 Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and call to order tonight's meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission and ask for a roll call, please Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present Okay With that we have no minutes tonight to approve and with that we'll go ahead and move on to public comments Which is a time for any member of the public to come down and address the Commission on matters of interest to the Commission That are not listed tonight as a public hearing and you don't have to have filled out a card to do that I do have one card. I am assuming it's mr. Dewitt Even though his name was not written on it So with that I'll open public comments and Mr. Dewitt. You have three minutes. Thank you kindly My name is Dwayne Dewitt. I'm from Roseland and I wanted to ask you and actually Almost demand if you will that the open government task force recommendations From over five years ago be implemented They need to be brought into use by the Planning and Economic Development Department as soon as possible specifically regarding accountability and transparency of matters before the zoning administrator and the Planning Commission Matters under consideration for approval should be shown in full file for the public to review at Meetings so they can accurately understand the full content of the plans being considered at a Wednesday 5 February 2020 evening meeting of the zoning administrator mr. Andrew Gustafson No project files were available at the site and no hard copy maps were available For the public to review during the matter at hand. It was stated. You were supposed to get them online No minutes were taken of the meeting No public recording was taken so no one really knows unless they attended the meeting what may have occurred at the meeting and what was said at the meeting may be Interpreted by different people in different ways So in order for you to make an accurate reflection of what the zoning administrator has been doing you need to have a record of that meeting Some people are so concerned about how that was handled They wish to file an appeal of the zoning administrator decision from Wednesday the 5th The final date for the appeal period is actually Tuesday the 18th of February The 10 days are extended due to the holidays on the 17th and tomorrow city hall being closed So you're hearing a matter that actually still hasn't been Legally appealed, but will be we believe and so I would ask you to continue this matter and not go forward at this point If you do go forward I would ask you to make sure that the file is up here for the public to see Not just on this small computer screen because if more than one person wants to look at it at a time It can't be done So essentially what you're doing is cutting the public out of a fair process To understand what's occurring in this project and be able to accurately give comment and make sure that it is relevant To what's under consideration This is not a matter of Small importance. This is actually a very important matter that was brought up over five years ago When the city was doing its open government task force Accountability and transparency have to be at the forefront of everything you do So I ask you to please continue the matter on the calendar today until another meeting date Thank you, Mr.. Dewitt Anyone else wishing to speak tonight under public comments not seeing anyone else rise. I'm gonna go ahead and close public comments For now, let's move on to planning commissioners report any reports tonight commissioner Peterson I Just have a brief report and if any other planning commissioners who were there want to jump in Certainly happy to have their input on February 1st 2020 the Department of Geography environment and planning along with the American Planning Association California chapter northern section put on the 36th annual planning commissioners conference at Sonoma State University the main topic of Just the theme of the discussion was planning and wildfire and where do we go from here? as part of that Planning commissioners who were there including myself received some very useful information on Sort of the nature of planning in the context of wildfire the the plans that are being made And the adaptations that that people are proposing to deal with with this sort of ongoing and evolving threat as well as receiving some updates on state and local roles with The new legislation coming through in California Great. Thank you anyone else Know their reports Okay, move on to department reports. I have no department report Okay, any statements of abstention by commissioners Not seeing any We have no study session nor consent items We do have one public hearing tonight, so we'll go ahead and move on to that item 10.1 Burbank Avenue subdivision major subdivision Before we start Would staff like to give us a response to mr. Dewitt's Issue and how we should proceed tonight Yes well, I guess I would say that The zoning administrator action and agenda was it was duly noticed we followed all code procedures and in terms of notification and What's required for our agenda? Is there room for more open transparency? Of course, I think we're continually working on being More proactive so going beyond minimum requirements So that's in response to his comment regarding access to packet information on zoning administrator In regards to this particular first item There was a zoning administrator action which we'll learn about in this presentation And it is true that we are within the appeal period for that action So it will be appeal period for the small lot conditional use permit that is related to the map that you're looking at tonight The appeal period does end on Tuesday so Wow This has been a duly notice public hearing on the map which happens after action on the small lot use permit The Commission can proceed with the item as noticed We can proceed with the staff presentation. We can hear from the public as you can see if public has attended this meeting It's also the pleasure of the Commission if Because of the circumstance of being within the appeal period of the small use permit It's also at your discretion to continue the item until Future-date post the appeal period those are both items that are before you but we're this is a duly noticed public hearing We are prepared to present okay, so So if I'm hearing you our options are to go ahead and just conduct the public hearing Get the information we could at that point then continue for final decision pending the Exploration of the appeal date So What would be the circumstances if an appeal is filed and we didn't do that Well to take this action on the tentative map you have to have an approved use permit And at this point in time there is an approved use permit and no appeal has been filed however If an appeal were filed we would then be it and you had taken action tonight to approve the map I Then questioned the validity of the action on the map And it may be that you would have to take another action on the map It may be invalidated so I Am having some concern about this this And the tricky part to be honest is that we don't have an appeal if there was an appeal pending Then we would be coming forward with a clear staff recommendation to continue this item tonight It's just that we are within the appeal period. So that is that's the situation that we are in with this item And if an appeal is filed we are the The body that it gets appealed to so we would be hearing at that point the appeal of the disease A portion of the ZAs actions so the zoning administrator took action on the small lot conditional use permit that's Appealable to the Planning Commission the zoning administrator also acted on the design review Entitlement for the multi-family component of the project so that if that's a field that goes to the design review board, okay Okay, and then so our options tonight are to Go ahead and hear the staff report conduct the public hearing take the temperature of the Commission in terms of a Continuance pending Post-appeal date we could take the temperature of the Commission and decide to postpone it now we could Just proceed and have a final decision. Is there other of those are three options? Correct, although I would I would recommend not taking a final action on the map at a time when we are an appeal period And a member of the public has given notice that an appeal Is going to be filed so I would think the best Action for your choices would really be number one and number two Considering that there's members of the public here tonight Would you like to hold the hearing and then you could at that point continue to a date certain which I believe the next one would be February 27th and And then I would recommend not closing the public hearing and leaving that open so that if if people wanted to come at that time they could also present or You can of course decide at this point to just go ahead and continue to date certain and we'll just Hold the entire public hearing on the 27th Okay Nice, Joey. So did you have a question? Yes, I like two questions Mr. DeWitt mentioned that none of the documents were available at the public meeting So that's one question and then the time frame for the appeal the 27th is two weeks from now And I don't I don't know what time frames on appeals are I mean it's the 27th time enough or what it need to be in March or does that need to be decided now so there There were copies of all plans. They were just with staff They had been on every notice. There is always a Language that says please it's available to you at the public counter at these are the hours of normal operation I have also made myself as all staff does fully available for that were it to happen But there were not Multiple copies of the plans laid out for the public at the zoning administrator meeting public hearing that night Any other yeah, commissioner Peterson So Just so I'm clear sort of procedurally on this so we could if it gets appealed We you know we could hold the public portion of the hearing tonight without taking a final decision and then the appeal Would come to us The next meeting Well, I didn't get a chance to respond to commissioner weeks's question about the timing I just looking at the dates. I think there is a practicality issue with being able to receive meaningfully Consider the appeal Present a staff report and then do a public notice. So I do believe it is too tight to go to the very next meeting So we would be looking at March 12th Okay, any other questions I I'm sorry and to answer Vice chair weeks is second question for the appeal typically it's 10 days the appeal period is 10 days after approval starting the next day If it falls on a Sunday, which typically on a Thursday 10 days later It does it's the end of business day on the Monday rather than the Sunday In this case there was it was a Sunday and a holiday So it was extended out and an additional day on top of that extra day when it falls on a Sunday so Tuesday this coming up Tuesday the I believe it's the 17th at the end of business day would be the Deadline to file the appeal for the actions taken at the zoning administrator public hearing Do you have and then is there a certain time frame that you need to act on the appeal? the code says How does it I don't know the exact words, but it's it's the next of yeah next available or you know Dilligently pursued to the next available hearing date Miss Crocker were you gonna say something to us? It's okay for us to go ahead and have a discussion about what to do now Okay, but what do we? Feel like doing in terms of conducting the hearing tonight continuing it Continuing it now What are your thoughts? I think the Hearing the staff report tonight and the public comments Would be the best