 We definitely appreciate it. Project Planner McKay, if you can test your audio and video for me really quick. Deputy Director Bill Rose, you want to test your camera and your mic please? Testing my camera and testing my mic. Everything coming through okay? We can see you and hear you. Thank you. Thank you. Testing, testing. Can you hear me? I'm clear. Thank you, Mr. McKay. Okay, Mike. I have four o'clock if you do. Are you guys ready? Yes, staff is ready when you are. Okay. Turn on your cameras and we'll be gone. Great. So, I'd like to call to order the June 10th, 2021 meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. And before we start, I'd like to read the following statements of reading every meeting. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders, N-25-20 and N-29-20, which has been certain requirements for the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and or practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meetings as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item four, public comment period for items not on the agenda or during our public hearings, items will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. And Mr. Maloney, if you would call the roll, please. Yes, thank you, Chair Weeks. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present except Commissioner Calia. Thank you. Item 2.1 is study session. We don't have one today. Item 3 is approval of minutes and we have three sets of minutes from April 8th, May 13th, May and May 27th. Are there any questions or comments on any of the minutes? Okay, see none. They are approved as submitted. And the next item is item 4, public comments. And I will now open the public comment period for any item not included in this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand. Each speaker will have three minutes and a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. And please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so by our host. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. And Chair Weeks, no one is raising their hand at this time. Okay, we'll wait just. Do you have one hand raised? Okay. And just as a reminder, this is for items that are not on the agenda today. Oh, yes, please. One second, Chair Weeks, we're going to get the three minute timer up. Thank you. We know the ability to speak in one moment. Chair Weeks, would it be helpful to remind anybody that's participating or viewing that 9.3 is being continued since it was less than 24 hours ago, the thousand hours they may be on here waiting to speak during 9.3? We will be discussing that at the beginning with staff's comments. So thank you for that. But I mean, if they want to speak in public comment about it now, they're not going to have a chance to do it later. That's correct. They won't. So we have a Rina Radich. And we've given you permission to speak. You can just unmute. And once you start, we'll start the timer. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I don't know what the item number is, but I'm commenting on the Hearn Avenue vets. Okay. Ms. Radich, this item four is for items not on the agenda today. So I was under the assumption that it may be on the agenda and may not be on the agenda. So my mistake, if it is still on the agenda and I need to wait until later. Can I get some advice from Ms. Crocker as to how to handle this, since we haven't acted on continuing that item yet? Yes. Hi. Thank you, Chair. I think at this time, we know that there's going to be a recommendation for a continuance, but we are not sure how that recommendation will be treated. Since this caller has called in, I would go ahead and let her speak at this time. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Radich, we'll go ahead and start your time over. Okay. Go ahead, please. Okay. So I'm going to read something and then I'm going to make a comment. So this project is not consistent with the city's zoning code and the general plan of 2035 land use diagram of October 18th, 2016, which was when we were incorporated from the county Wee Western Avenue. The project site is designated very low density residential, which is intended to accommodate single family detached units at a density of 0.2 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre. The zoning standard is specifically applied to the Western Avenue neighborhood in which the VETS project is located. It would create eight new residential units on 2.01 acres of land, creating a density of four units per acre, which is twice the maximum density permitted on the land designated. And I'd like to know how that can even be considered. How do you guys even consider something that is not within the plan? That's my question to you. Thank you, Ms. Radich. Do we have anybody else who would like to speak on items that we will not be hearing tonight? Yes. Next we have Lenny Moore. Hi. My name is Lenny Moore. Can you hear me okay? Yes. I live at 2215 Western Avenue in Santa Rosa. This is also regarding the same item, item number three. My 1.7 acre parcel is 100 feet to the west of the applicant's site, and the proposed project submitted to the commission. I and over 35 of my neighbors are against the approval of this project. We're against the subdivision of the applicant's property for the stated purpose of building a ridiculous development that is extremely out of scale with the nature of this neighborhood, its zoning, and land use. We're against the adoption of the MND. It is not credible as our biology expert, Dr. Smallwood, and our