 Okay. Mike, are we ready? Okay. So I see my fellow commissioners ready to go. So with that, I would like to call to order the October 14th, 2021 meeting of the Centers of Planning Commission. Before I start, I'd like to read the following statement. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders, N-25-20 and N-29-20, which should spend certain requirements of the Brown Act and the order of the Health Officer of the County of Sonoma to shelter in place, 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 or during our public hearings tonight, will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, I'd like to ask for a roll call. Thank you, Chair. We've let the record reflect that all commissioners are present except commissioner Dougan. Thank you. With that, we'll go to item two, which is our study session tonight. It's the Water Demand Offset Policy and Fee Study, and Colin Close, Senior Water Resources Pranner from Santa Rosa Water is presenting. Welcome, Colin. Thank you very much, Chair. We just really appreciate that. I will share my screen so that you can view the presentation. Just want to make sure, is that visible to all with just the title slide showing? Terrific. Thank you so much, Chair, wait for confirming that. So yes, I'm Colin Close. I'm a Senior Water Resources Pranner with the City's Water Department, Santa Rosa Water, and we're very pleased to be before you today to present information to you in a study session about the Water Demand Offset Policy and Fee Study. I also have with me today, Mark Hildebrand. He will be also presenting. He's a consultant that worked on the Fee Study with us. In addition, although she won't be presenting, one of the key team members that we had is Katie Cole, is present to potentially help answer questions as well. Katie is with Woodard & Curran. They're a consulting firm with expertise in the area of demand offsets and we hired Woodard & Curran to help us in the development of the policy. So we have a team here for you to help address questions as well as some folks from legal. So just as a bit of information and background, the Water Demand Offset Policy is coming before you because it is a part of our urban water management planning effort. The state requires that we develop a long-range water supply plan. We do this every five years. We update it. We look out over a 25-year horizon. The law requires at least a 20-year horizon. We also need to put together a shortage plan. Our long-term horizon for water supply looks very good in normal years and even in years where we have a little bit of a low-average rainfall. But when we have severely dry years and consecutive severely dry years as we're experiencing now, we certainly need to implement our water shortage plan. So the state asks that we have that plan prepared and I'll be talking a little bit about that today because the offset policy is an instrument to allow us as a mechanism to implement part of that water shortage plan. The most recent versions of the Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Shortage Plan were adopted by City Council in June of this year. So they've just been recently updated. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan does have to meet certain regulatory requirements. So it is a standalone document. Years ago, it was part of the Urban Water Management Plan. Now it is a companion plan that stands alone next to the Urban Water Management Plan. We have to do a thorough analysis of what shortages mean, how we would address them, and have a very detailed operational plan for implementing during any stage of a water shortage, whether it's very mild or very severe. Because the Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan are considered CEQA exempt under the water code, the policies and the implementation that follow from those documents are also CEQA exempt. So this is not a project, the Water Demand Offset Policy and Fee Study, not a project under the CEQA regulations. Our Water Shortage Plan defines a water shortage as anything from up to 10 percent to over 50 percent shortage in water supply. So we have eight stages. The first shortage plan was adopted in 1992, so about 30 years ago. In that time, we've had a number of water shortages, whether they were related to infrastructure and some water being able to deliver enough water during peak summers while they're doing some infrastructure work, or whether it's due to long-term droughts. We've had probably six or seven different water shortage conditions that we have dealt with. Never more than 25 percent shortage in water supply. So we know that we're very adept at dealing with those, and we also know that over 25 percent would be a very severe water shortage. So over 25 percent shortage, at that point, we would institute water rationing. It's referred to as water allocations in the shortage plan. So I'll sometimes refer to it as water allocations, and sometimes refer to it as water rationing. It's the same concept for that plan. So when we get into severe shortages, we have to ration water. We have to take the amount of water that we have available during a shortage emergency and carefully divide it up amongst our existing customers and make sure there's enough for health and safety. So when that occurs, what our shortage plan calls for is new development to offset its demand. So it doesn't increase demand during a time when we're rationing water. For those who may not be familiar with our water shortage plan, it's got quite a detailed bit of information about how we do outreach and education, the level of customer service that we provide, operational changes we make, and prohibitions and restrictions that we put in place when we're in water shortages. We're going to focus in today on the water allocations, the water rationing stages and talk a little bit more about that and then lead into the demand offset policy from there. So during severe water shortages where we have greater than 25 percent shortage and supply, we turn our focus to public health and safety, and each water service gets an individual site-specific amount of water it's allowed to use each month, and violations are to be enforced, and that we can use penalties and we can even use other elements of enforcement action as needed. There is no water available for new demand during that time. One thing I want to mention is while we've had water shortage plans in places, I said since 1992 we've never had to ration water. However, we do know that the severely dry winter last year and the dry conditions a year before, if we have severely dry conditions again this winter, we could very well end up in a condition where we need to ration water. So while looking back 30 years, things have been fine, we do have to consider this moment and forward as we look at this policy and its implementation. When we're in severe water shortages and we're rationing water, there's a matrix that we use to develop calculations for each limit on how much water each account can get. It's a lot of information to take in, so I apologize, but we just wanted you to be aware that we've put a lot of thought into this, and also to be aware that as you look at stage five, six, seven and eight, the restrictions become more and more difficult. The amount of water is less and we have to restrict further and further the amount that we can allow to our customers. We also want to point out that this focus is primarily on health and safety, so you can see the irrigation has got a very significant reduction. So 40 percent of ET means essentially instead of the full amount of water you would expect a yard to need based on weather conditions, we're cutting it back to about 40 percent. As you're very well aware, we also have a housing shortage crisis. So while California law does allow during severe water shortages for an agency to declare a moratorium on building, we know that we have a housing shortage crisis, and we know that California law is mandating that we develop additional housing that we address affordable low-income and very low-income housing needs, and this is of critical importance to our community. So what we seek to do with our shortage plan and with this water demand offset policy is to balance those two things when they are occurring at the same time. When we have a housing shortage crisis and a water shortage emergency happening at the same moment. The water shortage plan that was adopted in June had, as you saw, restrictions for our customers in stages five, six, seven, and eight, and the amount of water they were allowed got smaller and smaller, and so because those restrictions get more and more difficult on our customers, we had originally proposed that the water offsets increase for development. So what this first table is showing is that what the adopted plan required was during a stage five, if a project needed x gallons of water per month, the offset would have to be x. In a stage six, it would have to be two times that amount, stage seven, three times that amount, and stage eight, four times that amount. When we were working together as an inter-departmental team, interdisciplinary team with planning, economic development, building division, water resources, water supply planning, water use efficiency, and engineering services, we all to a person realize that the fee structure would become very, very difficult, and so we looked at what are we really trying to achieve? We need to achieve essentially a net zero impact in terms of when we're rationing water and have very limited supplies. If new demand achieves a net zero impact, that's sufficient. So we're going to bring to City Council a revision to the water shortage plan that eliminates that increase in the offset requirement and simply says, we think all we need to do is have new development achieve a 100 percent offset, and that should be sufficient. So we'll be bringing that to Council just before we asked them to consider the policy. So we wanted you to be aware of that, and also the members of the public who may have looked at our water shortage plan to understand that we're looking to simply have a net zero impact. So now moving into the policy, it is a mechanism to implement this requirement in the shortage plan that instead of having a building moratorium, new development would offset the new demand. This is a way to ensure that the city balances these conflicting or I should say these two interests that we have in terms of needing to respond to a