way to go the public was here at the last meeting also And we heard some public comment, but we didn't have the benefit of the staff report So I would say that and then Move it to a date certain March 12th Mr. Peterson, what are your thoughts? Yeah, four o'clock on a Thursday isn't the most convenient time. I think for most people so I'm inclined to At the very least receive public comment as long as we can do it without prejudice for people speaking again at the subsequent meeting And as long as holding the public portion of the hearing now doesn't Prejudice any sort of procedural rights for the appeal that may be filed that I'm inclined to Hold the public hearing now Leave it open. I guess until March 12th And Result the the underlying issue then it doesn't sound to me to make a lot of sense to Take an action that is based on an appealable issue Ms. Crocker Are there any procedural issues, you know, we would be having and we wouldn't close the public hearing But we don't want to preclude people that spoke at this one from speaking again because there would be new information Are there any concerns that mr. Peterson is raising that you could speak to? No, as I said, I would recommend that We definitely continue and leave the public hearing open and then members of the public can come again at that hearing and Provide comment and there may be additional neighbors that show up at that time. So it'll be open. Okay, and I might not have heard all the question But if you are leaning into Introducing the item and starting it I mean, I think the applicant would have been an opportunity to talk about How important the project is in terms of the timing Just to be all the way in just like the public to weigh in on it. Okay, because you're a crepe key I Agree with my fellow commissioners it has spoken so far I think I mean for efficiency waiting is obviously the best thing but we you know We're here to serve the city of Santa Rosa and the public's here now So I think it's the best for us to start the process now and then continue it till March Okay Sure, Dougie Yeah, I agree with them Hearing everything right now staff report and from the applicant and from the public that's here who wants to speak and then keeping the hearing open and continuing I also agree with my fellow commissioners I think we should just listen to the public comment and the acute public hearing opening open until we see what happens with the appeal Okay, we'll commission car No disagreement here And no disagreement with me either. Um, I definitely think that you know the public Already has been patient in terms of having this continued once and so, you know to get it all out on the table and be able to have Whatever questions may come up tonight Answered if and when there is an appeal I think that's our our best bet So with that we'll go ahead and move on to item 10.1 Burbank Avenue subdivision It is an ex parte disclosure commissioner carter anything to disclose I have visited the site, but I have nothing further to disclose I should call you I have also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose And likewise I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose I visited the site and have nothing to disclose And I also have visited the site with no new information to disclose So with that, Adam Ross will give the staff report. Thank you, Chair Siscoe, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Adam Ross, Project Planner for this proposal. This is the Burbank Avenue subdivision. It's the tentative map for that. And so in addition to everything we just discussed, I'll just kind of run through the normal procedure and probably touch up on, again, what we talked about a little bit. But part of this project, it's a market rate, 100% market rate. The multi-family and single-family units and the single-family attached units are market rate. It's 5.4% of the regional housing needs allocation plan within the area, so that's 138 total units. The project description is to subdivide 14.25 acres over four existing parcels. That would turn it into 75 lots, each containing one of three housing types. So again, it's 100% market rate. There's 55% of the total units are single-family. 62 of those are detached single-family and 12 of those are single-family attached. So duets kind of like the same concept of a duplex, but each unit has its own lot. So it's like a zero lot line. They share, it's not quite a common wall, but it's connected. And then 45% of the remaining units, 64, are the multi-family, located in the multi-family apartment complex. So it's a total of 10.39 acres of net to developable area. 3.86 acres of new public right-of-way. And the lot breakdown is, for the smallest residential lot, is 2,729 square feet. We have the largest is 8,517 square feet. And the average lot size is 4,687 square feet. That doesn't include the one parcel for the multi-family units. Public improvements include new frontage, sidewalk dedication and build-out, curb and gutter and planter strip for the portion that it touches Burbank Avenue. And they're including Class 2 bike lane and other new streets within the subdivision. So it's in the southwest quadrant of the city, which is in this in particular is in the Roseland, is in Roseland, is also the Roseland area, surpassable road specific plan within those boundaries, which is also a priority development area. Here's just an aerial of what, of the project site. And let me just get a laser pen. So we have existing subdivisions around the site directly abutting an existing subdivision. To the north is a private property. There's a self-storage use there. And then there's a, some existing residential units in the south and then a newer subdivision with this Coursera lane. Here's a Roseland school district and an elementary school. There's also another elementary school located on the east side of the property as well. So a bit of the project history is a pre-application meeting was held in July of 2019. And then the formal application was submitted to the Planning and Economic Development Department on August 13th of 2019. And then the project went through referrals, noticing, and then a concept public meeting was held with the Design Review Board on November 7th of 2019. During that time, the Design Review Board gave comments and recommendations for the project and considerations. On July 9th of this year, 2020, the application was deemed complete. And again, on February 5th, these zoning administrator public hearing was held. That's part of the Resilient City Development Measure process. I'll go over that a little bit more. I know you've heard it before, but just for continued clarification and restating. And during that zoning administrator public hearing, there was the minor use permit, which was acted on in the minor use, sorry, minor use permit and the minor design review, which were approved. So the general plan land use designation at this location, as you can see on the map, is medium-low density residential. That allows eight to 13 units per acre. And it's based on, you know, obviously based on acre size. And so they have to come in with at least eight units per acre, but no more than 13. Should they have a density bonus, a state density bonus of up to 35%? This doesn't include that, but they could potentially do that. So based on their project density, it's nine units per acre. If it were a density bonus, you would round up. It's technically 9.5 under normal zoning, under standard zoning code. You'd round down, you would never round up. When there is a density bonus, you would round up. The project is, again, located in the Rosalind area, so basketball road specific plan. It's a planning level document that addresses land use, circulation, and infrastructure needs for the area. It was developed concurrently with the city of Rosalind. The plan includes a priority development area. There are several priority development areas throughout the city, and what that allows are kind of like opportunity sites for expedited review. That expedited review does not mean it doesn't, it doesn't, the expedited review goes through the same process as a normal use permit. So it's a major to a minor use. It's a major to a minor use permit for the small lot subdivision, but it still goes through the same referral process, the same review process. It's just a different review authority at the end of it. Same thing with the designer view. Normally anything over 10,000 square feet would go with the designer review board. But under the Resilience City Development Measures, it goes through a concept public meeting with the designer review board, where they give the comments, considerations, recommendations. That is then carried forward and incorporated into the formal application, which is the minor designer view portion of that. And then zoning code 20-42.140D requires the use permit for a small lot subdivision be approved prior to approval of the map. So the zoning for this site is R-16. There is a portion. This lot is R-16. These are R-16 within the Scenic Road Combining District for Burbank Avenue that establishes 20-foot setbacks for single story structures up to 20 feet, 25-foot setback for two-story structures, 25 feet or greater in height, 20 feet or greater over 20 feet in height, excuse me. But that measurement is from back of pavement, not back of sidewalk. However, the multi-family units down here have a greater than 25-foot setback requirement. And in the specific plan, there is the public improvements for Burbank Avenue, which includes sidewalk, vegetations well, and curb and gutter as well, and bike lane. So a bit of the neighborhood context, I kind of went over that, but single-family subdivisions, kind of that older single-family units out here. So here's the existing single-family subdivisions. Here's the Burbank Avenue. I'm sorry, Burbank Housing Development to the south as well. Here's an image of the tentative map. So there's... This is Burbank Avenue right here. And these are new public roads that go throughout the site. And so it's labeled as Public Road 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. There are private roads. One is to, once you access the single-family duets, which are the single-family attached units, that becomes private. That would be maintained by either the property owner or if they choose to develop an HOA. These private roads, these are private roads within the multi-family units. Those would be maintained by the management or developer should they hold onto it. This portion of the street right here, so in the specific plan, the circulation element of the specific plan, there's a road that's planned to go to connect to Crusaroline in the future. That development is who knows, but what the city does is they get that portion to be built out for future improvements whenever that may be. So this provides some portion of it. This is a three-fourths, three-quarter of a public road right here. So the north portion has a six-foot vegetative swale on the north side of here. And then the rest would be built out for curb and the three-fourths remaining completion of the public road standard. Here's a kind of like what the subdivision, this is what the subdivision will look like placed on top of the map. So again, that road curves a little bit and you have the public and private roads here, private little roads here, and then the rest are public roads. And then so you have the multi-family to the southwest, the duplex homes to the northwest and the single family within the subdivision. Here's a landscape plan for the site. So you have street trees along the portion of Burbank Avenue. That includes some of the public road improvements on Burbank Avenue. There are street trees throughout the site for all new public roads as required