 All right, commissioners, if you can start to turn on your cameras, Chair Weeks, staff is ready when you are. Thank you, Mike. Okay, so it looks like we're all here. So with that, I would like to call to order the June 24th, 2021 meeting of the Center of Planning Commission. And before we start, I'd like to read the following statements. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders, N-25-20 and N-29-20, which has been certain requirements of the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and are practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item four, public comment period or during our public hearings today, we'll be able to do so by raising their hand and we'll be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, Mr. Maloney, would you like to call roll? Yes. Thank you, Chair. I would like to make a record reflect that all commissioners are present, except Commissioner O'Klepeke. Thank you. Item two is a study session, which we have none. Item three, approval of minutes, which we have none. And now onto item four, public comments. So with that, I will now open public comment for any item not included in this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you are dialing via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. And please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of this countdown. Mr. Maloney, do we see any? Sure. We're raising their hand at this time. Okay. So we'll wait just a couple of minutes or seconds, actually, and see if we do see anybody. Doesn't look like it. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment portion of the meeting for items that are not on the agenda. Okay. So I want, we're going on now to item five, planning commissioners report. And I'd like to read the planning commission statement of purpose. And that does as follows, 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. And with this, I'd like to ask if there are any committee reports from either subdivision or waterways. Commissioner Carter. Yes, this morning, the waterways advisory committee met to consider a design review application for 52 units of medium density housing known as stony point flats at stony point road and Roseland Creek. The committee asked for more complete landscape grading plans and hydrological information as well as a completed initial study to understand the sequel analysis for the project and ask for it to return to the committee. I don't believe that we'll come to the planning commission. Thank you. Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Collier, did you have a subdivision committee meeting? No, we have not had a subdivision committee as of yet. Thank you. Okay. So with that, department reports, oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm skipping. Do any commissioners have any reports or comments that they would like to make at this time? No. Okay. Believe it or not, I have nothing. And with that, we'll go on to item six, department reports. Hey, good afternoon, Chair Wakes and members of the planning commission. Thank you for taking time today to be here and to support the work of the city and the community. Commissioner Carter, thank you especially for the time that you've put in today as serving on the WAC and that lengthy meeting that we had this morning, which was great. It was very helpful. We appreciate that. I think that, you know, probably the topic on everyone's mind is, you know, the in-person meetings and what does that look like? And I wish that we did have updated information to share with you. I think as you know, City Council recently held their first in-person what we're referring to as a hybrid meeting, which is both an in-person and a Zoom meeting combined. And I understand that that was successful. So we'll continue to wait for instructions for other boards and commissions and keep you posted. I think we will have ample opportunity to get you early notice about when we might change a meeting format going forward. So I just wanted to give you that quick update. Second, I wanted to let you know that on July 13, City Council will hold public hearings for appeals that Planning Commission reviewed, I believe, in March, 2,300 Bathards and 1,900 Brush Creek Road. And Chair Weeks will be participating in that meeting representing Planning Commission. So you might want to keep that on your calendars. And then as we, again, as we go into the summer vacation season and once again, we're in an opening up of our opportunities to be out and be active, we do have, we will take advantage of both schedule Planning Commission meetings in July. And so those, we do have agendas for both of those meetings and we'll be holding them. So with that then, Chair, that does complete the Department report for this week. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Triple. I know we have a joint study session with the Council on, I believe it's the 20th of July. Right, that's correct, yes. And that will be a hybrid. So the Commission will be in zooming in, is that correct? I believe that at this point, yes, it would be by Zoom. You would be pointing by Zoom, sure. Thank you. Any questions of staff at this point? Okay, then we'll move on to item seven, Statements of Abstentions. Is there anyone who needs to abstain on either of the items today? Okay, so seeing none, then we'll go to Consent Items, which we have none today. So the first item is Scheduled Item 9.1, Public Hearing Crown Council Relocation Project. An exempt project with conditional use permit at 1236 Cleveland Avenue, CUP 20-074, and it is an ex parte disclosure. So Commissioner Carter, do you have anything to disclose? Only that I visited the site and I have nothing further. Thank you, Commissioner Duggan. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Holton? I also visited the site on Cleveland. However, I didn't visit the site on Ridgway, and I have nothing to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Collier. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. And Vice Chair Peterson. I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have no information to disclose. So with that, I believe that we have Mr. Ross with us today. Yes, thank you, Chair Weeks, members of the Planning Commission. I'm going to go ahead and start the presentation for you. Thank you. OK, do you see that? And that's a normal presentation. Yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you. Again, thank you, Chair Weeks, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Adam Ross, Project Planner for the Crown Castle Telecommunications Facility, located at 1236 Cleveland Avenue. And you want to note that late correspondence was provided and included in the agenda packet, indicating that the existing telecommunications facility to be removed as part of this project is not located at 135 Bridgeway Avenue, but is but the proper address is 1500 Armory Drive. It's essentially the same location. It was just a GIS error. The project concludes a major conditional use permit for placement of 83 foot tall monopine telecommunications tower, and that's considered a major telecommunications facility under zoning code section 20-44. As well as a conditional use permit, the project is going to be reviewed by the Design Review Board as a major design review permit on July 1st. Of 2021. The project location is 1236 Cleveland Avenue that is in the northwest quadrant of the city, but it's right next to Highway 101. Between Cleveland Avenue and Highway 101, here's an aerial image of the site. It is surrounded on three sides by other commercial uses. And like I said, Highway 101 is right here. And here's Cleveland Avenue, commercial uses surround the site. And then the star denotes the location of the telecommunication tower on the existing site. And the current use is Colgan Water of Sonoma County. They are a water bottle service company and and delivery service company at this site, and that will be unaffected by the proposed use. Some of the project history in on December 29, 2020, the conditional use permit and major design review applications were submitted to the Planning and Economic Development Department. On February 26 of this year, a notice of application was sent to property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the proposed site. And at the same time, staff requested additional documentation for the California Environmental Quality Act analysis for this project. On May 13, the shot clock was extended to July 1st, 2021 via a tolling agreement, the tolling agreement and shot clock. It's a regulation set forth by the Federal Communications Commission. It limits the time a local agency has to act on a telecommunications application. That is 150 days from project submittal. And that record that is also that also includes the sequel analysis in that timeframe. So the shot clock was extended in agreement with the applicant to allow the to allow staff to fully vet the sequel analysis for the site. On May 25, the application was deemed complete. And on June 16, the applicant agreed to extend the shot clock a second time. And that's to accommodate any sort of appeals that may occur and to accommodate for scheduling that appeal hearing that is both for this meeting and the designer view board appeal timeframes as well. And on July 1st, as I said, that's coming up. The it will go before the designer view board as a major designer view permit. The general plan is retail and business service that is. The it it's consistent with the general plan, land use designation of retail and business services in that this designation is in is intended to accommodate retail and service enterprises, office and restaurants for which it implements the general the zoning code and the zoning code allows it by by way of approval of a conditional use permit. Further, the proposed use is also consistent with the North Station North Santa Rosa Stationary specific plan, which this site is in that boundary of and in that it the plan acknowledges that infrastructure improvements are necessary and the placement of the equipment will increase telecommunication telecommunications and services. The zoning is general commercial within the stationery combining district, that's the North Santa Rosa Stationary combining district. As part of the zoning analysis goes, it's a major telecommunications facility is allowed within the general commercial zoning district again by approval of conditional use permit. It meets all development standards for CG zoning except that and it also complies with the zoning code section 20-44 except that the height is subject to the approval of the review authority. In this case, the planning commission. Here's a site plan of the site. Here's the existing site and here's the location of the telecommunications facility. And I just wanted to verify I kind of have a frozen screen. Is everyone still with me? Yes, what we have on the screen is the North Santa Rosa Station Area plan map. And you're currently showing slide seven. OK, I'm going to stop share and reshare in one second. Mr. Ross is still showing slide seven. I'm not sure if I'm having technical difficulties. I think I might need to