they go down the off ramp That's a highway 12 off ramp. They go down farmers. That's highway 12. It's a caltrans street To build the bridge over would be a city project So my question was what if you did that link? What would happen? And as it was reported staff directed them The consultant to go ahead and do the analysis for what if we didn't have farmers lane extension But did not allow the study to be done on what if we did the missing link? so We now have the new Answer to that question. I think a lot of people don't realize the final document has significant new information which is The response by the consultant to all the comments that were made And in response to my comment about what if you did that missing link put the bridge and tied it in the hoan Or maybe tied it in somewhere else. I know the traffic department has thought about What would happen and the answer is the traffic would get better It would mitigate the problem at farmers lane and highway 12 And my thought is yeah, I think That's what I thought because I have some background in traffic engineering And so I was disappointed to see it was not studied When I asked they said wait till the report comes out and report confirms it would be helpful and It would help mitigate something that otherwise was not mitigated in the document There's a suggestion that's infeasible because people I think are thinking well caltrans won't do that true It's not caltrans's job to worry about that anymore. It's a city Need I think to maintain control of that triangular parcel to come up with a solution for the traffic Whether it's the concept I have or some other concept The traffic department comes up with I think the solution to that problem Lies in what you do at that rectangle that triangle Great. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Harder next is Catherine Anderson followed by david petrits Hello I have some visual slides to attach If that can be connected Great. Um, thank you very much. I'm Catherine Anderson I'm here both as a private citizen and representing the southeast greenway campaign And right now i'm going over on reviewing again a project that david petrits and I did considering the effects on the population around the greenway and the value of parkland to them In doing that we we looked at Primarily the center of the greenway, which is one mile from spring lake park and the other major parks in the area typically the zoning code for the city would expect to have Significant parks available within a quarter half mile of all population centers As you can see the east end of the part of the greenway is right next to spring lake park The west end next to highway 12 and the transition from a commercial district to Residential further inland When you look at the area on the east Thinking about the population right next to greenway um The incomes range from an average of 50 000 out too close to spring lake park About double that When you look at Here we go When you look at the population density right in the same central area of the greenway You get up to close to 10 000 people per square mile Out next to the the spring lake park it gets down below 2000 approaching a thousand population When you look at the percent of owner occupied units also again right in the central part of the greenway About 20 percent of the people own their own homes that means it's 80 percent rental And you approach the high 90 percentiles out next to Green spring lake park Age is not quite so different A slightly higher age group next to spring lake park Looking like from the number of people in residents families Similarly a younger age group with either young families or multiple people in a household in the central greenway So in looking at the overall It seemed to us that it's really highly important in the center of the greenway to that population To have really wonderful parkland close to them They don't have that whereas They have lower incomes much higher density very low Ownership and younger families whereas out on the east end The people they're already close to a major regional park So we would like to suggest that really concentrating higher density housing with easy access to the freeways and to major infrastructure and to Grocery stores shopping within walking distance on this east most part And for that reason we began to look at what would it be if there were higher density housing there Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Anderson Next is david petrits followed by melanie parker Yeah, um, thank you My name is david petrits. I'm representing sinoma county conservation action Or seca for short and we're the largest environmental advocacy group in sinoma county And we strongly support support the southeast greenway project and urge the planning commission To approve the five resolutions in agenda item 8.1 related to the greenway and in doing this in order to Really assure the entitlement process of the southeast greenway keeps moving forward in a timely manner, which I think is very important and as has been Talked about here is just the myriad of number of benefits that the greenway has environmentally in terms of economic development in terms of housing in terms of water retention, etc So again really urge you to Approve this project Great. Thank you And next is melanie parker Hi, my name is melanie parker. I'm the deputy director at sinoma county regional parks We at regional parks have been a member of this partnership from the get-go We are wildly supportive of the vision of connecting the city of santa rosa to spring lake regional park We even envision a day in the future when we might connect to taylor mountain regional park We love the idea of getting people from their doors on their feet on their bikes to their parkways um, so Count us in Secondarily, I'll just say I'll speak as a resident I am a resident in the neighborhood and I have two kids one of whom bikes every day to matanzas elementary And the other one is about to promote And we'll be commuting to montgomery high school and just seeing life through their eyes and their Colleagues and schools. I really can see and feel the value to our neighborhoods of Being able to bike and walk on the greenway and as one of the previous speakers mentioned We all know how important parks are for fighting childhood Obesity and stress and mental health and physical health and I I can really see how this will be a benefit to To the schools and to the school population. So both on a professional level Sinoma county regional parks and also on a personal level as a mom Wildly supportive. Thank you Thank you Good job appreciate that Um, I don't have any other cards. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this report item? Yeah, go ahead and if you want to go to the microphone up there And start by stating your name for the record. That would be great. Okay I'm uh jim reedy, um, and I Moved here to santa rosa two months ago after living on the east coast for 75 years I'm very excited about santa rosa and especially this project. I found about out about this project two months ago From linda prove my neighbor And I just I just immediately loved it and last night. I was reading a book called the blue zone of happiness And the number one happiest city in america Is boulder colorado and one of the first things they did in boulder. One of the neat things they did was to establish a green zone a green zone around boulder and I was extremely excited about that and hope that santa rosa can also establish a green way and become a very happy city Thank you so much. Great. Thank you And Yeah, if you'd state your name. Good afternoon. I'm kent gilfee. I'm representing sonoma water I just wanted to make a brief statement Of support for this afternoon's requested actions Kind of from a water perspective Sonoma water sonoma county water agency is a participant in the community partnership the southeast greenway community partnership We are supportive of a future for this parcel that would Allow the parcel to substantially remain in the public trust Sonoma water does have interests existing on the parcel with Three creeks that go through they go through the parcel that have a Nexus to our flood control operations Particularly as it relates to our central sonoma watershed Which has been providing key flood control protection for the city for nearly 60 years now As well as our spring creek bypass that goes through the parcel already a large storm drain Also from a future infrastructure standpoint, uh, sonoma water is pursuing a future water supply Reliability pipeline that would connect our koana tanks over to our ralphine tanks We've looked at several corridors the corridor through this This parcel in question is Among preferable alignments to minimize impacts on that future that future project And thirdly just looking at potential storm water management related opportunities That would be associated with potential future Open space or park type uses of the parcel is very appealing as well. So just a Just wanting to voice our support for Approving today's requested actions. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Mr. Guilfee anyone else Wishing to make a comment Okay, i'm not seeing anyone else Come to the microphone. So i'm going to bring it back to staff and our consultants to address The comments that really applied to both the eir and the project Looking at the baleo street issue The back mid thresholds for mr. Raymond And just basically the project engine in general the fact that it's the project's the greenway not the the freeway Across highway 12 from both that and mr. Harder so he could speak to those Yes, certainly. So um, i'm going to have our Yeah, our consultant and our traffic consultant Speak to the majority of those but with regard to The fact that this is no longer identified for a future extension of highway 12 So as i mentioned in the History that we went over at the beginning of the presentation That determination was made by caltrans uh quite some time ago In august of 2014 is when The californian transportation commission adopted a resolution rescinding The freeway extension in that area so at that time they did determine that extension of highway 12 Was not needed in this area and was not supported in this area And so caltrans um at this point Is not intending on on extending that highway through that area So and i'm going to i'm going to ask our traffic consultant to come up and and speak to some of the comments that were made Okay, let me start with uh full leo street concerns So as the the commenter found and actually quite astutely he discovered in the In the draft dir that there had been this coding error where the traffic volumes weren't shown to increase Coming out of leo street onto farmers lane. We looked into that. He was right. They didn't show that They i'm not going to get into the the weeds on modeling But that traffic was assigned to the farmers lane corridor It just wasn't coming through that intersection correctly in the calculations. So in the responses, uh, i should say in the revised Intersection we did recalculate The levels of service at that farmers lane veleo street intersection as well as the westbound on ramp Um, those are the only two locations where there was a change the rest of it It was already accounted for it was already there. It just wasn't reflected at those two spots And uh, both of those intersections both now and in the future are los a and b and the delay The average delay per vehicle changed by 0.1 to 0.6 seconds at those two So it it resulted in no changes to the findings mitigations anything with regard to the To the analysis. I the speaker referred to some, you know Fairly large percentage increases in traffic. I'm not sure what what those are but those aren't associated with with this the The volumes that we're talking about added to that section of veleo street Are about between 65 and 85 vehicles during peak