attorney, Rebecca Davis, outline in great detail in their comments. My own submitted comments go into a lot of depth regarding this application, our ecosystem zoning issues with the applicant, and suggestions for solutions. Please read them and all the comments by our neighbors. This application should not be before this commission to approve, and yet here we are. So, how did it come to this? To be blunt, two entities completely dropped the ball in my opinion. The applicant dropped it on numerous occasions by trying to cram through a high density over concentrated urban project that completely ignores our very low density zoning, land use, and environmental issues within this unique neighborhood. On May 8th of 2016, the county board of supervisors directed the applicant to reach out to the community. The applicant has failed to engage with us over the last five years to find a cooperative solution. The applicant has continually demonstrated that they just want to do what they want without consideration of serious impacts to the environment, neighborhood, or established protections we have fought to preserve. I get it. Just based on single occupancy rates from HUDVASH, the applicant stands to take in over $45,000 a month or half a million dollars a year. This doesn't include federal, state, or local grants available to the applicant. But at what cost? And I'll get to this in the minute I have left. The other entity that has dropped the ball is the city. All the responses from city planning indicate the recommendation is to approve this terrible application and adopt a substandard and non-defensible MND, which the city planners have signed. This, after we successfully negotiated with the city and city planning during the 2016 annexation process, by creating an unprecedented rural heritage combined use designation for every parcel on Western Ave, and creating protections to our unique environment, zoning, and land use, in exchange for approval of the annexation. This collaboration took two years to complete, and now the city is ignoring every aspect of what that effort meant to this neighborhood and to the benefit of the city. But at what cost? This will irreplaceably destroy our delicate ecosystem, completely change the nature of our very low density land use for the benefit of one developer, overworking for an entire community, and the established protections we negotiated in good faith with the city. Direct the applicant to withdraw the MND, perform an EIR, engage with its neighbors, go back to the planning stage, redesign and reduce the scaleless project for resubmission at a future time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. And next we have an Anne Hopkins. And then after that we'll have a Rebecca Davis. Hello. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name's Anne Hopkins. I've submitted some letters to you, and I just want to first say I totally agree with what Renee said and what Lenny said. I want to add to Renee's comments because she perfectly outlines for you what our zoning is, and it is not what you are trying to push through, or what the city might allow to push through, God forbid. What I want to add to that is, yes, she talks about how the dwelling units are way over what is allowed, but I want to talk about the dwelling units themselves. These are monstrosities. They are huge. We have 1200 square feet homes on this road. They are single story. They have one to four citizens in them. This, what they are proposing is a six or seven bedroom house with two stories and up to 3,000 or square feet. It's just absolutely ridiculous. It does not fit in our community. It is not welcome. We do have ideas. We welcome our veterans and we want to support them. We want them to fit in with what we have established in our community. The zoning laws are placed to protect us. Let me see. Those are my notes. And to protect and preserve or a rural, very rural, very low density street. We welcome our veterans, put them in three bedroom houses with a single story, make them no larger than 1300 square feet, and it's all good. Nobody talked to us about this beforehand. We're pretty outraged on Herne Avenue. This is not how we live. We do not have little metropolises that are two-story in two acres of property. What you're asking for is eight actual dwelling units. It's just absolutely ridiculous. I couldn't be more adamant that it cannot happen in the way that it's planned. Please, you're our elected officials. You're here to protect us in our zoning laws. Please help us preserve our community. Send it back with make it look like our houses and have the density the same as our houses. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Rebecca Davis. A few weeks, if I may, just quickly. Sorry for the interruption. Yes, Mr. Rose. Just a suggestion as a matter of process. The commission, since we did offer the suggestion and the recommendation for a continuance, we do have the applicant's concurrence on that. The chair could rearrange the agenda. We could go to that item. We could take a vote on the continuance. That way it removes it off the agenda. Then you can go back to this comment period. And then the commenters would be, it would be fine for them to comment on this since it wouldn't be on the agenda. So that's a recommendation. It's just a slight reordering and a vote to essentially continue and pull this off the agenda. So I just want to make sure I'm clear. So we would go down then to which item on the agenda to do the reordering. Or would we continue