water emergency and needing to respond to a housing shortage crisis. In terms of the applicability, this would apply to projects that have not yet submitted a building permit application and that are subject to new or increased connection fees. Connection fees are a way of helping to ensure that our infrastructure is maintained. So this is not a fee that they pay for the amount of water they use per se, it's not a water supply fee. The connection fee is connected to our infrastructure. So if they're subject to new or increased connection fees and they are applying for a building permit. So one example might be, if someone were remodeling their home, they wouldn't be paying new or increased connection fees. So this wouldn't apply. But if a warehouse were remodeling from a dry building that stored boxes to something that had say a robust large bar and restaurant, water use would be significantly higher. They would be paying new or increased connection fees. Or if it's a brand new project that's never had a water meter, that would require new connection fees. The water demand offset C is designed to be collected at the time when the impact would occur, which would be when occupancy is going to occur, any type of occupancy, temporary or permanent. But it would only be due if and only if we're in a water shortage emergency at that time that's been declared by council, and that requires that our customers ration water. We're in a current water shortage emergency that is stage three. We are not requiring water rationing. Today, if this policy had been in place already, no project coming online, we have to pay water demand offset fees. So this is only in place if we're in a condition where the severe shortage is such that we're having to ration water with our existing customers. We would collect fees, track them separately. We wanna make sure we comply with all of the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. That's government code 66000 and forward. And we would use those fees to implement city projects to offset demand with our existing customer base. There are some other projects that we can consider as well, but initially that would be the focus. And implementation efforts would be tracked separately. So essentially the process would be that if there's a builder or developer wants to get a building permit, he or she would need to submit a water demand offset application with that building permit application. We'd need to get the agreement in place. We would have an appeal process. So if the applicant didn't agree with the calculations, they could appeal that to BPU and then to city council, assuming all as well and an agreement's put in place, they would be able to move forward, get their building permit and go ahead and build their project. No fees will be due until the end of the project when they wanna go for any kind of occupancy or final inspection. And only if we're in a water shortage emergency that's requiring us to ration water. So at this point, what I'd like to do is I would like to have Mark Hildebrand from Hildebrand Consulting talk about the water demand offset fee study that he conducted on behalf of the city. He worked closely with staff, but he's really our subject matter expert on this. So if I could, I'd like to ask Mark to go ahead and walk us through the next few slides. Great, thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes, sounds good. Great. Thanks for having me this afternoon. As Colin pointed out, I will be explaining how we determined the fees that were calculated. And the way we did this is that we looked at the known cost of achieving water savings through programs that have existed in the past. So we looked at the total programmatic costs of bathroom conversions, which would be replacing toilets with low flow toilets, installing aerators and shower heads. We also looked at a rebate program for clothes washers and also the rebate program for turf removal. And through this, we were able to look at the total annual costs for each of these programs and understand how much it costs holistically for say one rebate. So we didn't just look at the cost of the rebate itself, but also the cost for staff time and the time to establish the program and to manage it. Then we did what we did is we looked at different types of accounts that the city serve. So single family homes, multifamily home residences, and we looked at how much water they typically use on the annual basis to understand how much water needs to be offset for these accounts on average. And based on our understanding of how much the water conservation programs costs and how much water they were able to offset. And then also using the amount of water that the different types of accounts use, we were able to calculate the amount of funding that would be required to enhance the conservation programs in order to achieve the water savings necessary. Next slide. So you can see here in the first column, it shows different types of development. So single family homes, and we broke the single family homes into three different sizes, since obviously larger lot homes would use significantly more water than smaller lot homes. And we calculated for each one of the different types of programs, so the bathroom conversions, turf rebate, et cetera, how much would need to be contributed to those programs in order to offset the amount of water expected from those different types of development. So we looked at single family duplexes, condos, apartments, et cetera. Down at the bottom, you can see that the commercial industrial institutional irrigation, those numbers are shown a little bit differently. It's because each one of those accounts are so unique that actually what happens is that staff looks at each individual application and makes an estimation of how much water, how many thousands of gallons per month, those types, those new installations will use and based on that charge on a per thousand gallon basis. So you can see that we looked at the three different types of programs and on the right column, we took the weighted average of what it would cost through those different programs to calculate the fee. Next slide. And so this table is essentially the same as the previous one, but with fewer numbers. And we are showing the proposed water demand offset fee on the right column for different types of development. And I believe that's my final slide. Excellent, thank you so much. So I wanted to point out that there is a recently adopted law, the California legislature passed AB 602 and it's an impact fee nexus requirement. It was approved September 28th and it's effective beginning January 1st. So when this law is effective, local agencies have to meet certain standards when they're doing impact fee studies. And there are certain procedures they'll need to follow and standards they'll need to meet. So we wanted to let the commission know that while the water demand offset fee is not directly subject to AB 602, it is in fact going to meet all of the requirements of AB 602. One of the pieces that has been of interest is whether or not it would be appropriate to use square footage to determine the water usage. And what we have found is the best nexus is to look at the actual water usage and not base it on square footage. So we make that argument in the study. There's plenty of information there about how we determined what the demand would be. The other thing I wanted to mention is there have been some questions about whether or not new construction is more efficient. And so what we have done is a age of construction study in the past, we did that for our urban water management plan effort. And what we found was that because our customers have participated so fully in our water use efficiency programs over the last 30 years, that by between 1990 and 2010, the water use of our customers was reduced about 42% per capita. And the total water use went down about 12% in volume. So what we find is that new construction while it is built to be more efficient, older construction has come up to speed very much over the last 20 to 30 years in terms of being as efficient as the newer construction. So we see them when we charted out, we see them as being very close to each other. And in fact, some of the construction of the older year categories uses less water. So we wanted to make sure that folks were aware of that as well. We have reached out to the development community. We did a presentation today to a committee of the North Coast Builders Exchange, their governmental affairs committee. And we sent letters to about 59 developers and contractors and interested parties to let them know. We also have done some other outreach to folks. And so we're trying to make sure that folks who would be interested in this are aware of it and understand all of the opportunities they have to ask questions, to get more information, to participate in public meetings, to submit public comments. And so we just wanna make sure that the public knows we're very interested in what it is they have to tell us about their thoughts about this policy and the approach that we're taking. Next steps, we will have a study session at City Council on October 26th. And then on November 4th, we'll go to the Board of Public Utilities. We did a study session with them previously. So we'll be returning to the Board of Public Utilities and we're going to be asking them to consider making a recommendation to council that council adopt the policy and fees. On November 30th, City Council will have a public hearing and they'll consider whether or not to adopt the policy and the fee structure. That meeting date also, just prior to that public hearing, we will hold another public hearing, asking City Council to amend the shortage plan such that we remove that increasing rate of offset requirement and flatten it out to simply 100%. So we wanna make sure that's taken care of before the policy is adopted. So we have that going before council as well. The recommendation is that we ask the commission to please provide comment. So at this point, what I'd like to do is turn this back over to the chair. So chair Weeks, I'm gonna stop sharing and hand it over to you and I can bring the slideshow back up as needed. Thank you, Mr. Close. You always give such excellent presentation. Thank you so much. That's kind. I think what I'll do is first go and see if there are any public comments and then bring it back to the commission. If that's all right with