hours The and that would bring the volumes on veleo street With the project assuming that it's built out and and some multifamily housing does come in To about 100 and 100 to 100 to 135 vehicles per hour, which is very much in the range of what you'd expect on the on a local street It's not um anything that would wear additional lanes or an arterial or anything like that It's it's a local access street It would remain that there would be increases in volume on veleo street, but they would still be in that local street range Um and then just I guess touching on the The concept of studying the overpass The eastbound overpass to match the westbound one over farmers lane So That was not analyzed Fully and that that was a discussion that certainly staff had we did look at what would happen without farmers lane But did not look at that additional freeway ramp. We already had it identified um ultimately once farmers lane is completed the Lo s issue with that intersection goes away And so ultimately the city already has a long range of vision a long range plan That's included in the general plan that will take care of the issue and that is the farmers lane extension If farmers lane doesn't happen or if this area builds out before farmers lane is complete There it remains an impact at that off-ramp intersection It's bad now We can all see it out there and it would continue to To be in this project with the development that it would allow would worsen that a bit enough to that would be a cumulatively significant impact and that we're having to look at over, you know a significant overriding um a significant unavoidable impact in the sequa document so There is another in the dir another option that looked at what else could we do and you could widen that Off-ramp and widen hoe in frontage road to add some more lanes on those on an interim basis or in place of farmer's lane extension that was found to be Infeasible both because of uncertainty that caltrans would allow it and That it would have some pretty big implications on on the plan itself on that end However, it would be a lot more cost effective theoretically than a new overpass The new overpass itself would still be ultimately it's a freeway ramp. So it's a caltrans facility It it still would require caltrans approval vetting And has enough of a degree of uncertainty that it still would end up in the sequa document being in A significant and unavoidable impact. So even if we had analyzed that included in there It wouldn't have gotten rid of the significant and unavoidable impact because of the uncertainty With that and then further the You know the act that actual link itself is Fundamentally alters the west end of the southeast greenway project and through the public outreach process and through the development of the plan There were discussions about changing the ramps changing the circulation network doing things on that end to You know that there are more traffic focused and that's that's not what we see on On the preferred plan that's in front of us It doesn't include things that that really bolster that traffic capacity at that end in the way of new changes freeway ramps or anything So if that if it had been something that came out of the public process Where the public in the community and the preferred plan ultimately included that bridge link then we would have studied It would have been in there and that's fine, but it it wasn't and so Um from again from a secret perspective, it wouldn't have it wouldn't have changed We wouldn't have gotten rid of our significant and unavoidable impact. So I guess that's From the secret perspective, that's that's the answer on that. I hope that wasn't too much, but I can speak more on it if you would like Well, basically the lack of analysis does not make the EIR inadequate Is what you're saying That's correct. I certainly would defer to molly to make an opinion of informed opinion on that That that's true the the the level of analysis that that we did in the environmental impact report is It's not made inadequate by the virtue of the fact that we didn't do additional analysis on that over crossing for the various reasons that Zach stated but also because It's it wouldn't be feasible for the city to make that determinant to do that project without caltrans approval furthermore it would be Inconsistent with the long-term plan that we have for the farmer's lane extension. So there are a lot of reasons why The staff and the consultants didn't think it was appropriate to give further study to that piece of the comment Okay Questions any other questions? Yeah, yeah, vice-chair weeks Do you have a question for the representative from Sonoma Land Trust? Um Once again, it's a timing question any idea when Even ballpark when the appraisal would be done and the property would change hands The mo you that were a party to as well as the city Which was set up in july of 2015 goes through july august of next year 2020 So, um, you know, we're gonna get started in anticipation of the city council action in july Looking at the open space portions and what we need to do the parcels etc To prepare it for appraisal We have funding in place. Obviously the appraisal will dictate what it costs So this is always a dangerous question How long does it take to conclude a transaction? But I think A land acquisition transaction like this, but assuming we don't encounter any major You know hurdles on title or issues with caltrans. I hope we meet our timeline and that this Uh, if we have to do more fundraising, we'll do that. But that's I would say that's our goal Is that we get this done by the time the mo you Deadline is next summer Yeah, just for my notification, um And to verify my understanding is that Seco traffic all this stuff once somebody applies in the residential or mixed-use area or commercial area to do something To develop it and go through the traditional c up process. It'll all be studied again, correct That is correct as