through the agenda until we get to item 9? Yeah, you'd essentially reorder. You'd go to the public hearing items. You'd go directly to this item. You're reordering it essentially. And then it's clear for the record you could restate it. Staff is recommending the continuance. And then you can take your vote and then you can go back to the comment period for items not on the agenda. And then the speakers can continue and they can continue with their comments on this item if they choose. Okay. So I am going to make an attempt at that and please, you know, interrupt me if this isn't correct. But what I'd like to do then is reorder the agenda for today's meeting and move item 9 into the agenda in place of item 4 public comments. And then we would hear that item and then go back to public comments. You could do that or you could go back. You could put public comments at the end of the agenda if you'd like. Okay, let's go ahead and do that. So is there... Mr. Rose, do you mind if we take a quick break so we can discuss with staff? We have assistant city attorneys offering some suggestions as well. Certainly. We've got a five-minute recess. Sorry for the confusion. We'll be right back. Commissioner Carter, if you can please turn off your camera during this time. All right, commissioners, if you can turn your cameras back on, we're ready to start when you are. Share weeks. Okay. So we will continue and please staff correct me if I'm mistating this. We will continue with the public comment item, item 4. And we will hear from the one speaker who has her hand raised at the moment. Is that correct? Chair Weeks, I believe that Andrew will be able to actually go through a summary of the reordering. Okay, great. Thank you. That would be very helpful. Sure, sure. So, Chair, what we would ask you to do is to leave item 4 open and then reorder the agenda to go to item 7, 8, and 9, and then reorder item 9 to consider item 9.3 first. And then once item 9, item 9, 1, 2, and 3 are heard, we go back to public comment. At the completion of your consideration of item 9.3, then you would go back to items 7. And well, then you would go back to item 4, which will remain open. That would allow the public to comment on items not on the agenda if they are in the meeting to comment on item 9.3. Okay. And then you would continue on, then close item 4, and then continue on with items 9.1 and 9.2. Okay, I think I have it. And we'll be here with our notes as well. Okay, good. So, with that, we are leaving the public comment period open, and we are going to move to item 7, which is statement of abstentions by commissioners. Are there any abstentions? Okay, seeing none. We'll move to consent items, item 8, which we have none, and then item 9. And Mr. Triple, are you going to make some comments about moving item 9.3? Okay, thank you. Chair, at this point in time, we would ask that the Chair consider reordering item 9 to bring item 9.3 to the first item 4 consideration by planning commission. Okay. Is there any objection to doing that by my fellow commissioners? Okay, then we will go ahead and act on that and open up item 9.3, Her and Veterans Village Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Map, 2149 Western Avenue, MIN 21, and I am going to ask about exparte disclosure. So, if anybody has, if we could go around and do our normal exparte. So, Vice Chair Peterson. I visited the site and have no new information. Thank you, Commissioner Carter. I have nothing to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Beggin. I visited the site and have no new information. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. I've also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. To Commissioner Krapke. I met with two representatives of the applicant, visited the site and have nothing else to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So, then we'll turn it back to you, Mr. Tripple, or to Ms. Chicali. Great. I'll be filling in for City Planner Chicali this afternoon, Chair. And thank you for your patience, commissioners. We greatly appreciate the time that you gave us to consider reordering of the agenda. At this point in time for Item 9.3, staff would like to request that the Planning Commission consider a continuance to a date uncertain for this meeting item. To continue to a date uncertain would allow the Planning Staff to consider all comments that have been received and to respond to all comments that have been received today. We have received quite a number of late comments very late in the review process. Additionally, to continue to a date uncertain would require that this meeting item be renoticed for a public hearing at a future point in time. And so we would provide the required 10-day noticing in advance of the scheduled public hearing when it isn't scheduled. That noticing would include on-site noticing, mailed noticing, and publication in the press Democrat. And so with that, we conclude our request for a continuance for this item. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tripple. Any comments by the Commission before we entertain a motion on this request? Okay. Seeing no questions, would somebody like to make a motion to continue this item to a date uncertain? I'll make a motion to continue item 9.3 to a date uncertain. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. Mr. Maloney, will you call roll? Yes, thank you, Chair Weeks. Commissioner Recorder? Aye. Commissioner Devin? Aye. Commissioner Holden? Aye. Commissioner Callie-Zaptson? Commissioner Acrepti? Aye. Vice Chair Peterson? Aye. And Chair Weeks? Aye. So that passes with six ayes and one absence. Chair Weeks, may we repeat the mover and seconder, please? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Commissioner Acrepti made the motion and Commissioner Holden seconded. Thank you. Yes. So now Mr. Tripple, if you can point me in the right direction for the next item. Sure, sure. So now we'll go back to, now because meeting item 9.3 is authored the agenda, we can go back to item four, public comment on items not on the agenda and continue to receive comments from the public about those items not on the agenda for this evening. Okay. So I just want to be clear for the public, we would not be taking items on the Hernd Veterans Village item anymore. Chair, we could take public comment on items not on the agenda. So I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's okay. You're right. You're right. Right. So when you go back to item four, they can comment on Hernd. Okay. So if we have members of the public, I know there's one person out there who's had their very patient hand raised for quite some time. So we'll go back to item four public comments. These are comments on items not on the agenda and the Hernd Veterans Village item is not on the agenda anymore. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair and Honorable Commissioners. My name is Rebecca Davis and I represent West Turn Residents for Rural Integrity, a group of neighbors living in the West Turn neighborhood who are very concerned about the impacts that this project will have on the local natural resources as well as the rural nature of the community. We did submit a written comment letter that was supported by expert comments describing a number of major inadequacies with the mitigated negative declaration that was prepared for the project as well as the incompatibility of the scale of the project with the existing neighborhood. As it stands now, the MND is not at all sufficient and approval of it would be a clear violation of CEQA. So we appreciate and support your continuance of this matter to allow staff and the applicant to further review the appropriateness of the location of the project and the appropriateness of an MND rather than an EIR. So we look forward to seeing a revised project and a revised CEQA analysis. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms. Davis. Is there any other members of the public who would like to speak on items not on the agenda? Thank you, Chair Weeks. No one is raising their hand at this time. Okay. Just wait a couple seconds more just to make sure. Okay. It doesn't look like anybody is, so I will go ahead. We just got another hand raised. Okay. And if anybody else is wishing to speak, if you can raise your hand now and keep it raised, that'd be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Clark Lewis. Great. Thank you. I just basically just would like to support the people that have spoken so far. I also live down the street from the proposed project. And again, our problems are the environmental impact that we don't think has actually been addressed. And the density of the project that is outlined now is far and above what we have here and what we anticipated when we moved in. Many of us have been here 20 years or more. So we would just ask that you take that into consideration and hopefully we can find a revised project if we can have a consultation with the people that are putting this together. If they can get some input from us, that would be great and make it something that's more suitable to the size of the neighborhood that we have now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Next, we have a Joanna. If you can state your full name for the record. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Hi. I am Dr. Johanna Greenberg. I live 100 feet from Kern Veterans House site on Western Avenue. First, a statement for clarity as to what we oppose about this Kern Veterans project. We have always been supportive of the current 15-bed Veterans facility and would be supportive of another one that was scaled to fit into the rural character and current density of our neighborhood. We do not support urban-sized projects of any kind, no matter who it houses, as they violate everything about our good faith agreement negotiated with the city in 2016 and it will destroy the incredibly rich wildlife habitat and sensitive beneficial environment here as well as destroying the rural character of Western Ave. If center Rosa City planners want to just push urban density projects in any area they choose, ignoring the intents of zoning in California state laws, no matter the landscape, ecology, rural character, prior agreements or population density, then what is the point of having zoning laws at all? Western Avenue is truly a unique street in that it is rural and agricultural within city limits and it dead ends onto fish and wildlife property that is quite extensive and is further surrounded on two sides by city open space. This, in addition to having now rare and beneficial oak woodland vernal pool ecology, affords an incredible amount of wildlife and diversity in numbers, including rare and endangered species that spill over onto most properties on the street, including and especially the Veteran Herm House property as just contiguous with the open spaces. The street and surrounding woodlands are drought mitigating with their rare vernal pool ecology and rural agricultural uses on every lot is worth supporting and protecting as is. It is also