sign out because I only see a black screen on my end and sign back in. OK, if you want to, you can also email. Patty and I, the presentation, if we need to, we can advance the slides for you. OK, I'm going to have to log out and log back in. OK, Chair Weeks, do you want to take a brief intermission or do you want to hang on the line? Um, why don't we take a five minute break if we could? Sounds good. Commissioner, we'll be back at 422. Sounds good. Thank you, commissioners. If you can please just turn off your videos and audio. See you then. Are we ready to continue? Thanks, Chair Weeks. I haven't quite heard from staff yet. Give me one moment. OK. It looks like Mr. Ross is going to be logging in right now. OK, thank you. And we'll be able to test it out. If it doesn't work, we'll just go on. We'll ask for another recess so we can set up the system so that we can present for him. OK, just let us know. We're here. It looks like Mr. Ross just logged in. Are you there? Yeah, I'm back. Sorry. Give me one second and I'll get back up and running. I apologize. That's that's OK. OK, do you see the presentation again? Yes, we're on page one. OK, and I think you said it stopped at this. Yes, that one is where it stopped. OK, great. So should I just start from here? Yeah. OK, so the project is within the North Santa Rosa Stationary Specific Plan. Here's the project that started to note the location. It is compliant with that specific plan policies in that it would bring more telecommunication to the area and that is a recognized need to the area. The zoning is general commercial combined station area that dash essay. So it's subject to station area zoning standards and general commercial zoning standards. The major telecommunications facility is allowed within that general general commercial zoning district and it meets and it meets all development standards of that of the zoning code, including setbacks. It in and height, I should say, it it's subject to under zoning code section 20-44 that is subject to approval of the planning commission for the height of the structure. It doesn't limit a height. It doesn't it doesn't have a minimum or maximum height standard for telecommunication towers. In the zoning code, here's the site plan. So here's that existing use of Coligan Water Services, the parking lot, and it's in the northeast corner of the site. There will be a fence structure around the site. It's roughly 800 square feet. And then it's the telecommunications tower. Here's a blow up of of what that look that little section is. So there's some ground level equipment. There is an emergency diesel generator on site as well. But screened from public view and other equipment as necessary. Here are some basic elevations of that monopine. The height of the monopine itself allows for future co-location of the of the site for other providers as well. And the site sorry, I just wanted to read this off is the site is physically suitable for the type density and intensity of the use being proposed, including access, utilities and the absence of physical constraints in that the existing site is both developed and surrounded by existing development. It's got adequate access to the proposed use. And once it's in operation, the telecommunications facility does not require frequent visits by employees. And with that, it does not intensify the use of the site. Here's some photo renderings of what the monopine would look like. So existing without proposed. This is the property just north of 1236 Cleveland looking into the site. Here's looking directly. This is the 1236 Cleveland property. And here it is proposed. And this is looking from the other side of Highway 101. And as you can see, the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. And at the base of the cell tower and all related equipment, it's screened from public view with a six foot fence and will be placed adjacent to an existing commercial building to minimize visual impacts as much as possible. And the proposed height of the tower is necessary to maintain adequate height for function while allowing future co-location of the site as previously stated. Here are two images of the coverage with and without. I will say that this does not include while it's provided in the agenda packet. This does not include the existing service, this left image of their existing tower. So but if they're not able to relocate, this is the service that would be lost. This is a service that is provided. This is specific to AT&T. Again, there could be other providers come to this site in the future. So this is the service area that it would that it would improve on for AT&T customers. And just to reiterate that this is Crown Castle is the owner of the telecommunications tower. It's not a Verizon or a AT&T owned telecommunications facility. So here is Verizon. This, again, is without the relocation. It doesn't include the existing location, which is this star right here on the north. But if approved by the Planning Commission, this would be the coverage that it enhances for Verizon customers. And granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare or materially injurious to person's property or improvements in the vicinity and the zoning district in which the property is located. In that the project I did want to mention also that the project did include a radio frequency compliancy report that are prepared by Hammett and Edison. It's dated November 10th, 2020, included in the agenda packet. It concluded that the proposed placement of the telecommunications tower at the subject site will not result in exposure to the public to excessive levels of radio frequency. Energy as defined in the FCC rules and regulations and the rules and regulations and all other project conditions were provided by staff and city staff. And the project was reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA under CEQA guidelines section 15303 in that the cellular tower and related equipment qualifies for the class three categorical exemption which exempts the construction of new small structures such as telecommunication towers as they are considered small structures that are similar to this project. Public comments received. There was one public comment communication received by staff, me in which the the individual was interested in tracking the project project movement, not so much an objection to the project just wanted to be updated. And overall, no other objections. There was that communication with CalFIRE CalFIRE representatives that was part of that late correspondence material sent to the Planning Commission and is a part of the agenda packet. With that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission approve by resolution a conditional use permit to allow a telecommunications facility located at 1236 Cleveland Avenue. That concludes staff's presentation. The applicant does have a presentation which I will open up whenever you are ready. Thank you, Mr. Ross. Are there any questions of Mr. Ross before we move on to the applicant's presentation? Okay, seeing none. Mr. Ross, if you would go ahead and get the applicant's presentation up. Yes, one second. Thank you. Okay, so whenever the applicant, I think the secretary will give them permission to speak and then they just tell me to move the slide forward and I will. Thank you. Good afternoon. Just want to make sure everybody can hear me. Yes, we can. Hi, this is Jason Osborn representing Crown Castle and I just wanted to introduce myself First of all, thank Adam for his amazing presentation. He's been wonderful to work with and we've enjoyed him going back and forth and giving this project to the point where it's at. I do have with me my client, ultimately my client, Jacob Sparks, who will be handling the specific presentation. And then Tim Page, also in attendance and also Raj Mathur who is with him and Edison just in case there are any EMF questions as well and then I'll be happy to turn it over to Jacob. We can address any specific questions along with a brief presentation but Adam's was quite complete. Thank you, Adam. He took most of our job away from us. So I'm not sure, Jacob, you got to raise your hand or how the Zoom thing works on the side. Sorry guys, I'm not super. All of the applicants right now have permission to speak. If you can stay muted though when you're not speaking, it would help for your interference. Thank you. Okay, let me, so I mute myself. Sorry, trying to figure this out here. Oh, there we go. Okay. And then let Jacob that go. Thank you. And Jacob, it looks like you have unmuted but we are not able to hear you at this time. Oh, sorry. Can you guys hear me now? Yes. Gotcha. Apologies about that. Just want to thank, you know, planning staff of planning commission for, you know, joining today and Adam as well for his very thorough presentation. Like Jason said, it pretty much mimicked ours. There isn't much to present that would add more context but context to the overall application. We are more here to kind of answer any questions that the staff, well that commission may have but we can definitely go through the slides Adam and just touch on a few points. Feel free to. Yeah, so just obviously seeking approval for this conditional use permits and that address, the 135 Ridgeway Avenue is the incorrect address that the site will be relocating from. The correct address is that 1500 Armory Drive. Adam pointed out earlier. I will just want to read it. It is relocating from that property to the proposed property. You know, we obviously always try to minimize any visual effects to a best for our abilities. That's, we went with the stealth monopine design. Next slide Adam. There's just a few key facts here just on 96% of Americans rely on their cell phone or they own a cell phone and 57% of American homes exclusively rely on cell phones and then 8% or more 911 calls are made from those wireless devices. And on this one Adam you can kind of click through a few times there's a few things that will pop up just kind of giving you a broad overview of how the wireless world would be connected and what the goal is from a shared different structure perspective as you see here just pointing out the different statistics and uses from wireless connectivity. Please go to the next one Adam. Thank you. This is a brief overview map just kind of showing the different perspectives that Adam touched on that those simulated views came from just from the Northwest, location one, Southwest from location two and then across Highway 101 up there to the Northeast. And then as you see here the same photo simulations on these next three slides. And here we just put coverage maps that Adam touched on. This is actually the existing coverage of what that existing site provides today. And we obviously our goal is to not have an adverse impact on existing coverage. So at our proposed location is what would get us to the closest that the existing currently provides. Next one Adam. Then obviously the loss of coverage if there were no tower in the vicinity. And then also another few key facts that we follow all state and federal compliance EPA, FAA and FCC, the safety aspect of yearly ground-based inspections, structural inspections every three years as per the national standard. And then our knock as what we call it the network operations center as 24 seven access monitors all systems and responsive network outages. And then there's contact information on the last slide. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sparks. Is that it for the applicants presentation? Yes, just in case you guys have any questions we're also here. Thank you. Does the commission have any questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing? Commissioner Deggan. Yes, I believe it was in the project narrative that mentioned that there were no single family homes within 75 feet of the proposed new location. And I just wanted to confirm that the houses on Ridgeway on the west side of the sound wall and that little like very small stuff of Ridgeway. And I believe they're occupied by owners are outside of the 75 foot distance. That is my understanding. Yes, based on our discussions with Adam Ross we did a Googler survey and then I did drive the area as well and measured as well as I could. I mean, there are some that are close. I believe the closest one was 98 feet. Okay, thank you. Any other question of the applicant before we go to the public hearing? Okay. So with that I'd like to go ahead and open the public hearing on this item if you wish to make a comment via Zoom please select the raise hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker will have three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers and please make sure to unmute yourself when asked to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown time. So, do we have any, Betty who would like to make a comment? It looks like no one is raising their hand at this time. Okay, wait a few seconds. Let's see, it doesn't look like anybody's stepping up. So I will, with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission. Are there any questions of staff any additional questions of staff or the applicant at this time? Commissioner Deggan. Yes, I've got one for Adam. I don't, is there any condition about the maintenance of the monopine? Just as a long-term planning commissioner here it's like we've always had this question about like painting the poles, 10 years down the road do they have to replace tree limbs and paint the pole and whatnot? Question. I'm looking through the conditions of approval right now. Typically all projects are supposed to be maintained by and in good use by the applicant and whoever the developer is. But I don't see anything that is specific here. I think it's within your scope to add any conditions that may satisfy you on that end. I don't think the applicant, obviously the applicant would have to accept but I don't think that they would be unwilling to accept any conditions provided proposed by the planning commission. And I do know that the monopine is to be painted green within those branches. So maybe an idea of just for that maintenance to be included as a condition of approval. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Kahlia? Kind of on the same note that Commissioner Deggan was talking about. Couldn't a way that, so say the paint deteriorates over the next 15 years, couldn't a member of the public essentially open up a code enforcement complaint if it looked like it was in need of repair or something like that? Is that another way to go about the long-term maintenance? Just cause we wouldn't know exactly like to condition it if we needed to get painted every five years or 15 years. It'd be hard to determine the lifetime of paint. Yes, they could contact code enforcement and code enforcement is obligated to go check it out. I see that Mr. Osborne has his hand raised. So perhaps he can weigh in on this from- I will say this and obviously this would have to be approved by ultimately our client but there are cases wherein in other jurisdictions there's a 10 year renewal period wherein there's just a review every 10 years on the site itself to ensure that it's adhering to the conditions and that could be something that we could discuss or something of that. I mean, it would be inappropriate and it would fall California State law. And I just wanted to add that it is also scheduled for the designer view board in July 1st. They'll weigh in on some of the aesthetics and the fencing. That's one of the things to be left open to them to kind of provide some guidance on. So that's the information I have for you. I guess do discuss and do what you feel is fit. I think we can do that. Is it Commissioner Duggan and Commissioner Calia? Is it possible to request that the designer view board add something regarding maintenance? Yes, you could do that. Okay, so with that, if somebody would like to enter the resolution, I'm sorry, are there any more questions? Sorry, any more questions on this item? Okay, then if somebody would like to read the resolution Duggan, thank you. I'll move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for the Crown Castle Relocation Project, which includes construction of an 83 foot tall monopine telecommunications facility located at 1236 Cleveland Avenue, APN 012-061-032 file number PRJ20-023, CUP20-074, and leave for the reading. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Calia? Second. Thank you. Okay, so with that, we'll have open the discussion. Go ahead and do it alphabetically. Commissioner Carter? I'm generally in support of the project. I think I can make all of the necessary findings in granting the use permit. I trust that our granting the use permit and making the findings does not fix the design for the design review board and that their normal input on a project will still be appropriate once it comes to them. But in general, I'm in support of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan? I'm also in support of the project. I can make all the necessary findings. And I'd be happy if Planner Russ wants to just forward our comments to design review regarding the maintenance and if they have any other things or what conditions they wanna add, that would be fine. But otherwise, I'm in support of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Holton? I'm also in support of the project and I can also make all the necessary findings, however, to echo the sentiment of my fellow commissioners. I feel it's really important that you guys at least develop a preventative maintenance schedule of a three year, that's what's typical and then also provide to the public a possible way to inform you guys in the event of a bird crashing into one of those little tree branches or anything happening to ruin the aesthetic of the look because that can get out of hand really quick. Believe me, I know. So thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. Commissioner Collier? I can also make all the required findings and we'll be supporting the project along with our fellow commissioners' comments about giving the design review a copy of our comments. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson? I can also make all the required findings and ensure the same sentiments as my fellow commissioners on the maintenance issue. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings and I'm glad to see an increase in bandwidth and echo fellow commissioners regarding passing on our comments to design review board next week. So with that, the motion was made by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Collier. Mr. Maloney, would you like to call roll? Commissioner Carter? Aye. I'll hold on one second. Chair Weeks. Did you not get my aye? We're just having a little technical issue. It'll just take a second. Let's start over. Commissioner Carter? Aye. Commissioner Duggan? Aye. Commissioner Holden? Aye. Commissioner Collier? Aye. Vice Chair Peterson? Aye. And Chair Weeks? Aye. So that passes with six ayes and one absents with Commissioner Ocrep keep being absent. And so then with that, we'll go on to our next item for the day. And change seats. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. Okay, so our next item, if everybody's ready, is 9.2, it's a public hearing, Spring Lake Village East Grove, Draft Environmental Impact Report. It's public hearing file number MJP14-012. It is an exparte disclosure. So we'll start with Mr. Carter or Commissioner Carter. I did visit the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Duggan. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Holden. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Collier. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Vice Chair Peterson? I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So we have Mr. Triple and Ms. Nicholson. Great, thank you, Chair Weeks. And before introducing Senior Planner Nicholson, I'd just like to share a few comments with the planning commission about the purpose of this evening's meeting more broadly. And then Ms. Nicholson will provide specific guidance for review of the Spring-like Village Strap EIR. So joining us this evening are Ms. Nicholson and the GHD EIR consultant representatives, Brian Bakurini and Christine Gaspar. We also want to recognize the input that other city staff members, technical consultants, and especially the public, including planning commission this evening, provide to the EIR development process. The goal of the process is to present a detailed thorough and adequate EIR for public review that is supported by data, analysis, and expert review. But the heart of the CEQA process is really the production of public discourse documents. These documents inform in that they seek to identify potential impacts and ways to mitigate or offset those potential impacts. But as much as they inform, they're also informed through public review that seeks to elicit comments and questions from the public, responsible agencies, planning commission, and really any other interested party. We are obligated to respond to all written comments. This then forms the final environmental impact report, a publicly disclosed report that both informs and is informed. With that, I want to turn it over to senior planner Amy Nicholson. Amy will review the purpose of this evening's review opportunity. With GHD representatives, gather public and planning commissioner comments and then look forward to next steps in the EIR development process. Amy. Thank you so much, Andrew, and good evening chair weeks and members of the commission. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen with you. So as Andrew mentioned, the item before you this evening is the Spring Lake Village East Grove draft environmental impact report. And I'm going to just provide a brief project description. There will be more detail provided by the environmental consultant in just a few minutes. The draft environmental impact report evaluates an offsite expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village. The project site is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the existing campus. And this is at the intersection of Los Alamos Road and Highway 12 and also Malita Road. The project includes a 32 unit community care facility, which includes both Duplex and Villa units. And the project entitlements that are required include a rezoning to a plan development, which the existing Spring Lake Village is within. It also requires a conditional use permit and hillside development permit and also design review. The rezoning conditional use permit and hillside development permit will be back before the planning commission as well the final environmental impact report, at which time the commission will make a recommendation to the council. As Andrew so nicely summarized the purpose of this evening's meeting is to receive comments on the adequacy of the draft environmental impact report from both the planning commission and also members of the public. Each of the questions and comments that we hear this evening, in addition to those that we have already received and will continue to receive up to July 15th, will be responded to in the final environmental impact report. And finally, Andrew also did a great job explaining the purpose of CEQA, but this document has been provided in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the purpose of CEQA is to disclose environmental impacts of a proposed project to review authorities and decision makers and also members of the public and also to avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Otherwise, I can go ahead and pass it off to our environmental consultant from GHD. Thank you. Do any commissioners have questions of Ms. Nicholson at this time? Okay, then if you would go ahead and get the consultant set up. Yeah, thank you so much. Thank you. Chair Weeks, the two of the Casper and Coptaldo have been, they have the ability to unmute and we're searching for the third consultant right now on the list. And Michael is a member of the applicant team. So perhaps after the consultant provides the presentation, he might be able to provide a comment. Yes. Great, thank you. A reminder to everybody who does have the ability to mute and unmute, if you can please stay muted when you're not speaking, we'd appreciate it. Hi, Amy, good afternoon, Chair Weeks and planning commissioners. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. I can't see myself in the screen so I wasn't sure if I was live or not. Well, good afternoon. My name is Brian Bacciarini from GHD and I will have a presentation on the draft AIR. Amy, next slide. To reiterate what Amy said in the acting supervisor, there is a draft AIR that is out for circulation now. It was released on June 1st. It was circulated for an ongoing 45 day review period. To date, approximately 20 comments have been received. So as Amy mentioned, after the public review period, all of the comments that are received here tonight, as well as are received over that course of the review period are gonna be responded to. And then we will be before your commission again at a future meeting in which we will summarize all of those comments and we will summarize the final AIR that was prepared. And then at that future meeting, staff may ask your commission to make a recommendation to the city council for considering certification of the AIR. Next slide. But today's hearing, as Amy mentioned, is just to discuss the environmental review to date. So to help with that, I've developed this presentation. Summarizes the project site, the proposed development and the draft AIR. Next slide. So first, just a project overview. As Amy mentioned, it's an offsite expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village facility that's at 55, 55 Montgomery Drive. The expansion site is located approximately 1,000 feet to the east. It's located just south of Highway 12, west of Los Alamos Road, north of Malita Road. Residents of the existing Spring Lake Village Campus on Montgomery Drive, and then this East Grove expansion would be able to use amenities at both locations. The sites would share operations, maintenance and management. They'd share staff and services, dining services. There would be shuttle service between the two facilities. So it's really a connected expansion facility. And then there are also offsite pedestrian improvements that are proposed to facilitate the walkability and connection between the two sites. Next slide. So it's great. You all are familiar with the site. You all mentioned that you've actually visited the site. It is 7.28 acres in size, and it consists of three parcels. The parcel at 225 Los Alamos Road is the largest. It's undeveloped aside from two groundwater wells that would be used to supply irrigation demand. The parcels at 5803 and 5815 Malita Road are developed. They have absolutely own single family residences that are there and that are leased out to tenants. One of those residences was constructed in 1950, the other in 1977. Both residents were evaluated and were determined not to be historically significant. The expansion site is designated very low density residential in the general plan and rural residential in the zoning. 225 Los Alamos Road is owned our R40 and then the Malita Road parcels are R20. And the project proposes a rezone to PD 308, which is the zoning for the existing Spring League Village Campus. Next slide. Okay, so this slide shows the site plan for the proposed project. The project would include 32 independent senior living units supporting up to 64 residents. The development would include a mix of 10 single story duplex cottages that provide 20 of the units. And then a two story residential villa building that would provide 12 units. Cottages would include individual patios, parking garages and driveway spaces. Parking would also include a mix of covered and uncovered parking spaces on site. Community building is proposed near the center of the site for residents and guests. And that would include kitchen and dining facilities, activity and common rooms and admin space. And then there's a number of outdoor features, patios, outdoor common areas, pathways around the site and landscaped areas. The primary access point to the site would be a new driveway off of Los Alamos Road. The driveway would be aligned with the existing entrance to Villa Los Alamos, which is directly across the street and would be designed to accommodate fire truck access. And then in accordance with the California Fire Code, a secondary emergency vehicle access is also included in the project. And that access is shown off of Melida Road as Amy is showing there. So the project would tie into existing Santa Rosa and PG&E utilities that are within Los Alamos Road and Melida Road. There, I mentioned this earlier, there's two existing groundwater wells on the site which would be used for irrigation demand to reduce some of the project's demand on potable water. The project is required to be compliant with the current version of the California Building Code, the California Fire Code and City of Santa Rosa Fire Department Standards. And last thing for this slide, the project would create the equivalent of 12 full-time employees. So next slide. The project proposes several off-site improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and stormwater conveyance. So along Melida Road, Amy's gonna kind of circle there, there's new sidewalk would be installed as well as new and replacement storm drain piping. And then at the intersection of Melida Road and Montgomery Drive, there would be a new sidewalk, ADA curb ramps and crosswalks to improve the crossing facilities and safety again to facilitate that connectivity. And then along Los Alamos Road, there would be an off-site pedestrian path, publicly accessible. It would connect to the existing crosswalk that's at Highway 12. And then along this section of Los Alamos Road, it would be widened to provide a Class II bicycle lane consistent with the city's bicycle and pedestrian master plan. And then finally along Highway 12, a sidewalk extension is proposed along the frontage that would connect to the existing sidewalk near Hope Chapel Church. Next slide. So now to just go through the EIR process that began with a scoping period to gain feedback from agencies in the public about the project and to help scope out and determine the areas to really be focused on in the EIR. So a notice of preparation, describing the project and the potential effects was developed, circulated in accordance with CEQA guidelines. A 30-day scoping period was held. And then during that period, a public scoping meeting was held as well. So then subsequent to the first scoping meeting, that Davelin came back with some modifications to the project and they were deemed to be substantial enough where a second scoping period was held. So a supplemental notice of preparation was circulated and then a second 30-day scoping period was held. Next slide. So this slide summarizes the main input that was received during the process. These are the key issues that were identified to be addressed. The top two were definitely the most reoccurring concerns identified during the scoping period. And they're related to increases in traffic and then traffic-related noise. Next slide. So following that scoping process, the draft EIR was prepared and this included several technical studies that are listed here. These responded to those key issues that were identified during that scoping process. So several of these studies were initiated after the scoping process, which was back in 2016, 2017, but each was updated prior to release of the draft EIR. Next slide. So the draft EIR evaluates the project in accordance with CEQA, obviously. Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines includes a checklist with these 20 environmental topics that are at the top here. Each of these topics includes multiple checklist questions that must be addressed. And then the draft EIR also includes a required discussion of project alternatives, significant unavoidable effects, growth-inducing impacts, and identifies an environmentally superior build alternative. Next slide. And just briefly, draft EIRs, they include thresholds of significance for each checklist question. It provides a basis to determine the degree of an environmental impact. So thresholds for the EIR were obtained from multiple applicable sources, including the CEQA guidelines, the Santa Rosa General Plan, Santa Rosa's Municipal Code, and some of the other items listed here. Next slide. For summary of impacts, the majority of environmental impacts were determined to be less than significant. The topics that are listed here did require mitigation. So I'll just briefly describe what that is. For wildfire, mitigation is included to manage dry combustible vegetation during construction, and other techniques to minimize the potential for accidental fire ignition during construction. For noise, mitigation is included to reduce construction noise and vibration, add adjacent residences to below thresholds, and to cite to the mechanical equipment and emergency generator in slightly different ways to keep the noise levels below the city's noise ordinance limits. So for bicycle safety, there's that new Class 2 bike lane that is being installed as part of the project. Mitigation includes signage to make sure to notify bikers and drivers of a mid-block bike lane change along Los Alamos Road where that bike lane