mentioned. Um, this is a Program level eir So any project that comes in whether it is a development project on one of the housing or mixed-use sites or the master planning for the park Would require its own environmental review to look at project specific impacts I think it's fair to say that that this would be a foundation for any any future study But it wouldn't alleviate the need for it to meet any of independent sequel review Okay any other questions Okay, um again because this is an eir tonight, you know typically all have us just Move the resolution and discuss the project generally. I'm going to ask tonight that we Uh move the resolution for the eir that we each speak to that we find it adequate or not and if not why And then we'll vote on that and then we'll move to the findings of fact and do a similar exercise Then when we get to the general plan amendments, we can have more of a general discussion about the project So just we keep the record clear about the about the sequel stuff if you're cool with that, okay So with that would someone like to read the first resolution I'll I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa Recommending to the city council certification of the final environmental impact report for the southeast greenway general plan amendment and rezoning project file numbers st 14-003 GP am 19-002 and re z 19-007 and wave for the reading Second Okay, so commissioner dug in Move the resolution vice chair weeks second in the resolution vice chair weeks you're I really don't have any comments. I think I can make all the findings. Um, we've done a great process and We've seen it a number of times and I've already made my comments. So, okay. Thank you Commissioner crepeki um I know we're supposed to stick to this resolution, but I think that the second resolution kind of ties into it So you can do both. Yeah. So because of the second one, I can make all the findings for the resolution So I'll be voting in support of the eir. Great. Thanks for that commissioner dug in um, yeah, I can support make all the findings Um for the eir. Um, I appreciate that they um read the traffic study with um additional information about the farmers lane extension And I think it's very thorough and very comprehensive. So I can make all the findings And commissioner call you I also can make all the required findings to Uh, except the the eir And I appreciate all of the the amount of work that's gone into this because it's clearly been a long process And commissioner carter Yes, I would agree with my colleagues that the uh, eir does appear to be adequate and that I could make the necessary findings to Recommend its approval to the city council And I also find the eir to be adequate and can make the necessary findings um for our statement of fact and statement of overriding considerations So with that first resolution for the eir was moved by commissioner dug in seconded by commissioner weeks your votes, please And that passes with six eyes commissioner pierson being absent And if someone would like to read the resolution regarding our findings of fact I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of tana rosa Recommending to the city council adoption of findings of fact mitigation monitoring and reporting program and statement of overriding considerations for the southeast greenway general plan amendment and rezoning project file numbers st 14-003 GP am 19-002 and re z 19-007 and wave for the reading Second Okay, so that was that was good We're getting faster on the second Okay, so that was moved by commissioner dug in seconded by commissioner ocrepci any other comments on that Seeing any your votes, please That passes with six eyes commissioner pierson being absent And next we'll look at the general plan amendments and Who would like to move that? Okay, I'll move move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of tana rosa Recommending approval to the city council of a general plan amendment for the southeast greenway general plan amendment and rezoning project file numbers st 14-003 GP am 19-002 and re z 19-007 and wave for the reading second Wow Okay, so that was moved by commissioner dug in seconded by commissioner call. Yeah and Commissioner ocrepci, would you like to start now? We can just discuss the project generally and we'll wrap up the rest of them Sure. Um, first. Thank you for everybody staff consultants public on Your diligent and hard work on this project Um, I'm not a gambling man But if I were I would wager to bet that I'm more familiar with this piece of property having been Having grown up nexus strawberry school and walked through it every day on the way to slater and Montgomery When it was just a vacant lot and a vacant lot it's huge, but And there was nothing there and it hadn't been anything there for as long as I can remember so I'm very excited about this Hopefully it will prioritize the farmer's lane extension because of it But um, I'm I'm glad to see the open space. I'm glad to see the the mixed use in the residential And I can make all the required findings to support this project Okay Vice chair weeks anything I also appreciate The history that you gave us tonight. I think that was very important. Um, because it's been a long time I also can make all the findings and Applaud the greenway folks for all their hard work Sure. I don't have much more to add I'm can make all the findings and I'm totally in support of the project and I think it's going to be a great Great project that's going to add a lot to santa rosa commissioner call you I also Agree with all my fellow commissioners. I can make all the required findings to support this project and I Appreciate everyone's perseverance. I know it's been a really long time and I'm excited to see this happen Commissioner carter um, I'm in agreement generally with my colleagues that it's a project that seems to have um extensive community support and has been through A process that garnered a lot of community input and