by city code. And excuse me. So what happened was prior to the zoning administrator public hearing, there was a proposal for the fence for the, these would be the backyards up here, lot 73 and 74. The six foot good neighbor fence is proposed on the back of sidewalk. And to soften that staff condition the project to have a five foot setback here on this portion for this lot with a landscaping between the public sidewalk and the back of, and the fence line, 10 feet on the portion just south of it. The reasoning why it's five and 10 is because the yard is smaller up here and to maintain that private open space for the future tenant. We had less room to work with here to still provide that adequate space for the future tenant. There was more to give up here as far as a six foot fence goes. So that's why it's 10 feet. At the same time, there could be a three foot fence which is allowed within a setback. Here's a typical block section for the single family homes around the site. There's only one portion where you have a substandard setback that was requested by the applicant, which is the second story portion of a specific plan, but instead of eight feet for the second story portion, it would be seven feet. The rest are by code of a small subdivision. You have four foot side yard setbacks for the single story portion and eight feet for the second story portion. So only one side would be allowed to have a seven foot setback for the second story portion. Everything else would be four and eight feet. And the reason why it's not conditioned to be specific parcels is because when it's developed and bought and sold, they may choose a specific plan, a different plan type. And then that is established during the master plan review of how it would look at the building permit phase. Here's an overview of the single family attached elevations. So the auto courts, you have two car garages. Here's that, those backyards that I was mentioning previously. See, they have a lot more here. So 10 feet, and then it would kind of go to five feet to provide a bit softer for the public road. There's ample parking. You can fit two cars here, two cars in the driveway, two cars in the garages. Parking would be allowed, I believe right on this south portion, not on the northern portion, because it's not a completed road. Here's an overview again of just what that looks like, the typical block section of what these single family duets would look like. Here's the multifamily elevations. Well, this is the closeup of the multifamily site plan portion. Again, those public roads. There's a six foot planner with trees proposed in this location between the existing residential to the south and the start of the car ports, as well as a six foot good neighbor fence that goes around the subdivision. And again, this is for reference, but just so that you are familiar with it, the bottom portion is the original submittal made at the concept level for the designer view board meeting. Considerations were, you know, considered two-story structures, consider color scheme and others so that it wasn't so... You kind of have this kind of like same similar block face, but with that they took them into serious consideration and you see right here you have two-story elements of the three-story structure, so that's how you get these two-story elements. Another part of the design is the two-story element, which is a very well-known design of the two-story element. So, in the design of the two-story element, it's less of this block face and more of a open patio look for the site, which were recommendations by the designer view board for other elements. Another part of it too, and I'm just trying to just to familiarize yourself, you have these asymmetrical kind of variation of side patios that would face the... towards the existing residential development to the south. There's an activation of the north side of the structure too with offices in a common area. And here's just an aerial overview of that. And so the fence goes along here. You have some vegetation. This doesn't show the trees. The landscape plan I can go back to shows what portion of, you know, what trees are going where. And so there's that. For the environmental review, it was acted upon during the zoning administrator public hearing, but the, for reference, the project qualifies for statutory exemption under CEQA. 65457 under the California Public Resources Code, which is also known as CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 AC, which is project specific with a specific plan. In this case, it's the Roseland area sabassable road specific plan, in which an environmental impact report was certified by city council through Resolution Number 28873 dated October 18, 2016. In addition to that, the project complies with the general plan, which is a 15183 analysis, which was provided by First Carbon Solutions dated December 18, 2019. It's also an attachment that was available to the Planning Commission on the agenda. And so what it does is they indicated that there are no special project, special effects that this project creates, which are peculiar to the project. And they also included additional reports, surveys, biological traffic. Traffic is also looked at with this project, which includes a, I'm sorry, I'm going to jump back really quick, which includes, I may not have that representation, but a traffic signal at Hearn and Burbank Avenue that south of the site, based on the cumulative impacts that's existing and then what that adds on to in the area. 33%. I have traffic engineering who can answer this question more specifically should you have it, but it's based off of the impact to the fair, I'm sorry, the fair share portion of roughly 30% for the traffic signal being provided by the applicant has to do with the impact and the total undeveloped area in this Burbank Avenue kind of area. We're not counting what's already existing, but this open space, private open space, that's right here, this private property. So it's roughly 30% of what could be developed in that area. Again, the project was reviewed by the zoning administrator for the public hearing item as requested by the public or initially it's a and I said this last time, but initially it's a public meeting with the zoning administrator, however, any member of the public can request a public hearing for which it was requested and additional noticing went out and scheduling went out for the public hearing. Some of the public correspondence has been reviewed by the zoning administrator for the public hearing. So the public hearing is access to the site, the density of the overall development and specifically the three-story multi-family apartment complex, the barriers separating the existing single-family homes and that about the site and the overall placement of where those multi-family units were placed on the site and the phasing and what that looks like and what public improvements are provided there and what should there be a portion developed, what happens if another doesn't get developed and then it's the project's overall compatibility with the Rosalind area spassible road-specific plan. So I think that's one of the things that's really important to make sure that access will be taken off Burbank Avenue via new public roads. The connection to Crucero, as I stated before, would be in the future. They provide their portion of what that access would look like. There's a good neighbor fence blocking it so that there's no way anyone can drive through it. So I think that's one of the things that's really important to make sure that all of the services provided with this project reviewed and worked through and vetted by city traffic engineering and that included the operational impacts would be required in order to comply with a specific plan to curb that impact and that being traffic signals or roundabouts or traffic stop signs. In this case, a traffic signal south of the site on Burbank and Hearn. The general overall time frame for that traffic signal to be placed in is currently being budgeted with city staff, but 18 to 24 months roughly which is sooner than the total overall completion of this project is thought to be. All lighting for this project would comply with city lighting, the city lighting ordinance. No lighting can bleed onto neighboring properties that's worked out during the building permit phase. There's been updates to title 24 with the updated building code. I personally don't know what that looks like, but in conversations with other applicants, it's more stringent for existing projects coming in for building permits. But again either way, there would be no light spill from this property onto the surrounding properties. Another one about noise is the future residents of the project. That's the sequel review for that and there was a noise impact analysis submitted and it indicated that this is a normal subdivision city I'm sorry single-family homes, multi-family homes that no sound walls would be required. The neighbor fence is put in to be exactly that, just a barrier. There's no need for sound walls such as masonry walls or anything like that. Typically you'd see it in the commercial development when it abuts a residential zone or residential uses to mitigate any sort of impact that that knew that would be received by the residential units. So I think the biological assessment was provided with the site with site visits and reviews and mitigation requirements. No tiger salamant, California tiger managers were found and the likelihood of one coming onto the site in the future was very, very low. So I think it's a very specific plan that this project complies with states that any sort of mitigation credits would have to be complied with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. With that, the planning and economic development recommends that the planning commission approve a resolution for the tentative track map to be approved by the state of California. I'm Adam Ross, the project planner here to answer any questions you may have for me. I know the applicant has a presentation that they had prepared that we can go through and then I just wanted to add that I added after this any sort of elevations should you have questions about this? Yes. Could you go through, because I believe at the ZA level they did make some modifications to the multifamily design. Could you go over what those were, those changes? Yes, I apologize for not including that. So the multifamily units shown here are 38.8 feet and 8 inches. It was conditioned to be a maximum of 35 feet which it would have to be, it's a building permit the same thing it would just be 35 foot height maximum. And again those two other conditions about the fencing on the lot 73 and 74. And then just one more thing just for clarity about the project if you could go over where the potential easement school access is for us? Part of the city's goal is to provide safe routes to schools. So there's the I believe it's the Shepard accelerated elementary school. So city engineering and city and planning staff conditioned the project to provide a five foot pathway with a curb on this portion to connect to the existing Rosalind school, Rosalind school I should say. So as you see here it would come out onto the black top. There's a little player here. The school may or may not accept that now. They may accept it in the future but it's a requirement we've put on the project to hopefully find that solution to get there so that anyone in future resident in the subdivision would not have to get to the school. So I think that's a good idea. I think it's a good idea to go down to Liana Drive and then up and around to get to the school that they could potentially just walk to school within their own subdivision. While you're right there just for clarity you could point out where the actual infrastructure of the avenue would be here with the property fronts and up here there would be a gap here because that's an existing residential home and that's not part of this project. It would remain the same. Any questions of staff now before we go on to the presentation by the applicant? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? My name is Joe Ripple with Skellinger Brothers. 22 years ago in 1998 in anticipation of the Roseland annexation Skellinger Brothers acquired its first property on Burbank Avenue and the second property in 2001. We added to the properties more recently which gave us a total of the 14.25 acre site you see. Over the years we've attended to numerous meetings community meetings, policy discussions, design workshops held for the Roseland area and Sebastical Avenue specific plan. Back in early 2000 our initial concept was for a single family home community. Since that time in response to policy changes and objectives expressed by the city Skellinger Brothers revised the plan to include an apartment component in order to increase the density to meet the midpoint of the general plan zoning designation. The current plan presents three different house types and two separate development programs of ownership and rental housing. The rental housing or apartment site is currently under contract to be sold to Waterstone residential. Waterstone partnership with Burbank housing intends to develop the apartment site as 100% affordable. Their development proposal is dependent upon securing the various sources of funding from local state and federal programs. For this reason we extended their contract actually to the end of 2021 because they got a gauntlet to run and put together. In the event Waterstone residential can't obtain the necessary affordable housing financing by the end of 2021 and develop it as an affordable community Skellinger Brothers will then evaluate its ability to develop the apartment site as a market rate rental community. In either circumstance Skellinger Brothers will satisfy its affordable housing obligations in compliance with the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. Our design team is here. Tyler Pearson is representing Manziel Engineering. Landscape architect Mark Bowers of resource design. Architect John Warden of John Warden Architects. We also have Waterstone residential representative here Peter Skellinger who is a principal at Waterstone residential and he's present for any questions regarding that project. Thank you. Could you advance the slide please? My name is John Warden. I'm the architect for the project. As Joe said the original plan was to develop the project as single family dwellings throughout the entire site. But we were unable to meet the city's required density and midpoint of the 8 to 13 unit per acre requirement or to satisfy the city's desire to increase the density of the site. So the plan evolved to incorporate the duets and the apartments in order to reduce or to increase the density and increase the diversity of the site. The intent was to sell the apartments it was and is to sell the apartments to an affordable housing developer so that the apartments were placed in a location that could be located in the northern entry to likewise retain their potential for independent development and phasing. Next slide please. The duets are clustered around two courtyards and consist of four front buildings and two back buildings. All have two car garages with four driveways, front porches and three to four bedrooms. Next slide please. The single family lots and houses in the eastern side of the site and make up by far the bulk of the site area. They are laid out so that each house will fit on every lot. The base plan for the houses is relatively standardized with variety being created by a wide range of bedroom and roof and massing configurations. Next slide please. The apartments contain four buildings of two and three stories with tuck under parking units. All apartment types are available as ADA units at grade as well as walk up units on the upper levels. There are common laundry facilities at the base of each of the buildings as well as project offices and community facilities in the two buildings flanking the central green. Next slide please. Originally we proposed a three story project with one to one house and neighborhood concerns expressed at the design review board meeting. We redesigned the project to introduce two story elements along Burbank Avenue and the southern side of the project and replaced some of the tuck under parking with car courts along the southern private drive. Next slide please. In response to the ZA meeting we were told that the previous design had buildings that were 38 feet to the ridge of the roof. We were told that we were required to have only 35 feet to the roof ridge and so we reworked the upper elevations to lower it so that the maximum height is 34 foot 6 throughout the site. The maximum height of any building was 25 feet. We also in response to some comments made at the ZA meeting have tempered the colors down and given a wider range of colors as well. Next slide please. This is a few from the intersection of private road four, the entry drive and Burbank Avenue and you can see here the way the two-storey buildings have been built. This is one of the stories along Burbank Avenue and also along the southern property line and how the three-level portion is bookmarked by two story buildings. Mark Bowers is going to speak to the landscape architecture now. Good evening members of the commission. I'm going to give you a little overview on the landscape components of this project and since there are three different types of housings that John described to you, start with the single families. The street tree program is meant to have a different street tree for each road or each street and the idea is to have that continuity down the street as you look and the diversity of the two-storey buildings and the two-storey building and the two-storey building and then there will be three or four different landscape options for how the front yards are designed and dealt with so that provides the diversity for that. The duplexes or the duets, the key component of that is the auto courts. Rather than pulling in and pulling in and pulling in so that you actually have a sense of entry and then when you move into that courtyard or what we were calling kind of an auto plaza, the idea was then to have a change in texture and paving so whether it scored concrete or some kind of a precast paver, the idea is to make it look more like a plaza. Then there's a number of small trees in there that would be designed for the apartment buildings along the south side of the property. The key component there was to provide a series of outdoor spaces for the residents and those spaces would range from uses from passive type use to more barbecue, outdoor seating, that type of thing and then areas for kids. With the central courtyard component down the middle there would be some entry walls, the sketch there on the right kind of has a little rendering of the entry walls with an arbor so as you enter that center court you've got a sense of entry you move into a space in there that is secured from street from roads and traffic and it's more of a flex space so there's some area for kids to be able to do the the laundry rooms to come off that courtyard and so there will be traffic going to and fro those areas. The design review meeting a number of things came out of that. Primarily was the ability to be able to screen this project from the south side from an adjoining residential use there and so what was proposed originally was just some 15 meters and what we're proposing now is to actually use larger scale trees to provide a stronger buffer between those three-story buildings and adjoining residents. That screening will be done with a combination of coastal live oaks which we're going to get up in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 feet and then the smaller tree between the live oaks are fruitless olive and so that tree is going to get up to 25 or 30 feet. So in proximity it creates kind of a nice buffer and since most of those trees will be large enough to be above the good neighbor fence there will be some screening immediately once those trees are installed. The other comment from the design review board was to maintain the rural character along Burbank Avenue and to use more of a native type tree that we did as we incorporated the street trees along that frontage to help screen with the buildings again to be a coast live oak and then their other comment was to try to incorporate in up there in the corner where he's highlighting now the introduction of some of the valley oaks that are native to that center as a plane. Next slide. Here's a plan that was put together showing where the good individual fencing between lots there but obviously we're just showing kind of the perimeter fencing there. The south side again was a concern about headlights, cars coming through the parking area into that property so what's been proposed there is a curb along with this six foot fence and then on top above the six foot fence you're going to have the vegetation of the olives and the live oaks that I described. Next. This shows a little bit on the diversity of the different areas that were developed. On the north side you can see along that road there's a series of outdoor spaces for the residents varying in different size and again like I mentioned from passive to some things that are more active. On the street frontage along Burbank Avenue there would be some signage in that curved seat wall that you see there. A small bit on the south side of the road. That's kind of my description of what I gave you along the south side. As you look down the private roads that go between units that's where the garages are accessed and so there's a street tree that's located between each driveway so that when you drive down that road there's a nice balance and softening of the two and three story structures. On Burbank Avenue where we've got the kind of the drainage and reduce a swale activity along there and then with the street tree in there like the live oak. On the left side there what you're looking at is a section through that south side again of the apartment building showing the two story and three story structure on the right and then the parking on the side parking like John mentioned and then a five foot buffer there before the fence with curb and then the introduction of the live oaks and the olive trees. Thank you. Good evening commissioners I'm Tyler Pearson with Munsell Civil Engineering as the project engineer for the subdivision. I just wanted to touch briefly on a few topics. Number one the proposed phasing of the project. Number two how the subdivision provides safe routes to nearby schools. Number three how the project provides orderly development and connectivity to neighboring parcels to allow for future development. And number four how the project will more than mitigate for its traffic impacts. So this is the overall Adam can already went through the project summary basically we've got 75 lots with 138 units gross densities nine and a half units per acre. Lot size average is 4,687 square feet. Largest is 8,507 17 square feet and the smallest is 2,729 square feet. Next slide please. So the current proposed phasing the project is proposed to be developed in five phases as shown in the phasing plan. The intent is for the the apartment site and the related infrastructure to be developed during phase one. It is the developer's intent for the apartments to be affordable units and obtain state funding. If the