everybody. Okay, so if there, go ahead and open the public comment portion of this item. And if you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're a dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes and there will be a countdown timer on the screen for you and the viewers, for the speaker and the viewers. So let's see if there are any, right now. I don't see any hands raised. I don't see any hands raised. So go ahead and I'll go ahead and close this public, that public comment portion and bring it back to the commission. So any questions? Commissioner Krepke. Yeah, so this is just questions, correct? Yeah, so let's go ahead and do both at the same time. So a couple of things I had a question on. Well, the first, I like the reduction from stages five to eight to 100% flat. I think that's appropriate. The two questions I had were first, you were talking about the calculation of water usage for new construction. Is that taken into account new construction that is under the new codes that took effect very recently, including all electric, including water, on demand water heaters, as well as drought tolerant landscaping, which in turn uses less water. So if I take your comment correctly, you were saying that order construction and the newer construction, even with these restrictions, the water usage is the same. There we go. Thanks so much. Yes, so what we have found is that with older construction, because so many of them have participated in our programs, they have come up to being as efficient as a group as the newer construction. Now, the study that was done for our water shortage plan looked at 2010 and newer. It didn't look at just the last couple of years, but I will say that the vast majority of our new construction over the years occurred by 2010. So that we really, it may have been three or 4% increase in the number of water connections since that time. So it's a relatively small number of new construction since that time. But we did look at pre-1994 and then 94 to 2009 and then 2010 forward. Okay, so I would just have, my biggest concern is that with the restrictions that are already in place, we're not restrictions, but the usage productions that are in place due to drought-tolerant landscaping and the all electric, including the on-demand water heaters. I mean, it sounds to me like there's not enough evidence to suggest that those newer bills, there's not enough evidence to compare them to what has happened in the past, as to whether or not they would be similar or not. And that concerns me with saying, yeah, we're gonna use this new, we're gonna put in place this new fee because we don't have the evidence of the last year to year and a half to do that. Well, we do have, in terms of the landscape restrictions, the most current restrictions were adopted in 2015 by City of Santa Rosa. Prior to that, we did have landscape restrictions and we were very early adopters on green plumbing codes. So Cal Green, we actually adopted that before it became mandatory with the state. So we actually have a long history of requiring a high level of water use efficiency in our construction sites. So, and again, we've also helped our community. We've replaced more than 56,000 toilets, three and a half million square feet of turf have been removed. So we have these very robust programs over the last 30 years that helped us reduce the per capita demand by 42% by 2010. And that just has made a tremendous difference in the water demand of those older buildings. Right, and I know I'm trying to question the efforts from the city, but I'm just saying, I mean, if you're saying 2015, the number of houses built from 2015 to now substantially smaller in terms of having a basis to get information than that from 2015 and earlier, 94 and earlier. But, so that's, I'll just raise that as a concern for... Sure, and I'll just mention that the water use history we used was the most immediate previous four years. So we looked at the fiscal years. So the fiscal year that ended this June 30th was the fourth fiscal year and we went back three additional fiscal years from there. So we took the very most recent water use history for the study that is what we used for this actual study for the fees. The study on usage by age of construction was done again for the water, excuse me, for the urban water management plan. And that also looked at the most recent and that looked at a 10 year history of water use by customer class. So we have two different looks at this and they came up with the same conclusion. And my other question is, back to the number two on applicability. So it says that there's no newer increased hookups that this wouldn't apply. That varies and my concern, and I guess my question would be, would this, I would like to see this not be applied to current and any future resiliency zones. Sorry, I'm not quite sure. I might not be familiar with that term. Fire rebuilds. Oh, fire rebuilds. Yes. Well, fire. Fire, yes, yes. And actually, yes, because they would have had a meter before they would have paid connection fees before this wouldn't apply. Right, but some in order to help either economically or with housing, put in ADUs and stuff like that, which then there would be a new hookup. I'd like to see resiliency zones excluded from specifically because it's not development and it's not remodeling, it's rebuilding. And for ADUs, ADUs that are 750 square feet are smaller, don't pay a connection fee. So they, again, that's another, that's already built into the policy. So. Well, I would just like to, for me at least just blanking across the board. Gotcha. Nowhere in a fire rebuild. Thank you. I'm done, that's all I got here. Thank you. Commissioner Holton, do you have any questions or comments? Yeah, first I'd like to thank Mr. Close for the work that you do. We really do appreciate it as a community. I'd also like to say that it's really great that you guys are including the offset costs for the bathroom conversions for the turf rebuilds, the washer rebates. At what point do we start to have the discussion about possibly offering some sort of incentives for water catchment systems? Especially, I mean, this particularly pertains to single family residential primarily or even possibly could pertain to some duplexes and condos. So I was just curious about that because that seems to me like a great solution for a lot of concerns from some friends of mine who have their own wells that they run off of and they've looked for alternative solutions. And that has been one that's really, really helped them. And they have even said themselves if I could get some sort of rebate or some sort of incentive to put more on my property, I would most certainly love to do that. And I would love to kind of almost do as if a lot of the energy companies do where they sell back solar. They would love an opportunity to possibly even sell back water. Well, terrific. Just so you know, for City of Santa Rosa, our water customers do have access to a rebate for water catchment, we call it rainwater harvesting. So that's an existence already and that can be from a very small system that's just 100 gallons to really large systems. So we do have a rebate process already there for that. And if it were large enough that it required permitting, we work very closely with planning economic development on permitting issues. So we definitely have that in place. For folks who may not be City of Santa Rosa customers who are on wells, I would encourage folks to learn a little bit more about their groundwater sustainability agency and to express that as an interest. The groundwater sustainability agencies are very interested in water conservation and in really efficient use of groundwater and in sort of these cutting edge approaches to maintaining a sustainable approach to our groundwater resources. So we do have one of our city council members sits on the board for that. And we have staff members who participate in staff level meetings as well in the advisory committee. So, and we've brought forward to them that we agree. We think water conservation purpose would be terrific for the groundwater sustainability agency and they're interested in that as well. So that's a really excellent point. Thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson, I think you had your hand raised. Yes. And so this is kind of, I guess, a broader question but it's maybe less applicable to the city of Santa Rosa. But what proportion of water you say in the county is sort of urban or household versus other ag industry, et cetera? I'm actually not sure that we know exactly. I think the groundwater sustainability agency is working right now on developing a kind of a water budget for how much water is used throughout the basin. I've not seen yet a comparison that then compares that to all of the urban folks. So unfortunately I don't have that answer. I think it's a really good question but I don't have that answer available. I'm sorry. Sure, that's fine. I guess I'll play my hand. My understanding is that the water usage of the urban users, households in particular is a relatively small proportion. So just for our audience out there and assuming I write and Project Cleaner Close doesn't correct me too harshly, I think it's great. I think this is a fantastic thing to do. I think it's absolutely necessary in light of everything that we've seen certainly in the past couple of years but there's been droughts before going back to the 80s and 90s but I don't want the public to get too concerned. I think about new construction being a big driver of water usage in the county. And so I think this is another element in that that will help support the general public getting on board with building the housing we need in light of the resource constraints we have. So I think it's a good plan and I appreciate the work that's gone into it. Thank you very much Vice Chair Peterson. Commissioner Carter, do you have any questions or comments? Sure, I have a couple. First of all, thank you for the work. It was excellent as well as your presentation. I'm wondering if there's been any consideration given to the ability for those applying for new hookups to maybe defer the fees through exceptional conservation measures or any other programs and any potential for offsetting the fees through design and implementation of the current projects? Yeah, absolutely. So what we'll be basing their water demand off of is essentially if it's a pretty standard build we have the table