appears to be done correctly um I'm late to the project But I appreciate the summary by the consultants and the staff and I think it's a good introduction for those of us We're new to the commission to both the general plan and a complex equal process So I appreciate all the hard work that everybody's done with it and I intend to support the project great, and um I also support the project I mean, this is an amazing commitment by the community and the citizens of santa rosa all of you that you have spent so much time and put in so much work and it You know, it's coming to fruition, but it's it's it's quite amazing what you started with and how far you've come With a really really complicated process. You're dealing with caltrans and you'll continue to deal with caltrans So it's it's really remarkable to see What you've been able to do and how far you've come I really appreciate how the um, both the general plan amendments and the the zoning code Uh Amendments were were handled. They're they're very succinct. It doesn't make it complicated to find out what what you need to do If you're doing something on the greenway, so I appreciate how those were were done Um, definitely appreciate all the work by the consultants. You had a big job ahead of you So thanks for that and I can also make all the findings and um Really happy to see this finally move forward. It was Just so unfortunate what well for lots of reasons with the fires, but That you're back on track again and again you have such a commitment to it's such a complex process So I really thank you for that So with that the general plan amendment, uh Resolution was moved by commissioner dugins seconded by commissioner calia and your votes, please Passes with six eyes commissioner pierson being absent And then we have a rezoning resolution I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of san aroza Recommended to city council adding zoning districts to the area within the southeast greenway Boundaries a 1.9 linear mile area between farmers lane highway 12 and spring lake regional park in southeast san aroza file numbers st 14-003 Gpam 19-002 and rez 19-007 and wait for the reading When do I have a second second? Okay um That was moved by commissioner dugins seconded by commissioner calia any other comments or discussion Your votes, please That passes with six eyes commissioner pierson being absent And Last but not least the zoning code text amendments I'll move a resolution of the planning commission Of the city of san aroza recommended to city council approval of zoning code text amendments Related to the southeast greenway general plan amendment and rezoning project file numbers st 14-003 Gpam 19-002 and rez 19-007 and wait for the reading The second And that was moved by commissioner dugins seconded by commissioner ocrepti any other comments Your votes, please And that passes with six eyes commissioner pierson being absent And I believe that concludes our item and our You're good to go. So thank you for that Now you're gonna and I think we'll take about a five minute break to before we go on to the next item Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and call our Meeting back to order If you'd exit quietly, please that would be great and helpful to us We're gonna move on to item 10.1, which is our capital improvement program for general plan consistency Amy Nicholson will be giving the staff presentation. I'm sorry. What always get consent. Oh, I'm sorry Okay Okay, I need to Make note of the fact that we have no consent items before we move on to our public hearing tonight Which is item 10.1 the capital improvement program general plan consistency and Amy Nicholson will give the staff presentation Thank you chair sysco and members of the commission the item before you is a review of the 2019 2020 capital improvement program for consistency with the general plan The capital improvement program is the city's five-year plan which establishes funding for public improvements And california law requires that planning agencies review Public works projects for conformity with the general plan And so the action before you this evening is to make that finding that each of these 14 projects are consistent with our adopted general plan New projects in the draft 2019 2020 capital improvement program include upgrades to water and sewer infrastructure The rebuild of fire station five which was destroyed in the tubs fire improvements to street and bike lane infrastructure and the rehabilitation and improvement of existing park facilities The following six slides are just a sample of Some of the projects which implement a number of the general plan goals and policies And the one on the slide here is Some upgrades for three reservoirs in the city on the east side They're all located in hillside areas and another word for reservoirs Is water pump and so these just ensure that there's enough water pressure For residents to have adequate access to water This is consistent with the general plan policy to maintain existing levels of water service this slide shows the Installation of both sewer and water mains along a section of corby avenue And this implements the general plan policy to maintain existing levels of wastewater service This slide shows bike lanes to be installed On the section of santa rosa avenue between highway 12 and sonoma avenue And this helps implement the general plan policy to fill in and provide contiguous bike ways to maximize bicycle use for not only commuting and local transportation, but also for recreation The general plan underscores the value of orderly and balanced roadways throughout the city to provide safe and efficient access to communities and this project shows the kind of resurfacing of a pretty large Roadway section of including both the fountain grove parkway Moving north and also hopper avenue and piner road moving south and east This is required As a result of the damage done during the tubs fires The general plan addresses