incumbent on the city to do so as outlined in the good faith negotiations we made with the city of Santa Rosa in 2016. This agreement was created as an exchange for annexation of Western Ave into the Santa Rosa City limits. In addition to supportive ecological measures and included establishment of an RR-RH rural heritage combined use ordinance that was also established specifically for this neighborhood and future neighborhoods of a similar character. This is to specifically distinguish Western Ave from other rural residential neighborhoods. It creates extra burden of responsibility and a need for due diligence by city planners and the city council to uphold and preserve the unique beneficial ecology lands and wildlife of this area as well as the rural character and feel of Western Ave especially in the face of pressures to become urbanized more densely populated paved and less rural. For the city to ignore this negotiated good faith agreement and allow large-sized urban density-style projects that essentially destroy the environment on this property to be constructed on Western Ave would be 100% violating negotiated good faith agreement. Thank you. Thank you Dr. Greenberg. Next we have Susan Kerks. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. I'm Susan Kerks. I'm representing the Madrone Audubon Society in Sonoma County. We're headquartered in Santa Rosa and serve about 3,000 members throughout Sonoma County. We submitted a letter for your record regarding the Veterans Village proposal and I will keep my comments short. I know you have a long meeting ahead of you. I want to support the removal of this agenda item from your agenda today and I'm very pleased that Ms. Davis and the other nearby residents, Ms. Davis, the attorney and the other nearby residents could express their concerns to you in general public comments since this item was removed from your agenda. Our Audubon Society has a 54-year-old history in Sonoma County and in Santa Rosa and right now I'm actually almost on a daily basis and managing an encroachment permit on West 9th Street for the large heron and egret nesting colony there. We're in our ninth year of this cooperative project with the city of Santa Rosa and so I'm very familiar with the environment and the various natural features in the Roseland area and in Santa Rosa in general. We very much appreciate your accepting our comment about our opposition to the proposal that was before you and we look forward to following the process and providing additional input so that a win-win can be made for all especially including the climate emergency resolution that your city passed and being sure to honor environmental factors and the city's needs to like with other communities and cities comply with state and regional requirements and all that we are all doing to address the climate emergency while also providing needed housing and environmental protection. Thank you so much for letting me speak today. Thank you Ms. Kirks. Okay I don't see anybody else do you Mr. Maloney? It doesn't appear anyone else is raising their hand at this time. Okay so with that I am going to close the public comment portion of this meeting and go on to item five planning commissioners reports and I'd like to read the Planning Commission Statement of Purpose. The Planning Commission is charged with carrying out the California Planning and Zoning Laws within the city of Santa Rosa. Duties include implementing plans ordinances and policies relating to land use matters assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans holding public meeting I'm sorry holding public hearings and active acting on proposed changes to the zoning code zoning map general plan tentative subdivision maps and undertaking special planning studies as needed. Okay so with that we'll go to item 5.2 are there any committee reports? Okay seeing none item 5.3 commissioner reports are there do any of the commissioners have any reports they would like to make? Okay I would like to mention that the mayor yesterday had the board chair lunch and there were a number of other Boarding Commission chairs there and they were very appreciative those who had received the general plan update from staff and they're very appreciative of that so I just wanted to pass that on and hopefully we will be able to go back to having annual board and chair or board and commission lunches which some of you remember those in the old days for COVID so the mayor was looking forward to doing that perhaps in the fall or sometime soon so and so with that we'll go to department reports and I think that's and it's Ms. Lyle and Mr. Triple. Andrew I'll just go ahead and start good evening chair weeks vice chair Peterson and members of the commission my name is Amy Lyle and I supervise our advanced planning team and just here to give you a brief update on some of the work we're doing and some upcoming items that will be of interest to you because we did hear last time that you would like some more frequent updates on policy matters so we're trying to make sure to accomplish that for you so one I just wanted to thank you chair weeks for the compliment from the board and commission chairs on the general plan we have been doing a lot of outreach around visioning so we did our 10 district workshops with the community and we continue to go to various boards and commissions that the city represents and then also we're going to organizations and community groups as they're willing to have us in their meetings and it's been great because