already established that helps us understand. But if they're able to make the argument that their water demand is significantly less, maybe they're already installing 0.8 gallon per flush toilets or something like that. They can certainly appeal our decision to what the assessment we've come up with and they can provide evidence to make that argument that actually they're gonna have a smaller demand and we are very open to that possibility. That would be something that would have to have been included in their building plans. And so we would be sort of aware of that right up front and so we would be able to resolve that very early on in the project before they've broken ground at that point where they're getting their building application in place. So yeah, definitely we would encourage it. Great. And have we looked at how these fees might impact housing costs or is there any effort to do that? I don't know how housing cost projections are done but we do have the fee schedule. So the fee schedules is there. And so I think it's if someone were to anticipate what the cost of a house was and I don't know how much fees drive that cost. I don't know if it's a one to one relationship for every dollar of impact fees, the cost of the house is a dollar more. So it's a little bit outside of my area of expertise I'm afraid but we do have the table published so that folks are aware of what the impact would be on the development side. How that shows up in the sales side. I'm sorry, I don't know. Thank you. I also just wanna mention that the only time this would go into effect of course is if we were in a water shortage where we were so severe that we were rationing water. And again, past is not a guarantee but no time in the past 30 years have we had to ration water. So again, if we do have a very dry winter we could be in water rationing this coming year but if we get sufficient rainfall we will not be. So just again a reminder that this is really about those really, really severe conditions that we've not yet experienced in Santa Rosa but we could of course in the future. So again, if this were in place for the last 30 years we would have collected exactly zero water demand offset fees to date because we just have never had to ration water. We're very lucky we have Lake Sonoma so I don't know how much folks know about Lake Sonoma but it does. It has resolved a huge number of our issues around water supply and we were able to co-fund that with other agencies in Sonoma water. And so it's really a tremendous advantage that we have it holds three years of water supply and has capacity still for flood control as well. So this is one of the reasons why we've been able to weather the last 35 almost 40 years since it was built as well as we have. So thank you. Commissioner Sisco, any questions or comments from Mr. Close? You're muted. There you go. I just pushed the wrong button. I was gonna say you gotta get used to that again, huh? I appreciate Vice Chair Peterson's comments about the difference between the urban usage and the ag because so often even now, even years past, the public comes out and really questions how can you be approving new development when we're having a drought or we have this water crisis. So I appreciate him making those statements. And I definitely appreciate the work that's gone into this. I would be very curious to see and I'm sure we'll hear more as opposed to public hearings, the development community's reaction to this. And just kind of in particular, if things were that drastic, I'm just wondering to what degree developers might just self-select to just stop until, rather than pay the fees and move forward to complete the development, they may be just gonna let us just stop until this end. So it's kind of a philosophical question like what's the reality going to be? Well, Commissioner Sisco, if you like, I do have some thoughts about that. We've talked quite a bit about that in our interdisciplinary team with planning and economic development and building division and different sections of water because we're very cognizant of the housing shortage and we're very cognizant of the potential impact of additional impact fees. And so we've taken this very seriously and had very long discussions, again with Woodard and Curran helping us to facilitate those discussions. And so it's something that we take very much to heart. And one of the reasons why that fee is at the very end of the project is because if we don't have a water shortage emergency when someone applies for a building permit, there's simply no need for them to pay fees. And if we're in a water emergency when they apply for a building permit but they're not connecting to our system yet, there's no need for them to pay fees. So we've tried to be very sensitive to some of the needs that the development community has. In addition, we know that low-income housing development sometimes have very strict deadlines they have to meet around the milestones they must achieve and they may need time to get funding in place to deal with a potential water demand offset fee. And so this gives them that time between building application, building permit application and the occupancy. Typically it can be a couple of years, five years or longer even. It gives them time to figure that out. And then also if for some reason somebody got right to the point of building permit occupancy and let's say it is October and we're in an emergency, they may choose to delay just to see if nature provides that winter sufficient rainfall and they're not, they don't need to pay that fee. Time is money in development. So, and again, sometimes with low-income housing there are very strict guidelines and milestones that have to be met. So there is some calculus that folks would have to do but we have no philosophical or ethical issues if for some reason a builder wanted to delay connecting in order to avoid having to pay this fee because if they're not having an impact when we're in an emergency that requires rationing, that's fine. We have adequate water supply during other times for development. We've looked out over the next 25 years and with population growth and development with our general plan, everything we can anticipate we have adequate water supply during normal years and even years that are a little less than normal. So we feel really fine that if we're not in a severe emergency there's no fees needed. So they have that option to delay it. Again, that's a difficult decision to make for a developer but that is an option. So I really appreciate the point that you're making. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I have just a couple of questions. Are other communities revising their water shortage plan? You know, I don't know if folks are locally. I haven't asked. It's a great question. I know that the state changed the law recently in 2018. Previously, it was just part of the urban water management plan but they found over the years that a number of agencies needed to make small revisions to their water shortage plans and it was very cumbersome when it was part of the urban water management plan. So they mandated by law that they be separate documents. So simple things like this where you need to be able to respond to the needs of your community and make a slight correction or improvement to your plan. It's very easy to do and they did that on purpose. I think there probably have been plenty of folks over the years who've needed to amend their plan between the five-year cycle. But also I think that, you know, for us, we've just never been this close to having this kind of water shortage and so it really brought us where rubber meets the road, how are we going to implement this? We need to be ready and that's when it came to light for us about what the implications were. So typically we would just make revisions on the five-year mark but because this winter is so telling, we want to make sure to take care of it and not wait for five years. Thank you. You talked about if there were fees collected that they could be used for city projects and programs and what type of projects and programs? Have you thought about that? Yes, very much so. Three of them were in our study, our fee study that we had Mr. Hildebrand work on and so we worked with him to see how we could streamline programs we've done in the past and programs that we have currently. So three programs that are on the bench, ready to come up to bat if we need to implement next year. One is a direct install toilet program where no rebate is necessary. It's fully paid for and we would have qualified plumbers come out and change out toilets to .8 gallon per flush. We did this in 2015 and 16 with a grant that we received from the Bureau of Reclamation, incredibly popular program. About 80% of the toilets went to low-income multifamily housing because it's one of the only ways that they often can do these sorts of programs when there's no upfront capital cost. And so we think that we reached about 10 to 11% of our multifamily units that way by being able to do this. So it was tremendously successful. We didn't design it just for multifamily or for low income, but the way it worked out, they really were able to finally participate and put to bed some very old toilets. So that was really wonderful. So that direct install program, it doesn't cost the participants anything and all of the details are taken care of for them. They just need to be eligible. They need to be a water department customer, water and or sewer. So, and in this case, it would have to be water and sewer. So we've done that program. We know it's very successful. We had a waiting list of a couple of hundred people that didn't end up getting toilets. So we know that that would be very popular. So if we started that, we expect we would get a lot of participation. And that also comes with changing out shower heads and faucet aerators. The very end of the faucet that screws on and off. So it's a full package and installed by a professional who's contracted and licensed and insured. Another program is to look at ornamental turf on commercial, industrial, institutional and sites that have irrigation meters like multifamilies that have these large, grassy areas that never get used. No one even walks across them, picnics on them, plays ball on them. They just aren't used. And so we would look at enhancing our current rebates substantially because sometimes the cost benefits a little tricky for those large commercial