the need to both maintain and improve public recreation areas And this capital improvement Program for 2019 2020 shows the upgrading of two parks Peter springs park which is located in bennett valley and also bicentennial park and the last example is It shows the previous site of fire station five. This is in the fountain grove area I'd like to point out that the city is currently in negotiation for a different piece of property in the fountain grove area to rebuild fire station five however this site and Is still on our draft 2019 2020 list so if it changes in the future it will be updated at that time But this project itself would ensure that adequate fire services are available for members of the community The finding of consistency is exempt from the california environmental quality act The finding of consistency Doesn't have a direct or indirect physical change on the environment And further any of these projects will have a specific environmental review By either the environmental coordinator, which is a city staff member or any applicable review authority So with that the planning and economic development department recommend that the planning commission Find the new projects included in the draft 2019 2020 capital improvement program to be consistent with the general plan And I'm happy to answer any questions And vice chair weeks Thank you, amy, and thank you for the update on the fire station. Um, I'll have a question on coffee park Is that I looked back last year and didn't see that that was in the cip project Can you talk about why it's not or Sure, sure. So coffee park is um Being funded through fema and a few other sources and so it doesn't need to be included on the cip any other Questions, yeah commissioner carter Yeah, I noted that on a number of um sewer and water replacement projects There's a note that the pavement will be reconstructed just for my own edification Can somebody tell me what that entails whether it's an overlay or a full reconstruction and our patching? That sort of thing I'll take a stab at it though. I'm not from transportation and public works department, but We it would it could depend on the project, but I think that um the water department tries to um Align its projects in conjunction with public um, uh public works. Um, so that There as much as possible there would be a full reconstruction Of the um of the roadway when the when the sewer and water lines are replaced because it is pretty Um damaging. Um, it may depend if it's a smaller project. There may be overlay, but typically it's it's um It's a more robust, um Street work that's done after a sewer and water project, but Nancy wants to correct me on that please for free so right so nancy adam's what transportation and public works department So, um, some of the fire related improvements are really they were more related to vehicles that were burned on the On the individual neighborhood streets. And so a lot of that work is going to be very site specific Rehabilitating just those pavement areas where vehicles were burned You know the city is looking at working with our partners and trying to to um, you know Perhaps get more funding to really do a complete Um, typically it'll be an overlay. Um, it wouldn't necessarily be reconstruct because Reconstruction really means that the the pavement that great degradation has really gone towards failing and we need to It's not it's not cost effective to put an overlay product on it So, um, I think most of this work would probably be more of an overlay category and and then Specific areas they may have to do a little more dig out to address the burned areas, but I hope that answers your question Thank you, Nancy Just to follow on I I just happened to be riding on Corby Avenue the other day And I noticed there's kind of a hodgepodge of patching there and this one gets a sewer and a water line And the note does say reconstructed. So I just wanted a little clarification on that one in particular Oh when we do the sewer and water Projects we that's part of the the Arrangements we go in and where there's trenching on the surface they have to go down under under the pavement We we actually have a partnership that we they go in and they also address the pavement surface wherever they Do their trenching work? So That's part of the we get there. It's called utility impact fees and that fee structure helps Support the surface improvements that are related to the underground surface or the underground utility work And I think that My experience has been that they typically I don't know whether it's a reconstruction or an overlay But the the street typically gets a more robust treatment when there's a whole trenching That's done because of the degradation because by virtue of the trenching and it is part of the water project typically Thank you for the clarification Any other questions of staff? Okay so with that Would someone like to move the resolution I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa finding that the new projects included in the draft 2019 2020 Capital improvement program are consistent with the santa rosa general plan file number st 19-002 and wait for the reading Can I interrupt? Even though there are no members of the public that would appear to be present Open and close the public hearing just for purposes of documenting that process a really good idea Okay, i'm gonna open the public hearing And if there are any members of the public wishing to speak Yeah, not seeing any And I'll close the public hearing Thanks for that And now we can move the resolution Shall I read it? I think you'd say so moved Okay, she did it so moved and do I have a second? I'll second Okay, so that resolution was moved by commissioner dug in seconded by commissioner carter Anybody want to comment on this one? No, okay your votes, please And that passes with six eyes commissioner peterson being absent And with that that concludes our meeting tonight. We'll adjourn to our june meeting