developer is able to obtain funding the developer is able to obtain funding. So the developer is able to first providing much needed affordable housing for the city. If the developer is not able to obtain funds for the apartments initially then it would be possible to build out the phases in a different order. Phase two will consist of five single-family detached model homes as you can see here. Phase four would consist of 12 single-family duet units and phase five would consist of 34 single-family detached homes. Next slide. So as was mentioned previously a goal a major goal of the city is to provide safe routes to residents as shown in the attached map. The northern project sidewalk system will connect to the existing crosswalk on Burbank Avenue and existing sidewalk on the west side of Burbank Avenue which leads north to Rosalind Creek elementary school. So there's a nice connection there already for the kids of the new subdivision. Additionally the project is conditioned to provide sidewalk access to shepherd accelerated elementary school where Adam's pointing right there. As you may already know safe routes to school reduces traffic congestion around schools increases physical activity encourages lifestyle changes in the community. The project is designed to provide access to families creates safer calmer streets and neighborhoods and improves air quality and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Next slide please. So providing orderly development the project has underdeveloped land to the north south and west of the project to future development of the lots to the west via public road 3 and public road 4 to the south end of public road a has been aligned to allow for future connection to the crossroads housing project to the south. The northern property boundary is bordered by public road 1 which is a three quarter width property. This will allow for convenient development potential of the lot to the north of the subdivision. Next slide please. So a big concern of the community is traffic. Traffic is pretty bad already on Burbank Avenue and the concern is that this project is going to make it worse. So the traffic study was done and it was determined that the developer will be tasked to satisfy its fair share cost contribution to the city for the traffic mitigation improvements. The improvements include the design and installation of a traffic signal at Hearn and Burbank Avenue has shown the traffic consultant did a study to see the impact of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Hearn and Burbank Avenues. The installation of a traffic signal with the existing lane configuration would be expected to result in a level of service B operation for the intersection as a whole as well as on all four approaches during the critical morning peak hour which is when school people are taking their kids to school. This would be a substantial improvement for the southbound Burbank Avenue approach which is currently operating at a level of service of F with the lanes exceeding 60 seconds. So with the installation of the traffic signal traffic will be greatly improved. That concludes my presentation. I think Peter is going to come up and talk. Good evening commissioners. Peter Skellinger, Waterstone Residential. Thank you. I'll just make it quick so we can wrap this up for you. I wanted to speak to the affordable proposal. I founded Waterstone Residential two years ago after leaving Lennar multi-family communities in the inner bay. Specifically to develop affordable and market rate for rent apartments. Waterstone was founded by the Waterstone Development Corporation on several projects in Sonoma and Napa Counties. This proposal here tonight would be our first joint venture together. And on Tuesday the 11th so a couple of days ago we received unanimous approval from the city council to jointly apply for the infill infrastructure for community development. That application is due Tuesday the 18th. It's unfortunate that we're in the situation we are tonight where we're not leaving the commission with a lot of options. I say that because that was not the original plan. We had worked diligently with staff to give all the approval authorities time to make the findings and not rush the application but as Mr. Ross indicated earlier there was a request for a public hearing at the Izone administrator so we had to reschedule that meeting and it took longer of course because of the required noticing period. So here we are tonight I am concerned that if we do have a continuance tonight we will miss the deadline for an application for the infill infrastructure grant that would finance the improvements of the affordable housing ideally in phase one. If that doesn't get approved and we don't get the proper financing it could just alter the sequence of financing and the proposal of course. So I would respectfully request that you consider reviewing the application tonight and not continue it because of the critical nature of the financing for the affordable proposal. So thank you for your time and your consideration and I'm here for any questions. Any questions of the applicant right now? Mr. Weekes I have a question about the financing if you don't make this round when would the next round be? In August? In August, yeah. That's a great question it's not that we wouldn't be able to go in again it's just as I'm sure all of you are aware the probability of success will increase by the chances you have for applications. Thank you. Questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. Okay, so this is a public hearing tonight I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. I do have one card on this item and that is Dwayne DeWitt. Excuse me. Hello my name is Dwayne DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. This is because over a decade ago I helped have Burbank Avenue declare a scenic road in conjunction with working with City Council Member Marshal Vos to pray. Also I've served on the various committees that have been happening over in Roseland and I find it important that we keep this scenic road for what it is the only scenic road allowed so far on the west side of Santa Rosa. Now, one of the things that's very important is that what's happened right now is almost a repudiation of that scenic designation. There's been a situation where Burbank housing came in using the affordable housing approach, trees have been knocked down along the roadway, traffic has increased and now we're going to have all access for this project off of Burbank Avenue. There are almost daily I never saw any of the black plastic fencing up for CTS analysis and I was like, well, how did they do that analysis? I'm curious as to how they've gotten it cleared. Also, the multifamily elevations I see they've come back and said 35 feet now instead of almost 40 feet but still the massing of the buildings right there on Burbank Avenue. I'm curious as to where that scenic road effect away. Essentially, you're there in a housing subdivision the moment you see those. I'm very concerned also where the man, it wasn't said here but in the last meeting of the zoning administrator, Andrew Gustafson pointed out we were a neighborhood in transition and none of the neighbors that I know of there, nobody I've talked with for the decades I've been working out there has said well let's transition Burbank Avenue let's make it a thoroughfare it already has massive traffic it will be increased and this one small mitigation of a stop sign 6 tenths of a mile to the south isn't going to make it better it's going to be worse up there on Burbank Avenue it's already backed up because of the school that was put in it's not being mitigated by putting that traffic sign up if this thing were to go forward I would at least ask the duplexes the duets as they're called beyond corners so there's not a higher elevation and that the affordable component be built in the center of this project at those tall buildings be back away from Burbank Avenue not even near Burbank Avenue back in the middle of this project thank you for your time I still think it's under appeal thank you Mr. Duet anyone else wishing to speak tonight on this item and please state your name for the record and you have three minutes yes my name is Mark Henry Parish I live at 1806 Burbank Avenue for the last 20 years I work for a local city for the county I'm not against new housing projects as I understand we desperately need housing in our city however this project as currently designed is not appropriate for our rural neighborhood as it maximizes the impact of the largest structure on existing tenants in Burbank Avenue itself being placed along the fence line of existing neighbors to the south of Burbank Avenue to the west and the subdivision is to move forward without further appeals I recommend the apartments be located within the center of the project that is the most sensible placement to meet the policies and goals laid out very clearly in the planning documents attached to the agenda of this meeting placing the highest density component in the backyards of existing residents right on the fence line with a large pickup noise at all hours makes no sense the proposal of a simple good neighbor six foot tall wooden fence rather than the masonry sound wall required at many developments in the past as nothing to mitigate noise this one picture I sent an email to all you folks earlier today at 1452 Mendocino Avenue which is where the current Chick-fil-A is located today in the center of the building of the building of the building of the building 25 when a Burger King restaurant was built there as the residents demanded it also if you must approve building on the fence line consider mitigation by facing the parking and access road for garbage trucks and other on the other side of the apartments away from the existing neighbors facing the parking and access road building so what do we need to do with the traffic signal from the document we already heard the developers will contribute a portion to cover the cost with the recent addition of housing and Roseland elementary school we need the traffic signal not years after the proposed the road to L.A. The road to L.A. is a road that is either in the AM or PM when parents arrive to drop off or pick up their children at Roseland Elementary School and witness our rural two lane street come to a complete standstill. As parents come to L.A. I'm losing my spot here. Because the standstill, because the road is inadequate to support the number of cars that are on the road with the potential of hundreds of additional cars each day. Also note, even with the road improvements, traffic lanes will not be wide enough for buses to access the apartment complex. In addition to hundreds of car movements per day along my fence line, dumpster and equipment to let me be behind my home. Thank you, Mr. Parrish. You actually got a little bit of time. I'm sorry, sir. The microphone is not on for you. The next speaker's turn. You can't do that without permission from me. No. You can take your time. Is it on? We have extensive information. I'm sorry, sir. I'm sorry, sir. Is it on? We have extensive letters as well, which we have and will be paying attention to. It is on now. My name is Eric Paul. I've lived on the street since 1974. Can you hear me now? Yes. I've lived on the street since 1974. I've seen the traffic gone from barely anything to worse and worse and worse. I've seen the traffic go up and down and down and back up to basically my dirt driveway Burbank Housing. It's insane. We need to have this traffic light right now. We also need to have speed tables. I see burnouts constantly on Burbank Avenue. At night, I hear people just racing. We need to have speed tables. We need to have speed tables. This is enough. This road is a scenic. We need to keep this road a scenic byway. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? State your name for the record, please. Good evening. I just wanted to mention that this apartment complex will create for our neighbourhood. We are not against housing in our neighbourhood and we understand the need for more housing in the county, however it needs to be done in a way that matches the characteristics of our neighbourhood and preserves the rural quality. And to reiterate what my neighbours said that we need to deal with change and that is what they told us to face. When we think about the rural character of our neighbourhood and the trees and nature that makes it special, it is important that we consider all avenues when we look at development. We need to make sure that we are not just spearheading something in the name of affordable housing at the expense of neighbours that also might fall into affordable housing criteria. And I also would ask you tonight to not listen to fear-mongering from our developers here to ignore our request for an appeal and to hurry this through because that is part of our due process right. As a neighbour in this community, I ask you to please visit our neighbourhood, look at the traffic, look at the instances we have of speeding. I can sympathize with the gentleman who spoke last. If you go 25 miles per hour, you are lucky if you do not get rear-ended. I know that's not directly to the housing point here but it will be impacted by more housing, especially dense housing with these apartment complexes. Our neighbours should not have to suffer their livelihood, their backyards for a three-story monstrosity with trees that aren't even appropriate for the neighbourhood. They are cutting down beautiful redwoods to put in this monstrosity and I ask that you really consider approving this plan and look at ways that they can revise it so that the apartment complex is not anywhere near Burbank Avenue. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, go ahead and move to the microphone. My name is Christina Royston. I live on McMinn Avenue and I appreciate that the contractor addressed the loss of privacy on the south side of the development but I would like them to really consider the loss of privacy for the 10 homes on McMinn Avenue where we will now have two small locks behind our homes with two-story homes looking into our property. Thank you. Thank you. Sure, go ahead. I think that microphone is on. Thank you. And I can vary. We live north of the apartments on Burbank Avenue. The apartments are really something that I just don't quite understand. If you have lessened the height of and the stories for part of it, why not do it to all of it? If one's good, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. Also, by reducing the number of apartments, you would reduce the number of people using Burbank Avenue. The traffic is beginning to be a major headache. It's very, very thick at times. Really a lot of people on the road when the school starts and ends. You have to wait for the road to clear for the people to get in and out of the school. Also, I noticed that the good neighbor fence is going all the way around the subdivision, but it's not going between my property and the road that is being proposed. I would like to see a fence there also, a six-foot fence, to give me some privacy. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item tonight? Okay, not seeing anyone else rise, so I'm going to go ahead and close public hearing. Applicant, I think we have some concerns that you can address from the public. What was that? I'm sorry, I'm unclosing. Thank you. The public hearing will remain open until such time as we continue it, so sorry about that. Thank you for that. With that, though, would the applicant like to come back up and address some of the concerns expressed by the public? I'll help you out. I think the main concern, if you could, explain your decision-making process in placing the apartments on Burbank as opposed to more centrally in the back of the project. Okay, our intent was to sell and it is to sell the apartment site to another developer, a non-affordable housing developer, and so it helped conceptualize it, to have it be a discrete parcel, readily accessible. It was logical from a phasing standpoint and it seemed logical from a land use standpoint as well, to have it be a distinct entity since it's going to be developed by another entity and sold as a distinct parcel. So that's essentially it. If right now the development affects two houses to the south, two houses that are adjacent to the property and they're some distance away and we tried to keep the development some distance away from the property line as well, if we swung the apartments around to the location of the cul-de-sac it would affect two other houses, two other neighbors that are on the parcels that are the out parcels along Burbank Avenue. So it was an either or kind of situation, either way we're going to be impacting other people and their backyards. But that was essentially the reasoning. Okay, and then I'm not certain where Mr. Eichenberry's property is but he was referencing a six-foot fence by his property. Do you understand his concern? Yes, and there would be no problem adding the six-foot fence along that road if he would like that. That's on the that's on the north side there that he's referring to and our understanding is that that road section right now is going to be built three-quarters of the project. No? He's talking about the bottom. Just across from the apartment. Oh, gotcha. Okay. So you know where his property is? Yes, I do. Okay, and it wouldn't be a problem to add. No, it's not. Okay. I think that's all for you. I have a bunch that staff can address that the public has brought up. So Mr. Ross, Mr. Dewitt said he did not see any indications of a CTS analysis. Can you speak to that? So part of the attachment is a biological resource assessment which looked at plants, species, flora fauna in the area that are on the endangered or threatened list and that also included California tiger salamander. In the presentation, I briefly mentioned it, there were visits done to look to test for tiger salamander on this location. In that report by a qualified biologist it stated that there were none observed and it's and the likely occurrence that one could relocate onto the site is very, very low because most of them are found south of Herne around this location. Okay, and so lots about traffic, lots about the traffic signal and when and where, so. I just wanted to add there was a comment by the applicant team that they would have to come at the medium density range. That's true for the next density, medium density residential as a policy with the city and the general plan, not for the medium low density residential. So I stated in the application they'd come in between 8 and 13 units per acre. The next one up medium density residential I believe is 8 to 18 units per acre. They would have to come in at the medium density range for that general plan land use designation, not the one on this site. Not the one we're working on right now. Correct. But they kind of did come in at the midpoint. Well it's 8 to 13 units per acre, they're at 9. They're at 9, okay. Yeah, just one minute. Mr. Sprinkle, Vice Chair Weeks has a question. Yeah, on the density since you're on that topic right now they talk about it's not at the midpoint. So I mean that comment was made that they were at midpoint and they're not. Yeah, under when they have the density bonus and the affordability element included in the application, you would round up to 10 and that's relatively in the middle. But now that they don't have that, while they still have to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance, whether that be dedicating on-site affordable or paying housing in lieu fees for the site, there's also a third innovative measure or clause that they could comply with. But now that they're not, it's back down to 9 units per acre, if that made sense. Let me know if I need to clarify a little bit more. Yes, it does. I wish they were higher, but it does. Okay. That's okay. That's okay. Mr. Sprinkle. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Siscoe, members of the Commission. My name is Rob Sprinkle, City Traffic Engineer. I can talk about the issues basically related to the signal and the speed tables that were brought up. WTrans did do a traffic analysis of this development and as part of that analysis, it was determined that a traffic signal would be needed at the intersection of Burbank and Hearn. And as many other residents mentioned, that does get very congested during the school times and that is recognized and that is one of the reasons why in addition to this added traffic, a traffic signal is needed at that location to help mitigate those delays. The issue of the speed tables being installed on Burbank, that is something I would definitely need to contact our fire department on. There is a fire station on that street and adding speed tables to a street that is a primary sponsor out for fire is something that we do not practice. So we may have to look at other traffic calming measures to address speeding on that specific street. The other item I did want to touch on, which Adam alluded to, is that the connectivity of the sidewalk, there will be connectivity of the sidewalk between the gap of the northern and southern portion of that is being built, the sidewalk that is being built in the front currently is a pedestrian pathway that continues that pedestrian connectivity. So I just wanted to follow back on that issue. Okay. And what's that going to look like? The pedestrian pathways is currently there. It's just what's there. It's there, right. So the connection to the sidewalk will connect to that existing pedestrian pathway until further development of those properties, if that ever happens. And then I think Mr. Ross mentioned 18 to 24 months or somebody mentioned 18 to 24 months for the signal. Can you speak to that? I can. So we are budgeting for that signal to be constructed as part of this upcoming budgetary process. So the city portions of that signal will be in, in, well hopefully approved by the council will be in the next fiscal budget. So upon that then we will have to go through the design process and it does take a little bit of time to do that. So we're not waiting if this is approved and they're mandated to pay certain funding. That's not going to hold up the actual signal because it's already being budgeted for. We're budgeting for our share of it. So if, so we can start the design with our share of the funding that we will need the funding from this development due to the construction portion of it. Okay. So we will be waiting for them. Okay. And then in terms of the speeding, if speed tables aren't an option, what other options might they have to pursue for that? Because that's not good. Right. Enforcement is really our first option. Trying to change the behavior of people with striping and markings and other options. It really comes down to a lot of times having the police officers do the enforcement, having people see the people getting tickets or pulled over. Really that is what helps change the behavior of people and recognize that speeding is occurring and that they needed to mind themselves. I do always preach in my neighborhood as well is I go to speed limit and I go and if people are behind you and they're upset, so that's the way we control speeding. That's the way I control speeding in my neighborhood is I go to speed. Yes. Okay. So and I know that is frustrating and I know people handle it different way. But if we live there and we're not abided by the speed limit, then how can we