sites. But we know because they're managed by professional landscapers, they save about three times as much water per square foot as our single family sites do when they change out from turf to low water use. So we know that the landscapers would love an opportunity to up sail this kind of a program to their customers, but it really has to make sense to the customer. There has to be that cost benefit. So by increasing that rebate per square foot, we think it would be, they'd be able to make that case to their customers. Plus there'd be the water savings moving forward. In addition, the other program that we have up ready to go is our close washer rebate for residential customers. And that's ready to go. We do have a rebate in place already. It's small. We don't think it drives anybody to the market to change their clothes washer quicker than they would have anyway. And we don't know that it really drives them to make a decision about which clothes washer. So we think if we offer a substantially higher rebate, then we'll get more folks participating quicker and getting the most high efficiency models. So those are three programs that we know how to do that we've done in the past that we can implement very quickly. There are some other kinds of programs. We're not quite ready to air those out yet. We need to look at them and talk to some other agencies, but there's some really innovative programs that are being done in other areas that we'd like to look at and see if they come in the same sort of cost-benefit ratio. And if they do, then we might try other programs as well, depending on saturation rates for our participation, depending on whether when we launch something we get as much participation as we need and that sort of thing. So, but three programs are ready to go today. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions of Mr. Close before we let him go? Okay, seeing none. Thank you once again. Thank you. Excellent presentation. And that closes our study session. So with that, we'll move on to item three which is the approval of minutes. We have minutes for this September 23rd meeting. Are there any changes or comments? Seeing none, those would stand approved. And then we'll move on to item number four, public comments. The public comment period is now open for any item that is not included in this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make your comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes and the countdown timer will appear on the screen. And please make sure to unmute yourself when you're asked to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown time. So are there any public? Thank you, Chair Weeks. We do have one hand raised. Okay, if you could, before you start, if you could please state your name for the record. Maureen Gavosto. Okay, go ahead. Hi, everyone. I just wanted to make a quick comment on the Fox Meadow Project that's going in. It borders my property here over on Northwest Santa Rosa. And we just wanted to stay as a group comment, really, from all the neighbors that we're, we'll be, it's a conservation easement and we hope that it stays a conservation easement. But I don't know if there's time limits on conservation easements. So that's one question I have. I also have a question on the property itself. There's openings. We were wondering if we were going to close off some of the small openings there are. There's just a few spaces that needed to be closed out because we have homeless people that have been finding it lately. And there's some encampments that, there's one that needs to be cleaned up now. So wondering if they were going to close off open spaces. My only other issue with the project is I wondered what's going on because they're building a road through it, which is the first time one's ever been there. What's going on the west side of the property? And will people be able to, is there going to be a carrel? Is it houses? I can't really tell from these project plans. People are concerned about cars being able to drive out into the field. If there'll be some kind of barrier or if it'll just be open for people to walk through. But we have had concerns with that due to the homeless. So I think that's all my comment for today. I haven't spoken publicly in a meeting ever. Good water presentation, by the way. We are all, so thank you everyone for hearing my concerns on the property next door. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Any other, I don't see any other hands raised. Thank you, Chair Weeks. No, no one else is raising their hand at this time. Thank you. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment. So then we'll move on to item 5.1, which is the statement of purpose of the planning commission. 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 map, subdivision maps and undertaking any special studies as needed. So with that, I'll move on to 5.2, subdivision and waterway advisory committee reports. Are there any reports? Okay. Seeing none. And then we'll move on to commissioner reports. 5.3. Does anybody have anything that they would like to report out on? Okay. I do want to mention that yesterday, after a few months hiatus, we had a board chair lunch with Mayor Rogers. He talked, there were a handful of chairs there. We got an update from the housing authority on some projects that they funded. And Mayor gave us an update on the city manager recruitment. They hoped to have somebody in place by January 1st. They're doing interviews, I believe, this month, at the end of this month. Okay. So then we will go on to department reports. Mr. Triple. Great. Thank you, chair weeks. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for your time today. We do have several topics I want to address the urgency ordinance that was passed this last Tuesday night. Briefly update you on where we are with some of the state legislation that has been passed related to housing. And then we will finally review the meetings in the upcoming weeks for the rest of October and November. So as I'm sure you're all aware, the city council did approve the short-term vacation rental urgency ordinance this past Tuesday at the October 12th council meeting. The ordinance does take effect immediately. And it provides a regulatory framework for short-term rental operations within the city's limits. The goal is to preserve the public peace, welfare, health and safety, as well as to address community compatibility. The approved urgency ordinance requires short-term rental owners and or operators to obtain a short-term rental permit through the city of Santa Rosa for each property that is operated as a short-term rental. As a result of the permit issuance, the city will notify residents residing within 600 feet of a property that is issued a short-term rental permit. The urgency ordinance defines two types of short-term operators in the city. We have an operator in good standing and then new operators. Those operators in good standing are those who have registered each short-term rental for the transit occupancy tax and business improvement area assessments that are required by October 27th of this year. And then the operators in good standing will have until December 3rd to submit an application for a short-term rental permit. And that would allow them to retain their operator in good standing status. Even during that time, they do have to follow all of the ordinances, standards and requirements to continue operating while awaiting for city approval of the permit application. And then the new operators, those who have not been registered by October 27th, but who might seek to establish a new short-term rental site, will be allowed to apply for short-term rental permits beginning on December 4th. But in the meantime, they would be able to register for TOT and BIA assessments and prepare for the application process. So it is a new permit that the city planning division will be reviewing. We do recognize incredible involvement on behalf of planning division, finance, code enforcement, and fire, police, and a variety of other departments throughout the city. We are going to open the application portal next week. That will be an online portal as well as we will accept applications in person in room 3 at City Hall. The communications team has created a sign-up email sign-up for those who would wish to be informed when the application portal opens. And then finally, we're working aggressively to ensure that we have a user-friendly information service provided via an online site, srcity.org, forward slash str. Their applicants, stakeholders, residents can find out more information about the application portal. They can also find out more information about the application process and about the ordinance. And then when the ordinance is published after it's been signed, it will also be accessible via that website. So I think we're really working hard to create a robust and supported application process for this new short-term rental permit. And then second, just some brief notes on housing legislation updates. I think we're very involved in new housing development approvals, and then certainly some state legislation has reduced discretionary approval requirements for housing. So perhaps for those of you who have been on the board for some time, you've seen less activity for the planning commission in terms of housing review. So Senate Bill 8 has been approved and that extends the provisions of the existing Housing Crisis Act, which was Senate Bill 330, that planning continues to implement from its original sunset date in 2025 through 2030. The bill provisions include specified timeframes for housing approvals, limits the city from amending the general plan and zoning if it results in the reduction of potential housing units. That's a no net loss policy and allows for housing projects to best development standards and fees at the time a preliminary application is filed. The advanced planning team, senior planner Amy Nicholson tells me that we've not yet received one of these applications to her knowledge. Then Senate Bill 9, which was recently approved, mandates the ministerial approval of a lot split that creates no more than two parcels. These would be the tentative parcel maps that have been reviewed by subdivision committee previously. In addition to the ministerial approval of two residential units per lot on each lock with single family zoning. There's numerous qualifying factors for eligible project sites that