would end. For biological resources, mitigation is included to avoid potential disturbance to special status species and to prevent contribution of any sediment to off-site Santa Rosa Creek. Biological mitigation also includes measures to minimize any potential impact to bats and birds, to compensate for filling of a relatively small on-site seasonal wetland and a drainage along Los Alamos Road. And finally, for protecting trees and then replacing trees that are to be removed in accordance with the city's requirements. Mitigation also is included to prevent soil erosion, any water quality impacts, and to prevent any potential destruction of paleontological resources if such resources were encountered during construction. Finally, for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, mitigation includes requiring a construction phase treatment plan, performing monitoring during construction, some avoidance measures for certain project components, procedures to minimize disturbance of any resources where they to be encountered during construction. Given the level of disturbance at the site, the draft DIR concludes that the significant and unavoidable impacts may result from the project even with mitigation. Next slide. So EIRs must include a discussion of project alternatives that attain most of the project objectives while also reducing the severity of a significant impact. So the draft DIR discusses several considered alternatives. One of the build alternatives was found to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts of the project. So to a less than significant level, that alternative is identified here as alternative two, which I will describe next. This table compares alternative two with the project. The left column are some of the project components. The middle column is the project and the right-hand column is the alternative two. Both alternative two and the proposed project include the same number of units, 32 units, 64 bedrooms. The change begins where alternative two includes a different mix of cottages and includes seven cottages as opposed to the 10 cottages. And then for the Villa building, it becomes a three-story building, providing 18 units, whereas under the project, the proposed project, it's two-story and 12 units. Another change is the residences at 5803 and 5815 Melida Road would remain in place under alternative two, whereas they were going to be removed as part of the proposed project. And then the resident community building and all of the site access, the emergency vehicle access and all of the off-site bike, pedestrian and stormwater improvements are the same between the two projects. Next slide. So this slide shows the site plan for alternative two. The reduction and the number of cottages and the shifting of those cottages north to the northern half of the project along with leaving the residences at 5803 and 5815 in place all contribute to a reduced project footprint and the decreased ground disturbance at the site. The same mitigation measures that were identified for the proposed project would be applicable to alternative two. With those mitigation measures and with that reduced project footprint and the decreased ground disturbance, the impact of this alternative to on cultural resources and tribal cultural resources was determined to be reduced to less and significant. And therefore, for that reason, the draft DIR identifies alternative two as the environmentally superior build alternative. Next slide. So the draft DIRs is currently 24 days into the overall 45 day public review period. A notice of availability and notice of public hearing were circulated and provided to public agencies, interest parties, mailings went out to addresses with instance 600 feet of the site. A sign was used to post the notice at the project site and the notice was posted at the county clerk and within the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. Next slide. The draft DIR is available on the city's website and hard copies were made available at City Hall as well as the Brinkin Valley Regional Library. The draft DIR and notices were submitted as required to the state clearing house for review by state agencies, which then sent the draft DIR to these 13 state agencies listed here for review. Next slide. To date, 20 responses have been received in relation to the draft DIR. The concern that has been raised most frequently to date has been about the potential for the project to contribute traffic to the roadway system during a potential future wildfire evacuation scenario. Also, questions about the adequacy of the existing infrastructure, especially related to traffic and potential for altering visual character of the area. So the final few slides I have here just provide some preliminary discussion of each of these items. So first for emergency evacuations. You know this, the Santa Rosa has developed evacuation planning areas throughout the city. This image shows the city's Malita evacuation planning area, which both the existing Spring Lake Village Campus and the proposed East Grove expansion are located within. So as shown in this image, there are three roadways in the area that are identified as evacuation routes. They are Oncamarie Drive, Highway 12, and Calistoga Road. If my understanding is correct, their channel drive may be potentially being added to this as well in the future. So the existing Spring Lake Village along with, most of Rinkin Valley did have to evacuate in the 2017 and 2020 fires. Spring Lake Village, they do have an emergency evacuation plan that would be applied to the East Grove expansion. Based on conversations with the applicant, our understanding is that emergency evacuation process begins when there's any red flag warnings, any of the PG&E PSPSs or any other alerts. They maintain a messaging system that provides alerts via text and email and calls to all residences and they have building captains and do trainings. Also, the Center of the Fire Department has coordinated with Spring Lake Village and a facility specific evacuation site has been established for Spring Lake Village, which would also apply to the East Grove expansion project. So that designated evacuation site is located along West Third Street at a place to play park, which connects to Montgomery Drive. Spring Lake Village, they also use chartered buses to facilitate evacuation of residents and to try to keep traffic and vehicles down on the roadway and they encourage carpooling and shuttling. Amy and I had conversations with the fire department based on those that the project's emergency vehicle access on Malita Road is really intended for fire department, law enforcement or other emergency responder use. During the glass fire, the Center of the Fire Department did utilize certain emergency vehicle access points for the purpose of allowing residents alternative exit points from various neighborhoods. The use of the emergency vehicle access on Malita Road then it would need to be coordinated with the fire department to be utilized by residents as an evacuation point. In that case, it could reduce contribution of traffic to Los Alamos Road and interaction with any vehicles that may be exiting Villa Los Alamos on the other side of the roadway. Los Alamos Road and Malita Road, where the project's access points are, are both connected to Montgomery Drive, which is anticipated to be the primary evacuation route for the project site. And lastly, the expansion site is located outside of the Santa Rosa Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. It's outside of the Cal Fire designated state responsibility areas and the Cal Fire designated a very high fire hazard severity zones. The project would be required to be compliant with the California Building Code, the California Fire Code and Santa Rosa Fire Department Standards. Next slide. So for traffic, the current CEQA measurement for evaluating impacts is called vehicle miles traveled. Santa Rosa and many other jurisdictions use a threshold established by the Office of Planning and Research, which assumes that if a project generates 110 or fewer daily trips, it has a less than significant impact on transportation. So in comparison, the traffic study for the project estimates that the project will result in 80 daily trips, which is below that screening threshold. Therefore, there was a less than significant finding related to VMT. So roadway level of service, which is shown here, is no longer considered a transportation impact under CEQA. However, the Santa Rosa General Plan, they still do have a goal related to maintaining a level of service D or better along roadways. In comparison, the traffic study for the project determined that the intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road currently operates at a level of service B during the AM and PM peak hours, which is better than level of service D. The project is expected to result in 80 new daily trips, five of which would occur during the AM peak hour and then six which would occur during the PM peak hour. The addition of that project traffic to the existing roadway intersection was shown to result in a 0.1 second increase in average delay, which is very small and the intersection was shown to continue to operate at the existing level of service as it is now. This to evaluate visual character, visual simulations of the project were prepared. This particular one is a simulation from Highway 12. The tallest project building is the residential villa at 28 feet, three inches, plus an additional five feet for mechanical equipment and the elevator shafts. So the proposed villa is the building that is visible here. The cottages are single story and are not really visible. The project buildings that are proposed are all within the height limits and based on simulations like this, they would not affect views of Sonoma Mountain foothills or surrounding ridgelines. The development meets or exceeds all of the city's required setbacks for scenic roadways. The trees that would be removed along the corridors are relatively small in size and other trees would be remaining and there would be replanting of trees at the site as well. Design review also would be a required condition of approval and involve a review of all the applicable language in the design review guidelines. So final slide, just a reiteration that all comments that are received on the draft EIR and in today's public hearing will be recorded and reviewed and evaluated and responded to. Written responses are required under CEQA and they will be made publicly available. They will become part of the final EIR and then there will be a follow-up public hearing for your commission where we will go over the final EIR just as I'm going over this draft EIR for discussion and then at that time, city staff may be asking you to make that recommendation to the council for considering certification of the EIR. So thank you very much for your attention and time. That concludes my portion of the presentation. So Amy, back to you. Thank you, Brian. And Chair Weeks, I believe that Michael from the applicant team may wish to speak a few words. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. So we'll go ahead and hear from the applicant team. I believe you're unmuted, so. Yes, hello. This is Michael Cataldo. I'm currently the executive director at Spring Lake Village. Spring Lake Village is celebrating its 35th anniversary of serving seniors to the Santa Rosa and surrounding areas with a great reputation. Even though we have seen the name change a couple times, it has remained a not-for-profit community. You know, we do appreciate all the comments regarding fire evacuation. This is something the administrative staff plans on constantly. We have had two fairly successful evacuations, meaning that no residents were harmed and all our structures remained in place and everybody got back home in a reasonable time. So I'm just happy to answer any questions that might come up and provide any clarification. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cataldo. So does the commission have any questions right now before we go to the public hearing? Or I think it would be best to hear from the public first and then come back to the commission if that's agreeable with everybody. Okay, not seeing any no's. I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment, please select the raised hand button on the Zoom screen. And if you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand and each speaker will have three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for your convenience. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. Mr. Maloney, do we? Thank you, Chair Weeks. We have a couple of hands raised. Okay. So I'm just gonna go in the order that I see them and starting with Dr. Pedro Avila. Good afternoon, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Good afternoon, Chair Weeks and members of the planning commission. My name is Pedro Avila. I live on the corner of Los Alamos and Highway 12. My backyard is looking directly to this project, Spring Lake Village. I don't have an issue with the proposed project. I think option two is a good project. What I do wanna make the planning commission aware of is how dangerous the intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos is. There are regular accidents that are happening all the time, head on collisions, people are running those lights, people are going real fast through that intersection. So I'm really concerned about increasing the density of residents and even if it's increasing 80 trips through that intersection, I think it's one too many until that is mitigated. I would encourage the planning commission to request a report on the number of collisions that have occurred in that intersection over the last year or even maybe a trend over a couple of years. Because I do believe we have an issue that we're speeding on one direction, going east. The speed limit is 50. Coming into town, the speed limit is 45. But believe me, people are going 60, 70 through that intersection. It's horrible for me to hear the collisions and then I can hear people screaming and in pain from my backyard. So I just wanna make you aware of that. I do appreciate how considerate the planning has been for this project. And I appreciate the sidewalks and the bike lanes, but I do wanna make you aware of this issue with how dangerous that intersection is. And I think you probably need to do your due diligence and take a deeper look at the collisions in that intersection and how this project, my further impact and create more risk for the residents living in that area. It's, I don't feel comfortable going through that intersection on foot. I have two young kids and I hesitate to cross that intersection because people are always running it. So please, I hope that you would do a little bit more research on that. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Avila. Next person. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Next we have Edward Sherman. Thank you. Hi, thank you for taking the time to listen to the public comments. So I live at 5698 Eagle Rock Court. I'm within the notification zone and I go past the property many times. My concern is the applicant is grossly overstated, understated the wildfire danger. When he says it's not in a high fire danger area, it's just by a whisker. It's surrounded on three sides by higher fire danger areas. I just looked up all the maps and I could be on that property and throw a stone into different opposite directions and I'll hit the high fire zone or the urban wildlife interface areas. If you go to the county maps, Cal Fire, the high fire danger is to the north and medium, the next lower is the next lower danger is the side that's at Adele Park. I think it's just fundamentally wrong to be increasing the population density in a low density area. When we know that fire, I've been here 30 years. The last five years I've had to evacuate my house three times. The last evacuation was horrific to traffic on Highway 12 and the backup of traffic on Los Alamos Road even before we get to Highway 12. We don't need to add to that traffic burden. The other problem is with Montgomery drivers and evacuation corridor, that's a dangerous evacuation corridor because that's a valley. We can have winds blowing fires in from multiple directions. It's wooded, you could have trees falling onto that road from either side. Let's not increase the danger by adding more senior residents. We're gonna need help evacuating. Yes, Spring Lake Village has done a good job so far but we can count on the climate hazard will grow non-linearly. It is not only gonna get worse each year, it's gonna get worse faster for global warming and release of methane gases. It's just no place to put, to increase the density in Santa Rosa. There are far better sites within the city to increase senior housing. Plus the applicants gonna want to bridge that area because they bought up the intervening properties. So they're gonna, if they get this, they're gonna wanna go and increase it again and fill in that other area. That's gonna be more of an increase. I just think it's so inappropriate to do this and dangerous. That's all the comments I have right now. Oh, and by the way, traffic danger. My wife's car was T-boned on Highway 12 at the intersection and she and myself were both injured. So yes, I vouch for that as being a real danger. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Welcome. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Next, we have an MP. If you can please state your name from the record. Hi, can you hear me? My name is Mendy Kendall. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I live on Malina Road and I wanna just, first of all, support what the gentleman just said about the wire trial, wire trial urban interface, having been here for the last fire and the other. You know, the lot across the street from was burned, the house around the corner burned, all the fences behind us up to Malina Road and 12 burned. So the map may say one thing, but the reality of what we experienced, I think it's far different. So first of all, I'd like to just support that. Secondly, I'm really concerned about the water situation and adding more housing to our area. We don't have any water and I don't know where we're gonna get this water over these years that we, that are predicted to be just as bad to continue adding housing in this area. And thirdly, I attended the Zoom meeting for Onoka, which is just up the street. And I don't think we can consider these in isolation. You're talking about a smaller unit and I do appreciate Spring Village and what they've done. But additionally, we're looking at, you know, I forget how many units, but somewhere for 7, 800, 900 people up the street. So I don't think we can consider this in isolation for other projects that are being considered for this area at this time. I generally am not opposed to this. I think it looks like it's very well planned as is the Onoka project and I support seed and housing. But I do agree that I think this is not the appropriate time for this project. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Mr. Maloney? One moment, Chair. Does not appear anyone else is raising their hand at this time. Okay, we'll wait just a few seconds to make sure that nobody else wants to speak. Okay, with that I will close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission for them to, for the commission to provide comments to staff and the consultant regarding the draft EIR on Spring like Village East Grove project. So Commissioner Duggan. Can we ask questions first of either staff? Yes, yes. Okay, because I've got a question. One, both for the environmental consultants. Okay, so can we get the environmental consultant on as a panelist? Okay, looks like he's here. I am here, yes. So you mentioned that alternative to the reduced footprint alternative is environmentally superior. So does that mean that that becomes the project? That is more of a procedural question that probably is best answered by city staff. Okay, and the second question is what we just heard about the traffic incidents at Highway 12 in Los Alamos. I wonder if the traffic consultant could talk to the accident rate at that intersection. Yeah, we will certainly summarize that and respond to that in the final EIR. There is a traffic study that was included in an appendix to the draft EIR. And it does include a review of collision rates. And the collision rates are less than the statewide average for four-way singleized intersections similar to this. So the review is within the draft EIR. It's showing something a bit different than the concerns that we heard. That's not to undermine or disregard the concerns and the observations. But what could be done is a review of more recent traffic collision data to support the response in the final EIR. But the data that's in the technical study in the draft EIR was showing that the number of collisions at that intersection is below the statewide average collision rate, which is the threshold that's used. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Do any of the other commissioners have questions of staff or the consultant before I head back to you for comments? Vice Chair Peterson. So I think this came up with El-Nokin. I don't necessarily need an answer immediately, but to the public comment about the wildland urban interface fire area, like the El-Noka project, that's referencing a map from or whatever from 2009. And my understanding is that that is being updated for this year. So I guess one question is my understanding correct and two, how if at all will that update be integrated into the final EIR? Well, I would defer to, sorry, I'm jumping on this. I would defer to the city staff about the status of any update to that. And then certainly, it would be incorporated into considerations for the final EIR. There are development conditions that are triggered for projects that are within that zone that you just mentioned. So those could be conditions of approval that become applicable to the project. But I would need to defer to the city on any kind of update about the kind of the status of the mapping update itself. We are not aware of that actually occurring right now, but I will follow up with our fire department and find out and we can address that in the final EIR. Thank you. I guess some of the comments that I have are questions, but I know they won't be answered today. They would be answered in the final EIR. So let's go ahead and go through the rest of the commissioners at this point and then come back to me. So Commissioner Carter, any comments? I think the primary comment I have is given more recent information about fire hazard in this particular part of town. Will the significance criteria for those hazards change with the possible development of a new map or based on the comment received during the draft EIR period? Is there any chance that those significance criteria for the hazard and the traffic congestion impacts be revised in any way? Or will they be addressed merely as response to comments? That's the principal concern I have at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan? Yeah, I've got several comments. So I'm glad you mentioned what you did in the presentation about the wildfire and the evacuation plan at Screen Lake Village. And I wish that that would be incorporated into the EIR because I really think that the EIR needs a wildfire chapter similar to the El Noco project that we just reviewed the EIR. Because you can hear this, I'm talking to the consultant, just the residents there know what it's like to evacuate the event of a wildfire and how it's not gonna be easy to put additional people in this area. Okay, so specifically in the EIR, on page 2-10, does the daily peak hour trips include the shuttle bus and staff coming and going? That wasn't made clear in the traffic study. Also page 2-10, I know that I guess the water agency uses for single-family drawings, 288 gallons per day of water. And that sounds really high. Considering that people's landscape uses are gonna be met with all the water from the wells. And I'm just questioning that figure, especially in the situation we're in now with the extreme drought conditions. I don't think anybody's using 288 gallons per day per household. Also on page 2-10, the emergency backup generator, what's the proposed gallons of fuel supply for the generator? Also on the same page is the community building, the only building with gas supply. It kind of indicates that it might be for the way the paragraph is written. And does that mean the cottages are gonna have all electric heat and for cooking and heating and laundry facilities are not gonna have any gas supplies for those buildings? Okay, under page 262, list of permissions, other permits and approvals under that section. Are any permissions required from the Lytton or Graton tribes, especially if extensive tribal cultural resources are discovered on site? And should that be listed here? And then the approach to analysis on 3.1-8. Did the computer simulations remove all the trees that are slated for removal? Or are they just kind of not taken out of the way if they're not really impacting the views? 3.1-13 on the top of the page. Just the whole discussion about the impact of the tree removal, it seems subjective, especially it's the trees that are removed within the 100 foot scenic setback, table 3.1-3, especially just for example, the coast live oak that's 45 feet tall, it takes, they grow two to three feet a year. So that would take 15 to 20 years to replace if you wanted to have a tree that same size. So it seems subjective to say it's not gonna be any kind of impact to remove the tree of that size. Okay, page 3.2-16, table 3.2-8. Should this table include the emissions from the diesel generator? And if it runs continuously for a couple of days every year in the event of a power outage, like what's the expected run time of that generator per year? Page 3.5-12, mitigation measure geo-8. How is this gonna be implemented practically? This is requiring a paleontologist to be on site to be contacted, to periodically inspect any ground disturbances. And I'm just wondering, how does this work when you've got large construction vehicles who are probably just gonna damage and destroy whatever they uncover before any kind of discovery can be made by a qualified paleontologist? And how often does periodically mean is that once a week, every day for the grading and ground disturbance part of the project? Page 3.7-1 under wildfire hazards doesn't really explicitly say what this site's hazard zone is. And what does the classification mean if you're in a moderate zone versus a high zone? What are the differences in what tests to happen or what kind of treatments are required for the project site? Page 3.7-5. So I believe one of my fellow commissioners brought this up, but I guess it was a different plan. But the local hazard mitigation plan that's referenced is 2016. And as we all know, that was prior to the three recent fire events that caused the evacuation of Lincoln Valley. So has this plan been updated since 2016? And should that be referenced here? That is in fact, there's a more recent duration of that. Okay, 3.7-10. Also referring to the backup emergency generator. So how many hours or days is it predicted to run for a year and is it sized to provide 100% of the site's power needs when it runs full-time? And how far away from the nearest dwelling unit in the event of a fire is it located? Okay, page 3.7-13. This is what Vice Chair Peterson referenced, the SR Wildland Urban Interface Map has it been updated since 2009? It seems pretty likely that that's been worked on since 2009. And that should, a newer version should be referenced. And 15, I was happy to hear in your presentation, the applicant's presentation or the consultant's presentation that Spring Lake Village has an evacuation plan that they're gonna combine with this off-site area. And, but I think that should be noted in the EIR. Okay, page 3.10-14. The noise barrier fence wall under mitigation measure NOI-6-1B. Is it indicated on the site plan and is it only along the property line to joining the residential properties? Okay, chapter 3-11. I just had a general comment that maybe this section required a discussion about potential for wildfire and the need for evacuations for residents. Okay, page 3.12-3. The Sonoma Valley Trail Feasibility Study was the project referred to Sonoma County Regional Parks for their input regarding the trail alignment and what were their comments if they had any? Okay, page 3.12-8. Section 3-12-4, Approach to Analysis. Did the traffic study commence prior to December 2018 when the Office of Planning and Research published their technical advisory with traffic inputs? Traffic impacts needing to use VMT instead of LOS because just seeing LOS everywhere, it's like, why do we care about that if we're not measuring traffic inputs with level of service? I think we've got to get away from that. So it should be more VMT required. Okay, and on page 3.12-9, it mentions in the paragraph right above 3-12-5, says the trip generation VMT was overestimated due to the use of the shuttle service. So presumably the shuttle service VMT is included in the study. And does the shuttle only take residence to the other Spring Lake Village, the main campus? Or does it also take residence off-site to doctor's appointments, shopping, cultural events? And if so, what's the vehicle miles travel estimate for that? Okay, I'm getting close to the end here. So bear with me. Okay, and page 3.12-10. Are the miles associated with construction, all the construction generated traffic, including workers coming to and from the job site, the 466 estimated trips during the demolition and grading off-haul and the 1,236 total round trips estimated for haul in. Are those included in the VMT analysis? Okay, and then this is sort of a general comment, but I think of all the years I've been on the Planning Commission, which is now almost 15. This is the first time I believe I've reviewed an EIR that had significant and unmitigatable effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources. And so it stands out to me in a big way because of that. And I'm just wondering how that would happen. If it says a significant resources were found on the site, is there any potential that construction related discovery would stop work for an extended period of time or necessitate the redesign of the project to better avoid disturbing any of the discovered resource? Because I personally can think of one project I was involved in as a plumbing designer years ago in the county where the building footprint actually goes around an archeological mitten. They redesigned the building to surround the area and not disturb it. And I'm wondering if that, the potential for that is here in this project. A page 3.13-10 mitigation measure CR2D, I believe, or CR2D. There's a sentence that I've excerpted says, the city shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in the event of finding tribal cultural resources. And so who at the city would determine that? Which office in the city? And what recourse do the federated Indians of Grayton or Lytton have if they disagree with the decision from the city? And then also my last comment is for the discussion of alternatives. Alternative two is the maximum avoidance alternative. And I'm just wondering what it takes for that to become the project. Like you said, if it's a procedural policy city or if that one is in fact superior to the project that's stated, why isn't that the project under consideration? And so those are my comments. Thank you, Commissioner Duggan, thorough as always. Thank you. So we'll go to Commissioner Holton. That's the downside of following Commissioner Duggan. She pretty much knocked it out the park. There's really, I thought I actually had something until the very last comment because I'm also very concerned. I haven't sat on a commission board for very long and that also stood out to me. So I would encourage the planners to kind of go back and also most certainly ensure that all of the studies have been conducted after the wildfires because when you have information that's that stale and also you look at the population growth between 2016 and 2021, it's pretty significant as well. So thank you very much, especially thank you, Commissioner Duggan, for just wrapping it up and just knocking it out the park. So thank you for your diligence and your amazing study. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Collier. Thank you. Yeah, similarly to Commissioner Duggan's point. It looks like this EIR is from 2017, which is also why the traffic data is from 2017. I looked at the traffic study and it says that it's the last five years that they had data was from 2011 to 2016. And that's where you get the numbers of collisions in what I'm talking about in Highway 12 in Los Alamos compared to the statewide collision rate. Yeah, from 2011 to 2016, it was less than the statewide average, but I would like to see what that is. I mean, we're talking about from five years from 2011 to 2016, from 2016 to 2021 is totally different. It's a long time. And just another question. Similarly to the Anoka project, is there a point in time where these EIRs need to be updated before they come to the Planning Commission? And that's kind of a question that I have. It's like, why does it take four years since an EIR is completed for it to come to the Planning Commission? That's really my main comment, because now this is the second time we've seen it in the EIR in a very short amount of time that it's been four, three to five years old. And it's really hard to determine environmental impacts based on whole data. Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner Kahlia, Vice Chair Peterson. So I think my fellow commissioners and Commissioner Duggan in particular pretty ably handled a lot of the issues I had. I would like to add my voice to the chorus. I think it's clear, the concern about the, maybe there should be a separate welfare section or at least it needs to be based on updated data, except to the extent that it exists. But in particular, I again want to highlight the cultural and tribal resources portion. I think it's really, to see something and being mindful of the confidentiality issues that come with this for very good reasons, but to see a significant and unavoidable impact and very little specificity on how you're going to deal with it. Is an archaeologist going to be on site? I trust that the tribes will be involved in setting up the planning, but it would be nice to see some more specificity on what happens. Is there going to be a different site plan? Is an archaeologist going to be on site? Just to kind of a level of specificity to protect these kinds of resources that I think historically have been not protected very well and apparently can be subject to unavoidable impact even if the mitigation measures are adopted. So that's my main concern and my comment for the draft EIR. Thank you. Let me go to my questions. Like Commissioner Collier, when I looked at the traffic study that was attached in the appendix, the switters report is now five years old because it was April, 2016. And I know it takes a while to get that data, but it would be great if we could have updated data since that time. So that was one thing. And then I also agree that there should be a more thorough wildfire section and whether it be a separate section or in the public facilities, whatever, just more information. Also, talk about the Santa Rosa's Emergency Operation Plan from 2017. Has that been updated since 2017 and was it then pre-fire in 2017 or post-fire in 2017? So that was a question I had. And also on the tribal, the cultural tribal and cultural resources, that also is a concern of mine and I agree with Vice Chair Peterson that that information should be fleshed out more and really go into a lot more detail as to what mitigation measures there would be even though it's unmitigatable. And going back to the traffic issue, I think a lot of the information in the traffic study that was attached to the appendix should be in the EIR. So if people don't look at the appendix, they have that information. Some of it about some of the recommendations and also some of the statistics. So I think that was my comments. Yeah. So commissioners have any other comments for staff and the consultants? Commissioner Calia? Just one comment around. So if we do or I guess if we do ask for more information or more current traffic study, let's say, or certain aspects of the EIR or if that does come about, I just think in for future planning commission for EIR meetings, I would like to see something that has a little bit more in depth around the series of events of like when the applicant submitted or the applicant's representative submitted the EIR and how long it took to process because I would just think it would be relatively unfair for us to require an update on a specific report and that the applicant would obviously have to pay for that if it wasn't for their, because obviously EIRs are, or it's a significant document and it's a significant financial investment. And I just think that it wouldn't be fair for an applicant to have to invest a significant more amount of money because it took us as a city so long in the process. Let's just smile, feasible like comment. Thank you. Commissioner Holton? I'd actually like to correct my previous statement. The city of Santa Rosa actually hasn't grown since 2016. So sorry about that, my bad. So can we, Ms. Nicholson, can you come back to us to make sure that you have what you need from us? Thank you. I appreciate all the comments and questions. I wanted to follow up on one point that, or one question that Commissioner Duggan had as it relates to the alternative. So alternative two. So that is, it is identified in the draft EIR as the environmentally superior alternative, but that doesn't mean it becomes the project. The proposed project is for the two-story villa as outlined in the draft EIR, but the EIR does analyze alternative two as well. So the commissioners can state if they have a preference for an alternative, if they would like, and I have heard some comments regarding or to that effect. And, oh, go ahead. Is now the time to state that or when it comes back to us in the final EIR is at the time to state it? I now is fine and also in the future as well. And then also just as it relates to the timing, this project has morphed over time and then there's also been a pretty extensive tribal consultation that has occurred over the years. So that is part of the reason that some of the references and documents might be from several years ago. And I'm not sure if Brian has anything to add as it relates to the timing of a particular technical studies. I know that he spoke to that briefly in his presentation. Well, sure. Commissioner Kaliya, you kind of mentioned, this looks like it was an EIR that was developed in 2017. That's when it began, the scoping process began and then the technical studies began to be prepared. But the studies have been updated. There's a cover letter on most of the technical studies that are dated 2020 that are refreshing this as we got through the process. As Amy mentioned, the project evolved a bit. Some parcels were added to it. So it has been a lengthy process, but it is an EIR that is current. Now, we acknowledge like Chair Weeks mentioned, there's some data in relation to collision histories that we can look to see if there's any new data over the more recent five-year period. And we will do all of that as we develop responses to everybody's EIRs. We've comments, we've written all those down and certainly we'll be providing written responses to everything. But just to kind of reiterate this, this is a current draft EIR that's out for ongoing 45-day review. It's not something that was ready in 2017 and has just been sitting there for a few years. Thank you, Brian. Sure. And Chair Weeks, may I add something? This is Ashley Procker, assistant city attorney. I just wanted to follow up on two of those points that I think I'm glad that you raised them commissioners. And one, just again, as Ms. Nicholson said, environmentally superior would not become the project, but you can certainly make that recommendation if that is your preference. We've heard your comments here now and then certainly at the hearing on the project with the final EIR, you could make those recommendations. And there will also be additional study as to the feasibility of the alternatives. The alternatives included in the EIR are just potentially feasible. And then we look at by the time it goes to council whether or not they are actually feasible. You may remember there was some of this discussion when we had the Caritas project come through and there was significant unavoidable impacts to historic resources. And then some of the alternatives reduced those impacts. And then there were some studies as to the feasibility of those alternatives. So that will continue to evolve. And if the project moves forward with the significant unavoidable impacts, then the city council would be asked to adopt a statement of overriding considerations, which would balance the benefits of the project against the environmental impacts. And that was something that we saw most recently in Caritas as well. So I hope that's somewhat helpful. And then just in terms of the data, just also that the analysis of the impacts compares the project to the baseline conditions, which in CEQA are typically set at the time that the notice of preparation for the EIR was posted. So there's not any specific guidelines in terms of when does information become stale. But I appreciate Brian talking about that some of those studies have been updated. And we'll definitely be mindful of these comments and look at that as we go forward to the final EIR. That's all I wanted to add. So Ms. Crocker, the studies that you're referring to about the alternative, that is, we would see that when we get the final EIR back before us. That would typically be, yeah, the applicant and the city would be taking a look at that feasibility. And it would have to be prepared before the city council as it's ultimately a policy determination. But typically they are part of the package for the planning commission's review as well. So I would anticipate, yes, and if I'm thinking correctly on Caritas, there was a study that came forward to the planning commission at that time. So then the fact that it's environmentally superior, it's just as part of this analysis and disclosure process where CEQA requires you to really do a side-by-side comparison and come up with which one reduces the most impacts. And of course, you see the environmentally superior reduces the cultural resource and tribal cultural resource impacts. But then it may increase some of the other impacts. So it's kind of a balancing there as well. Thank you very much. Questions from commissioners, comments. And Ms. Nichols, or Commissioner Holton. I would just like to state my preference, alternative to most certainly is my preference at this point. I just wanted to throw that out there now and see if anyone else wants to jump on board. Any commissioner Deggan? Well, so Commissioner Holton's not out there in the lake by himself. I'll also say that alternative to would be my preference if it's usable. Yes, I also would agree with that depending upon the other studies that would make other things not unmitigatable if that makes sense. Commissioner Collier, did you have a hand up? Yeah, I just want to say I would like to see the comments or the responses to our comments tonight and any kind of feasibility analysis on alternative to before I stated that preference. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, so Ms. Nicholson, if you have what you need, yeah, yeah, yeah, what you need. Yeah, thank you. Okay, so with that, we'll go ahead and get to the end of our meeting unless Mr. Triple has any parting words for us. No, thank you so much for your time this evening and for all of the work that you've put into reviewing the spring like draft EIR. It really showed, excuse me, it really showed in your questions and comments and we so appreciate that effort. So thank you all have a great weekend and I believe we won't see you until after the fourth. So have a happy fourth of July weekend as well. Thank you. So with that, I will adjourn the meeting of the June 24th, 2021 Planning Commission. Bye, everybody. Thank you.