expect that that people do? Okay. Don't go away because other commissioners may have questions, but I just want to finish up the public stuff first and then we can have at it. Yes. I have an answer to the comment about not fitting a bus on Burbank Avenue that I had gotten from the comment from the city bus staff. What it says is the project includes public street improvements to promote pedestrian travel to the 15-minute headway bus routes located on Sevastopol Road, which is roughly half a mile away at the Southwest Community Park for Route 12 and also or at the Southwest Community Park, which is Route 12 and it's a 30-minute frequency. Both the transit corridor of Stony Point Road and West Avenue are closer, but there is not a pedestrian network to support access from the site to these corridors, prioritizing a pedestrian network along Burbank Avenue on the frontage of the entire property to Sevastopol Road to Lyanna or Lyanna Drive is critical. While we have existing temporary paths, this does provide a portion of Burbank Avenue for the pedestrian connection. And in short, there is no bus on Burbank Avenue and there is not one to be planned on Burbank Avenue. Okay. And then Mr. Ross, can you speak to how the current designation of Burbank as a scenic road, how those scenic road policies are applied when something comes forward like this? Yeah. Technically the portion where the multifamily units are is not a zone scenic road. It doesn't have that combining district associated with it. So the whole all of Burbank is not considered a scenic road? It is, but the zoning for that, just that portion. So I'll try and clarify. So the portion here is of this kind of existing parcel is not zone for scenic road. However, this portion is zoned. These are two, but what it says is for Burbank Avenue is that typically there are trees along the frontage that could at times create a canopy effect. There are, there is and isn't that at the same time, but it doesn't preclude from the development of Burbank Avenue for the specific plan. I think what the intent is to eventually have the whole Burbank Avenue have the planer strip, the sidewalk, the bicycle lane to improve traffic flow. And at the same time, it identifies heritage trees within 100 feet of Burbank Avenue would have to be identified and spotted for if removal were to happen. The tentative map includes the identification of those trees and part of the project description. The idea is it's not the best solution to make everyone happy, but the improvements are required and at times trees do get removed for development. And that is the reality. They are, however, taking some of those as the landscape architect talked about. There are live oaks and valley oaks included, which are native to Santa Rosa, and some of those are on Burbank Avenue already. So there is some sort of tree mitigation plan and part of that scenic road also calls for it to comply with the city tree ordinance, which this project does. I hope that was clear. No, if I need to go over it. It is clear. I'm just alarmed. I did not know that there were areas that weren't zoned for the scenic road designation. That shocks me. In looking at it, I don't know why it is, but it's just where that parcel one is that has it is the only one that isn't. And that may be a GIS kind of mix up. Either way, it still complies with that scenic road ordinance. Okay. Okay. I think that takes care of the public's questions. So commissioners. Madam Chair, if I may, before we get deeper into the discussion and questions from commission, while we were listening to the testimony of the applicant, we wanted to respond by offering an additional option because it wasn't until we heard that they were intent filing an application to support an affordable housing component on the project. We did come up with an option where you could take action tonight on the map. It would be subject to a condition. We have prepared a proposed condition that would allow you to move forward with the map subject to a valid small use permit that would coincide with this map. Thank you. You have the specific language. Yeah. Good evening. I just did want to revisit this. One thing too, I wanted to make clear some of the neighbors had seemingly been requesting for an appeal this evening at this body. I just wanted to clarify that that's not the proper process for an appeal. And that would have to be filed with the city. So just in response, I heard a couple of commenters saying please hear our appeal. I just wanted to clarify that. And then I did also verify that the application date for the infill infrastructure grant is indeed Tuesday. I had wanted to verify that on our own accord and not rely on the testimony solely of the applicant. So as Claire mentioned, in taking some time to review this while everybody was talking, it took a look at the code again and the requirements for approving the tentative map. And as we said, you do have to have a valid use permit. But at this point in time, there is a valid use permit and it would remain valid unless and until it were subsequently overturned during an appeal process. Now the concern was raised by Mr. DeWitt and I believe another that it sets up a situation where then the public would then have to appeal the tentative map action. And if you were to approve the map, you know, then we would have a map with no use permit and we'd be setting up multiple appeals. So we've been thinking how can we address that and allow you to take a final action tonight in the hopes that if this project were approved, it would actually provide some affordable units and to also be sensitive to the appeals process. So I want to just, sorry. And so the condition that we were thinking through, it would be a way to allow you to take an action. And the idea is that the tentative map would be contingent upon an approved use permit for the Burbank Avenue subdivision. And in that instance, the public would not necessarily need to appeal this tentative map action. So if they did file an appeal on the use permit, that appeal would come to the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commission were to overturn the use permit, then the tentative map would no longer remain valid. So we could address if and when there's an appeal. And again, there is no appeal at this point in time. So right now we have no appeal and a valid use permit and an ability for you to take an action this evening. And I do believe that adding this condition would address the concerns of the public in terms of having to appeal multiple actions. Okay. Great. Thanks for that. Okay, commissioners, yeah, Commissioner Duggan, you had a question. Can I have a question about if they also appeal the design review portion of the zoning administrator's decisions? So how would that affect, you know, if that gets appealed and we've taken our action and they're going for funding for the apartment component, which is the subject of the design review action. Okay. So the design review entitlement is essentially sort of disconnected from the small lot conditional use permit and the tentative map. So that will have its own, that has its own journey, if you will. So it's sort of independent because it literally is the design, the exterior design of the apartment. It's not the site layout of the property that's going to be defined by the small lot conditional use permit and the tentative map. And to our knowledge, that is the least of the entitlements, what they need to apply for the affordable housing grant is a small use permit and the map. Questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. Great. So at this point we'd be bringing it back to the commission. It seems like first we need to discuss whether or not we want to proceed based on our prior discussion, which was we were planning to continue. Is that correct? Yes. That would be correct. And just to be clear, I am revising my prior recommendation, such to allow you to make a final action this evening. And I would recommend the addition of the condition that we just addressed in addition to the other condition regarding the fence and those other issues. Okay. So let's have a discussion as to whether to go that route or to go our prior route of continuing to March 14th. What do you think, Vice Chair Weeks, in terms of continuing our discussion? I just want to clarify that if we took action tonight, it wouldn't eliminate the public's ability to appeal. Correct. We're still in an appeal period and they have until Tuesday to file their appeal. And then also a question for the applicant. Is your application ready to go to HCD if we took action tonight? I believe it is. Staff has the forms and I've been communicating with them today and they believe they'll be completed tomorrow and then we will Fed exit tomorrow night. And do you have an agreement with Burbank Housing Development Corporation? Yes. Okay. Thank you. What do you want to do? My recommendation or my thought is to go with what Ms. Crocker said about taking action tonight as long as we can be assured that that doesn't eliminate the public's ability to appeal and you've indicated it doesn't. So I would be in favor of reading the resolution and taking action on it tonight and then if it is appealed we would eat again in March. Commissioner Peterson, your thoughts? I have just a quick question to clarify. What date was the zoning administrator hearing that's an issue held? February 5th. Okay. I'm a bit of two minds with the continuance here. On the one hand, I'm not entirely sympathetic to the applicant's situation. These types of things happen. Delays happen. And if it's not built into the timeline, you know, it's unfortunate but I'm not sure it's a reason to necessarily rush things along. At the same time, you know, if the zoning administrator hearing was on the 5th, you know, this wasn't yesterday. So to the extent that there may be an appeal, I mean it's, there's been at least a little bit of time to consider it. And all of this is tempered by the desperate desperate need for housing and specifically affordable housing in the city. As long as the public's right to appeal the issue is preserved, I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Weeks and keep things moving in this specific instance. I think it's worth taking final action now, preserving the right of the public and keeping at least that way as many options open both for the applicant and the public. But I'm interested to hear from my fellow commissioners. And can I just address that briefly again since you both raised it? So the public can appeal the decision of the zoning administrator on or before Tuesday. They could also appeal the decision taken this evening if they so wish. And there are other instances where this does happen where an action is taken when an appeal period is pending. It's not always ideal, but it does happen in certain circumstances. And in this case, I hadn't been previously aware of the urgency of the grant application. So we would typically try to schedule these hearings, you know, with a greater time period in between. But that was the reason for this this evening. And I apologize, I wasn't aware of that at the outset when this came up. So not completely ideal, but it is something that happens. And you will see other hearings scheduled in the city that overlap in those time periods as well. Yeah, I'm inclined to take Ms. Crocker's advice and follow I guess it's option four to hear this matter. I mean, we have a contingency involved in this, right? So we have the ability to take action. And if the zoning administrator portion is appealed, then it doesn't matter. We start over and go from there. So I think with the public's right preserves to appeal the process, I personally do not have a problem taking action