include but are not limited to that they may not be located within wetlands, not located in very high fire hazard zones in flood plains or in historic preservation districts. And then finally Senate Bill 10 provides that the city may adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 dwellings units on any parcel at a high specified in the ordinance if the parcel is located within a transit rich area or an urban infill site. An adoption of such an ordinance would not be subject to California environmental quality act. With regard to especially Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10, which are new for us, planning is working with the city attorney's office, housing department and other divisions. Imped to ensure that the city complies with the new legislation. And compliance for some bills would include amendments to the city code and development of new resources. So of course those amendments to the zoning code would come before the planning commission in the process to recommend to a city council action. We do anticipate providing the necessary resources for Senate Bill 9. Prior to January 1st of 2022, the text amendments will take longer to process. Although the city is required to do what is mandated by the bills, even if the code has not been updated. And then we'll continue to provide additional details as these bills are available. We do want to note that applicants of existing pipeline projects to request streamlining that would be allowed by Senate Bill 9. Would be required to withdraw an existing application and resubmit with the new application forms after January 1st when Senate Bill 9 takes effect. And then in these cases, planners would need to review the project for eligibility for streamlining. So I hope that kind of gives you a summary of where we're at with a lot of this legislation that's been recently adopted and that will be responsive to. And then finally, sure, sure. On the short-term rental, understanding that as a comprehensive ordinance is being worked on, that that would come to the commission before it went to council. Correct, yes. Did you mention that and I zoned on it? No, no, you didn't, but that's a great point. The urgency ordinance by the very nature of the fact that that process is similar to the comprehensive ordinance. It does go straight to city council. However, the comprehensive ordinance would come before you. That process is similar to the comprehensive cannabis ordinance. I think was the last major ordinance that planning commission would review. Great question. Oh, no, that's fine. Did we have any other questions about short-term rental? That's fine. Great. So then upcoming meetings. The regular scheduled planning commission meeting on October 28th will be canceled. And then in November, because the regular meeting dates in November fall on federal holidays, we are scheduling a special planning commission meeting on November 18th. And I believe that we will have a meeting on November 16th. And then we will have a meeting on November 16th. And then we will have a meeting on November 16th. And then just a reminder that planning commission is invited to participate in a general plan housing element joint session with city council on November 16th. And I think Mike will be following up with more information, more details on that opportunity as well. So with that, I'm going to move on to the public comment that we're supposed to be general. We have confirmed with project planner, that those are relevant to meeting item 9.2. And so she did want to let you all know that she will be addressing those questions from the public as part of her presentation. Thank you. And then I believe in December we have just one meeting. Is that correct? I don't know what that is. I don't know what that is. December 9th. Okay. So just. Right. Plan ahead. Sure. Okay. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. So with that, any statements of abstentions? No. Okay. Okay. So with that, we don't have any consent items today. And the first scheduled item 9.1. Public hearing. C.R. Santa Rosa LLC. It's a Sequa exempt project. Conditional use permit 1937 Santa Rosa Avenue. C.U.P. 21-013. It is an exparte item. So we'll go alphabetically. Commissioner Carter. Do you have anything to disclose? I did visit the site. And I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I visited the site and I had a short zoom of conference with the applicant. I don't have any new information. You disclose. Commissioner Holton, thank you. I also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Krepke. I had a short zoom conference. I had a short zoom conference with the applicant and their representative. And I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson. I also visited the site and had a short zoom conversation with the applicant and their representative. And I have no additional information to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, if you want to take us through this discussion, I would like to thank you. Thank you. And good afternoon, commissioners. So let me share my screen and I will turn my camera off. So as you mentioned, this is a major conditional use permit for C.R. Santa Rosa LLC. Doing business as cookies retail located at 1937 Santa Rosa Avenue. The applicant is requesting a commercial cannabis retail dispensary with delivery used within the existing commercial building. Retail and delivery hours will be from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily. The project site is within the southeastern quadrant of the city along Santa Rosa Avenue and it is located across from the Costco shopping center here being shown with the red star. And the zone is general commercial consistent with the general plan land use designation which is retail and business services. The nearby land uses are mixed of commercial office restaurants and some residential uses. Adjacent to the southern project boundary, there is the mobile home park and there is another mobile home park of the project site which closes residential use or neighborhood to the site. The existing businesses between the shopping center include general retail stores like a pet shop and sporting goods store. A brief summary of the project history. February of this year, the application for a conditional use permit was submitted which was deemed incomplete in March and a neighborhood meeting was held on May 5th and had no attendees and then later in May the project was deemed complete. In this map, I'm trying to show the location of the dispensaries near the project site, the zone code establishes a 600 foot buffer for dispensary facilities and as you can see here there are several cannabis retail facilities in this area but none of them are within 600 feet of another facility including the project site labeled with the blue star here. Only one of the dispensaries is currently operating and is located at 900 Santa Rosa Avenue. The one on Colgan Avenue is expired and the rest have received only planning approvals but have not commenced operation and here is the site plan that shows the existing building and the parking lot. The proposal complies with the minimum parking requirements established by the zoning code and the proposed project would occupy the existing two-story building but the second-story area will remain unused and here is the floor plan of the public main entrance would be located on the north side of the building in a visible location that provides clear view from the public right of way as required by our code and the proposed facility would include a check-in area, a retail area and a secure storage room. Here are the existing elevations and the applicant is not proposing any exterior alterations. To date, until this day we have received three responses and all responses oppose the proposed project. Comments include the name is the seating and the color is not appropriate for this area and location. The neighborhood needs to know what is being sold and the location is next to a mobile home park that might have children living there. Another response is that the city does not regulate painting of a building unless the repainting is for the purpose of creating signage for the building. Also, the zoning code does not regulate the message content of signs and the cannabis ordinance does not regulate setbacks to residential uses including mobile home parks. The only setback regulated by the cannabis ordinance are the distance from schools and distance from another cannabis dispensary. Additionally, staff has received late correspondence from the applicant team indicating that the applicant is willing to change the building color and will discuss it further during the presentation. Also staff has reviewed the sign analysis provided by the applicant team and concludes that the proposed signage is consistent with the cannabis ordinance requirements. The project site is not located between 10,000 feet of a daycare, school playground or youth center and the proposed signage and building colors would not advertise cannabis products and the proposed dispensary would be also staff at least one security guard or reception person that prohibited any person younger than 21 years old or 21 years of age from entering this facility. And SIGWA the proposed project qualifies for a class 1 and class 3 categorical exemptions person to California Environmental Quality Act in that the project is located between an existing structure with the negligible expansion of the existing use with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission by resolution approve a conditional use permit for a cannabis dispensary with delivery for the property located at 1937 Santa Rosa Avenue and for last thing staff would like to change one of the conditions the condition number 12 requires the parking for a bicycle to comply with the zoning code however staff would like to add two parking to add two parking bicycle parking on site rather than one parking so staff would recommend to would like to change that condition and that was my presentation I am available to answer any questions or we can proceed to the applicant's presentation if there are no questions for staff at this time. Thank you. Keith how you would like to change that so we want to change the language to two parking spaces shall be provided on site our zoning code currently says if the building is 5000 you only need one parking but we want to change the language to provide two parking on site two bicycle parking on site. Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Shekali before we hear from the applicant okay so with that if the applicant could identify themselves hello okay and please state your name for the record and then proceed. Great my name is Steve Jones I'm a project manager with cookies retail the applicant for the proposed cannabis store at 1937 Santa Rosa Avenue I believe monette has our presentation yes I'm going to share it right now. Thank you. Thank you. First I'd like to thank my name for very for the very thorough presentation and all the hard work getting this ready for today's planning commission. Your staff has covered the main points of our application but I did want to briefly introduce ourselves and to describe our operation in a bit more detail. Cookies started almost 20 years ago in San Francisco and while we began from humble beginnings the business has steadily grown into one of the most recognizable national brands and cannabis. Next slide please. Today cookies operates 14 stores throughout California with 10 more stores in other states across the country. We adhere to rigorous corporate standards and the same time we make our retail experience locally influenced carrying local goods and hiring from the community. We definitely value being a good member of every community we join. Next slide please. We have been very interested in joining the Santa Rosa community for some time now. Santa Rosa has been one of the leaders in supporting our industry and how it should be responsibly provided to the community. Next slide please. Here you can see our proposed layout once again. The one that has already covered this in a presentation we would be glad to answer any questions you may have about the layout or design. Next slide please. As part of our application we have also included a comprehensive security plan. In all of our stores we operate using the highest standards for safety and safety. We have also included a comprehensive security plan for the Santa Rosa community. Our rigorous approach to security ensures that only adults are able to enter the store and that the site is closely monitored at all times. Next slide please. Over the past year we have enjoyed going through the outreach and planning process with the city and look forward to becoming active in the future. We have also included a comprehensive security plan for the Santa Rosa community. Next slide please. We are committed to operating professional environments and getting to know our customers on a one-to-one basis. Before I wrap up though I would like to know that we are very proud to have grown our company and our brand into an industry leader within the cannabis culture. We have also included a comprehensive security plan for the Santa Rosa community. We have also included a number of new cities that apply the same regulations for advertising as Santa Rosa including Oakland, Hayward, Sacramento, Modesto, Merced, and San Diego to name a few. At the same time we recognize that every community has different ideas and each cookie's location is unique. We are committed to developing new products and to be responsive to a concern that the color may distract from the adult only clientele. We have presented staff with an alternative color scheme that is much more muted in the initial blue rendering that you have seen. We are willing to work with staff on a revised color scheme if that is the preference of the commission. We have also heard your request as requested. Thank you again. We are very excited for this opportunity to open Rosa and return back over to the commission. Thank you again for your time. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any questions of the applicant by the commission before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, I will go ahead and open the public hearing. If you wish to make comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that session. Thank you, Mr. Jones. I open the public hearing. Thank you, Chair Weekes. No one was raising their hand at this time. I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it to the commission. Any questions before I ask somebody to go ahead and make a motion? You are muted. I put my hand down, but I didn't take myself off mute. For staff, the first are they allowed to put anything? I know they can't say cannabis for sale on a sign in the window or anything, but can they put a green cross or something that differentiates themselves? I've seen that on other dispensaries, so I'm just curious about that. I would refer that to the applicant. The applicant should answer that if they can do that or not because of their branding. Is it within code, within the canvas ordinance to do that? We don't have anything. If they are willing to, they can do that. That's all I want to get. Second, if the commission was still willing, could we condition this with the alternative color scheme or does that get too airy and dictating what something looks like? That might be a question for Ms. Crocker. Go ahead, Ashley. I was going to say Commissioner Crocker that because the alternative color scheme was suggested as part of late correspondence, that the commission may want to consider if they prefer the alternative color scheme. I don't think that the commission would be willing to refer specifically to that color scheme as presented in correspondence received. I believe we received that October 13th. And then that would, for the record at least, would make it more clear what the commission prefers. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the resolution? Okay. Would somebody like to read the resolution? I may need some help on this with the two conditions that I want to add over the one recommended in the one that I'd like to add. But I would like to make a motion to approve a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa approving conditional use permit for C.R. Santa Rosa LLC DBA cookies retail to operate a canvas retail dispensary and delivery use within an existing 4,475 square foot building located 1937 Santa Rosa Avenue assessors parcel number 043- 063-034 file number CUP 21-013 and wait for the reading of the text. With the conditions of two parking spaces and the alternative color scheme as submitted by the applicant and wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Carter second. Thank you. So with that we'll go comments by the commission comments and discussion. Commissioner Carter do you want to start? Yeah this looks like a fairly straightforward cannabis use permit application. We've seen a lot of them now. It looks like everything's in order and it's consistent with the city's ordinance and I will be able to make all the findings necessary. I will say that I was surprised to learn that the Santa Rosa Avenue Colgan Baker intersection operates at acceptable levels currently and will continue to do so but I certainly wouldn't suggest that an exist a new facility going into an existing retail space would severely change traffic in the area. I'm happy to hear that the conclusion was made that it is neighborhood serving. I would love to see one of these applications that is neighborhood serving come forward with programs that actually encourage alternative transportation to the facility but the opportunities are there for this one so I think it should function pretty well and that's all I have to say at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Siscoe Yes I can make all the findings on this and it's really tight applications well done. I really appreciate the consolingness to add the extra bicycle parking and I like the alternative color scheme I think it's very, very attractive so I appreciate that to do that and also appreciate that it's got a pretty expansive brand of transportation so it's a great experience. So I'll be voting yes. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings and I'll be in support of this project. I will say one thing as well I'm actually really glad that Cookies is opening up a location in Santa Rosa because it can also help to bring about awareness to what the product is. I have a child who's in high school and a lot of kids that wear those cookie shirts everywhere and it would be great if some teachers that actually know what the kids are promoting and not to knock your brand at all but your brand is very popular in the subculture so just keep that in mind I'm really inclined to agree with the alternative color scheme I think that that is definitely a much, much more attractive option and I again will be in support of that. Thank you. Thank you. I can make all the required findings for this I just want to say that I really do appreciate the willingness of the applicants to work with the city and the commission on this to make it appropriate for all and I think it was a great job that even when there's just minor concerns about the application and everything that they automatically on their own came in and said hey what if we do this instead of trying to fight it or anything like that I just want to say I really appreciate the applicant doing that other than that same things that everybody else said and yeah I can make all the required findings and we'll be voting in favor of this application. Thank you. It was a solid application you know I support the resolution as amended and can make all the required findings I would say on that sort of the color scheme name thing you know this is a land use you know body so I'm a little uncomfortable dictating what sounds like design review kind of things and I would note that we've certainly had some interesting names but I don't think that the current color scheme is outside the realm of acceptability from my perspective but again I don't think that that's really our call so with that in mind again I can make all the required findings and I you know I hope that the applicant continues to be a good partner to the city and the neighborhood in which it will serve. Thank you. I also can make all the required findings and with those corrections on number 12 and then also on the revised color scheme and I want to echo my fellow commissioners that I appreciate the applicant coming forward with that so Mr. Triple, do you have anything you want to add before we go ahead and vote? Yes, chair so we just wanted to clarify and confirm for the record that condition 12 in the draft resolution will be amended to read at least two bike parking spaces shall be installed in compliance with zoning code chapter 20-36 and then also a new condition 16 would be added to read that applicant shall implement as described in late correspondence dated received October 13, 2021. Thank you. So with that if we could go ahead and have a vote. Thank you chair weeks. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Cisco. Aye. Commissioner Holden. Aye. Commissioner Krepke. Aye. Vice chair Peterson. Aye. So that passes with six eyes and we'll move on to item 9.2 which is a public hearing modification to Courtney state subdivision final map Fox Meadow mediated negative declaration map modification. Thank you. So with that Commissioner Carter do you have anything to declare? I have nothing to disclose on this item. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. Thank you. Commissioner Holden. I have nothing to disclose on this item. Commissioner Krepke. Thank you vice chair Peterson. I have nothing to disclose. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that Ms. Chumans I believe you will lead us off on this. Thank you chair weeks and members of the planning commission. As you mentioned this is Courtney states subdivision modification of final map. The project site is located in the northwest edge of city limits. It's a subdivision known as Courtney states. And it was an entitled 30.07 subdivision and it's comprised of sub areas A and B. The final map of Courtney states was recorded in July of 2007. The current proposal is to modify the final map to adjust the lot layouts and to reconfigure easements to accommodate current state mandated requirements. Here's a close up of the different sub areas. So sub area A is predominantly intended for open land wetland mitigation and wetland mitigation bank. There are a small number of housing units permitted per the policy statement in sub area A. Sub area B is primarily where all the residential units are located and it allows for development at two dwelling units per acre. So the specific changes that the applicant is requesting to accommodate the storm water mitigation requirements are that maximum lot size changes from 8,985 square feet to 8,064 square feet. The minimum lot size changes from 4,046 square feet to 4,043 square feet. The average lot size would change from 5,228 square feet to 5,042 square feet. The public utility easements are generally resized to 5,5 feet and there are some exceptions along Fulton Road and Allegra Street and the western portion of Courtney Manor Drive. I believe that should say Country Manor Drive and then parcel A and parcel B which are shown on the amended map are incorporated as storm water treatment areas to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association and this is where parcel B and parcel A are located on the amended map. And then one thing to note the Zoning Administrator recently amended where the affordable rental units are dispersed throughout the subdivision. The policy statement requires that the applicant provide eight affordable housing rental units. The original design was for duplex units. However, the applicant requested that those eight units be consolidated until lot 21 and 22 which is at the corner of Dakota Avenue and Country Manor Drive and that request was granted by the Zoning Administrator after the applicant demonstrated that there were substantial reasons for the Zoning Administrator to prove that as far as financial reasons and also to accommodate all of the lot shifting for the storm water requirements. So the number of lots remains unchanged and the units per acre across the plant development remain unchanged at two drawing years per acre and it's in keeping with the plant development and there is no changes required to the policy statement because there are some leeway built into the policy statement which allows for plus or minus when it comes to minimum lot size, maximum lot size and a lot averages lot size average. The applicant has provided a proposed phasing of how they would develop the site so phase one is shown in the blue there so it would be the north portion of the site on subarea B and it would include those affordable housing units. The Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by resolution approve the modification of the Courtney State's final map member 007-0065 dated November 15th, 2007 to adjust the lot layouts and to reconfigure easements to accommodate stormwater requirements and I'd just like to address one of the comments that we received during the public comment period in regards to some activity that's occurring near neighbors of this project site. So Fox Hollow is the neighboring subdivision and the city hasn't accepted the Fox Hollow improvements yet and the developer is required to address any impacts of the road that's occurring at the moment throughout the construction. There's no work being done on Courtney Estates yet on this project site. The developer is currently fixing an issue with a sewer main that was extended through that site to serve Fox Hollow and the grading for this project may not happen for a while. So the construction that people are experiencing that the trucks and noise are related to Fox Hollow and not Courtney Estates. Staff is available for questions and comments and the applicant is also present. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation that they wish to make or just be available to answer questions? They're just available to answer questions. Thank you. So are there any questions of Ms. the applicant before I open the public hearing? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes and a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers and please make sure to unmute yourself when you're asked to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown screen. Mr. Mon... No one is raising their hand at this time. No. Just a couple seconds more. Okay. Seeing no one with their hands raised, I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission. Are there any questions or discussions before if somebody makes a motion on this item? Commissioner Carter. Yeah. I had a brief exchange with Ms. Tumion's earlier and I was still a little confused about the location of the affordable units. I think I've got it now and I'm just going to share it with the commissioners just because I was confused. I don't know if anybody else was. The staff report said they were going to occur on lots 21 and 22, but there are lots with duplexes on them that I believe will accommodate the rental affordable units and the applicant can clear this up if I'm incorrect here. It looks like lot 28 in addition to lot 22 and 21 has duplexes as well as lot 38 is a duplex lot. So there's four, not just lots 21 and 22 that accommodate the affordable housing units. If I'm interpreting the information I got recently correctly. Ms. Tumion's, can you clarify that? Yes, if it's all right, I'd like to share my screen. It's a presentation that was shared at the zoning administrator meeting for the modifications to those affordable housing units. So it's not new information but was shared at a previous meeting. So this is what the policy statement looks like sub area A was allowed to have a maximum total dwelling units of six and sub area B was allowed to have 54 and what the zoning administrator approved was moved two of those units out of sub area A to sub area B and let me show you the site plan here. So this is where the duplexes were originally and they were consolidated onto those two lots. So there are two multifamily buildings and the lots that the two net lots that were added will be developed with single family detached units. So the way the units are designed is there's a unit two units below and two units above it's above. So I hope that clears that up. So there are four units on each lot. That's correct. Commissioner Carter does that address your question? It does and I wasn't clear at the time but I am now. Thank you. Thank you. So any other questions before I ask somebody to make a motion? Would somebody like to read the resolution? Commissioner Duggan is not here. Commissioner or Vice Chair Peterson. I'll do it and strap in. It might be a while. So I move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a modification of Courtney Estates final map located at 1530 1538 1542 Allegra Street 1536 1539 1540 1544 1548 1551 1552 1556 1560 1561 1564 1567 1544 1548 1552 1556 1560 1564 1566 1570 1572 2510 2511 2514 2515 2518 2530 2531 2534 2535 2538 2539 2542 2543 2546 2550 Courtney Avenue 2549 2553 2557 1567 157-020-003 157-020-010 157-070-048 157-040-050 157-010-050 157-070-048 459-050-051 452-053-054 456-055 456-057 453-055 456-055 56-055 0.6707 that's 0.58 that's 0.59 that's 0.060 that's 0.61 that's 0.62 that's 0.63 that's 06-06-0, 6, 6, 6, that's 0, 6, 7, that's 0, 6, 8, professional 6 9, that's 0, 7, 0, 0, 089-090-091-092-093-094-095-096-097 file number mod21-002 and wave further reading. So that was moved by doing Yeoman's work by Vice Chair Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Cisco. So with that, Commissioner Carter, start with you. I can make all the necessary findings to approve the map as presented and I'll be supporting the project. I don't have any further comments. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. Yeah, I just see this really as part of housekeeping and absolutely can make it and I'll support the project. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings and I'll be in support of this project. Thank you. Commissioner Craig. I can make all the necessary findings. We'll be in support of this project. Thank you. As Chair Peterson, do you have your voice back? I do and I can also make all the required findings. Thank you. I also can make all the required findings and I think as Commissioner Cisco said, it's a housekeeping item. So with that, it was moved by Vice Chair Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Cisco, Mr. Maloney, Director Culverole. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Commissioner Carter. I. Commissioner Cisco. I. Commissioner Holton. I. Commissioner Creppy. I. Vice Chair Peterson. I. Chair Weeks. I. So that passes with six I's and that's our final item for tonight. So with that, go Giants, go Dodgers, whichever your preference is, and unless Mr. Triple has anything he'd like to impart to us, we would be adjourned. No, Chair Weeks. That's all. Thank you so much for your time this evening and have a great weekend. Thank you. So with that, we'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you.