tonight. Commissioner Duggan. Well, I think Commissioner Peterson said it best. I can sort of feel both ways. So I'll go with the majority. And if we want to take action tonight, I'll go along. Commissioner Collier. I am in favor of taking action tonight. I know firsthand how difficult it is to get grants in to build affordable housing. And one of the largest reasons why we don't have enough housing getting developed currently in Sonoma County is because of the amount of time it takes to do that. And by us prolonging this and having the developer to wait until the next NOFA comes out to then put in a funding application, I think it's going to make it incredibly even more difficult. So I would, I'm definitely in favor of having an action tonight. Commissioner Carter. Well, I like Commissioner Peterson of two minds here and, you know, entering into this discussion, the possibility and the likelihood of continuing it was what was guiding my thinking initially in this discussion. And to have this fourth option sort of develop this late in the discussion does not put me at ease. Just to touch on some other aspects of the project, I don't believe the problems, however great they are with Burbank Avenue are a result of the project. Certainly the project will contribute, but not at a significant level according to the environmental analysis we've received. We'll go ahead and discuss the project in a minute right now. We're just deciding whether we're going to discuss the project. Okay. I'm still leaning toward continuing the item. Okay. Well, I don't think any of us are happy with the situation that we're finding ourselves. And but I'm definitely, you know, we have two individuals on the commission that are very familiar with how difficult it is to do to get this financing together. So I am happy that another option has come up that won't preclude the public from taking whatever action they need. If they choose to appeal, but also won't hold up an application for affordable housing since that's, you know, housing first, that's one of our main council goals. So this has been an awkward situation. But I think that Ms. Crocker has come up with kind of a win-win solution for us to go forward tonight. So I would go ahead and recommend that we take action tonight. So and then one more question, if we're going to go ahead and do that, I now have an open public hearing. Do I need to do anything about that? Yes. Thank you for raising that. I believe at this time it would be appropriate to close the public hearing and then continue with deliberations in the hearing as is customary. Okay, great. All right. Public hearing is closed. And with that, would someone like to move the resolution for the purposes of discussion? Okay, I don't remember all of Ms. Crocker's language, so you'll have to help me here. But I move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa, approving a subdivision tentative map for the Burbank Avenue subdivision located within the Roseland Priority Development Area to subdivide 14.25 acres over four parcels into 75 lots that would allow development of 62 detached single-family units, 12 single-family attached duets, and 64 attached residential units pursuant to the minor use permit, CUP19-095 and minor design review permit DR19-054 located at 1400 Burbank Avenue, assessor's parcel numbers 125-331-003, 125-361-003, 125-361-006, 125-361-007, file number PRJ19-031, MAJ19-003 plus what was the language we want to insert here? Something similar to the tentative map is contingent upon the approved use permit for the Burbank Avenue subdivision. The tentative map is contingent upon the approved use permit permit for the Burbank Avenue subdivision and wait for the reading. And before somebody seconds that I have another question. In terms of the applicant's willingness to put in the fence on Mr. Eikenberry's property, is that some place, a place where we would put a condition here? How do we capture that and discuss that? Yeah, and somebody would make a motion and it would be seconded and added to your proposed resolution to extend the good neighbor fence along the, I think it's the north side of Public Road 4 along his property. So could we include that in this resolution or should we do the friendly amendment? Can she just continue? I think you just continue. Thank you for catching it before the second. If you'd like to add that condition in addition to the condition, the one that we just read regarding approval of the use permit. Okay, so with the addition of a six foot tall good neighbor fence on the north side of Public Road 4, is it? 4. Okay, okay. Now do I have a second? Second. Okay, so that was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Collier. Nice Joe weeks, you want to start? Well, I think this is a good solution, as like I said, as long as I'm confident that the it doesn't prevent the neighbors from appealing and it doesn't. And it provides the ability for the applicant to get the application for HCD financing in. So I am supportive of this of the motion or the resolution. Commissioner Peterson. So for anyone who's who's here before this probably won't sound too different, but just to contextualize what we're doing here, what we're looking at is approving a tentative map to do that. We need to make certain findings. It's in compliance with the general plan. It either meets or has an exception to CEQA, things like that. And for projects like this, where we're faced with very well thought out, very reasonable public opposition to them. I certainly bump up against the issue of feeling like a little stuck with our two options, which are either yes or no. So in this case, I think the traffic is a very reasonable concern. I think it was not certainly since it exists right now was not created by this subdivision. It is maybe the result of not the best planning in the past, with the school congestion at the peak hours. I think there's understandable issues with the changing character of the neighborhood, increasing the density, removing some of the more rural feel to it. So in trying to approach this project and think about, again, what we're doing here with looking at whether or not this tentative map meets the findings that we need to meet, I don't think there's an element of, there's a missing element of kind of complexity, I guess, that I feel that we're faced with. So this isn't to say that this is the best subdivision. This is the perfect subdivision. This will meet all the needs of a changing neighborhood. But in reviewing the materials we've got, taking the public comments we've received, I think, based on the record that's in front of me, the tentative map does meet the findings that we would need to make. I think, again, this is an easy decision, and I think the opposition from the neighborhood is completely reasonable. But the decision is made sort of within the four corners of this resolution, and within that, I think I can make the findings that are necessary with the additional conditions that preserve the public's right to vote in favor of this resolution. Commissioner Krepke? Yeah, I think it's important to express that we up here are not immune to the issues that the public and the residents will face with any project that we approve or vote down. However, as was stated before, we're up here to almost work in a vacuum to make certain findings, and we don't have a ton of latitude. We're not policy makers. We're just one cog in the machine. There are avenues should you not like the outcome tonight. But what we do is look to staff, look to the presentations, and make our assessments and our decisions based on the findings that we're required to make. And in doing so, I think in my opinion that this project allows me to make those findings and that I can be in support of this resolution. I too can make all of the required findings, and it is difficult in this context. It's not going to be in character with what's there now, but when you look at an aerial photo of the area, the density is consistent with what is surrounding in the broader area. And we do need the housing, but it's not an easy task to make. Is the site plan perfect? No, I would change a lot of things about it. I would not put the apartment building on Burbank Avenue, but that's a small component of being able to make the correct findings, so I can support the resolution. Okay. Commissioner Collier? I also can make all the required findings, so we'll be supporting this project. I think that we have, you know, it's 5% of our housing plan and the significant debt, and I understand all the concerns from the neighbors. And I think, you know, without this development, there will be, there wouldn't be a stoplight on Burbank, but with this development there will be, so we'll be supporting the project. Commissioner Carter? Given the question before us tonight, and I do believe I can make the necessary findings to approve the subdivision, the most important factor is obviously the number of housing units and the potential for affordable housing makes it even that much more attractive. The environmental analysis appears to be properly prepared, and it indicates that the project can be built with minimal disruption. I do have a lot of sympathy for the residents of this part of town, and I see us approving high-density projects here, or higher-density projects here, and recognizing the changes that are coming. I would love to see more infrastructure changes ahead of the housing projects, but that's not the reality we're faced with. But I did want that sentiment to be aired tonight, and clearly Burbank Avenue has some improvements that are necessary, and I hope this project can go a long way to bringing that into proper configuration as a scenic and important circulation element in Roseland. Access to other bus lines, pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the corridor are wanting, and as Commissioner Duggan said, it's not ideal, but I think we can make the findings necessary to approve the project. This is a very complex project, and probably one of the more complex ones that we've seen in years, and I do appreciate the applicants doing a mixture of housing because we can't just build single-family dwellings anymore. We just can't do that and get to where we need to meet our housing needs, and to come up with some kind of a site plan that incorporates a variety of housing. I don't think it's a perfect site plan either. Definitely what throws it in the direction of important to move forward is the affordable housing. I definitely am sympathetic to the neighbor's concerns. I live in Roseland. I live on a fairly significant lot, and the affordable housing project is two lots down from mine will be built. It rips down my favorite neighbor's home and cottage in order to be there, and as much as that pains me, I also realize the city needs the housing, and it's coming my way. So I understand, and I also understand the needs of the city and what we're trying to accomplish. Definitely would it recommend that Mr. DeWitt could do this as to if there are areas on Burbank that aren't zoned properly for scenic roadway. Somebody ought to be looking into that, and because that concerns me, but it sounds like with this project they were applied in any event, so that also makes me happy because Mr. DeWitt was key in getting that designation, and I'm definitely for it, and I want to see it realized. So I can make the findings also with the amendments that we've made and keeping the option open for the public to appeal if they need to. So with that, Commissioner Duggan moved the resolution with certain amendments. That Commissioner Colley is seconded, and your votes please. And that passes with seven ayes. I believe that concludes our meeting, and we'll adjourn to our February 27th meeting.