some of those have been in person so I've been happy to see some of you in person at those which has been also fantastic so that will all come to a close July 20th at your joint meeting with the city council and then at that meeting we hope to get some concurrence on the vision statements and what we heard through all of these efforts and then we'll be moving into land use and circulation alternatives for the general plan I also wanted to highlight that we are joining a collaborative with jurisdictions from Sonoma and Napa counties on our housing element work so I'll be reporting out on that in the coming months as that group is just forming thanks to some grant money from the association of various governments and then some of the other work we just kicked off our missing middle housing initiative and that will result in a close review of our medium density residential areas and an investigation on where there could be potential density to increase opportunities for missing middle what I've heard the my favorite term is gentle density so this will result in some zoning districts that will incorporate some form-based code which we will explain what that is and design guidelines to really soften the impact of additional density that could be incorporated in these areas so it is a process that will conclude in late 2022 or early 2023 so it will be a long process and ordinance we also kicked off our historic resource evaluation for the downtown station area for those of you who sat for the downtown stationary specific plan it may be familiar to you that we did receive some grant money to do an historic evaluation of all the properties downtown outside preservation districts and the main reason for doing this is to assist in streamlining housing and making sure we have an understanding of which sites have historic value and which sites do not so you may see those survey folks in the downtown area and we will be doing some outreach to make sure people know what's happening on that front we are also in the process of working on a hazard mitigation plan every jurisdiction is required to adopt a hazard mitigation plan every five years and we have one that does expire in January and we partnered with the county and various other jurisdictions in Sonoma County on a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan and so that is rolling along and we should be releasing a public draft of this document in July and we will be doing some virtual workshops and moving that forward to city council in the fall so that one is not actually under planning and zoning law so it will be going directly to city council but we can certainly work with new chair weeks to see if you'd like to do some review on that as well and then upcoming to your commission we do have the density bonus ordinance and as well as a review of our growth management ordinance coming to you on July 22nd and then we also have a project that Monet on the current planning team is working on to create an ordinance to incorporate some of our zoning interpretations into the code and that also includes some other technical corrections so that'll be coming forward to your commission on July 8th and then I think that's all the updates that I have for now but I'm happy to answer any questions and if not I'll hand it back to Andrew. Ms. Lyle, the historic survey then that's not the proper name but how long will that take do you think? I think it is about a year in process there will be no policy decisions as a result of that it really is just a resource for the development community but we do have Sherry Needs on the line who's the project manager for that if you'd like further clarification. That's fine I was just curious so thank you Ms. Needs. Great thank you if there's no further questions Amy thanks so much for that update that was really great there's a lot going on. From the from the current planning team just a couple of notes thank you for your comments regarding the draft EIR for El-Noka. The planning is compiling responses to those comments and you know preparing for next steps with continuing on forward with review of that project. You will have another opportunity to exercise your draft EIR review skills at the June 24th meeting the Spring Lake Village draft EIR has been published for public review that is currently available both online and copies are available for the commission at the in Room 3 of City Hall as well as public copies are available for review at Room 3 as well. I do advise you that we are still scheduling appointments between the hours of 8 and 12 so if you would like to come in and pick up your copy you can do so between 8 and 12 without an appointment outside of that then please let me know when you might like to come by and then later this month at our next meeting you'll have the opportunity to provide a planning commission review comments on the draft EIR during its public review stage and then I think as Amy pointed out in her report today we do we will have full agendas through the end of summer so as you you know work on as COVID restrictions lift and you have the opportunity to travel and enjoy your summer just please keep us informed of your availability and with that chair that will conclude the department reports for this evening. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Triple and I do want to commend the commission for letting staff know well in advance of when they're going to be gone it's really very helpful so thank you for doing that I appreciate that and I know they do too. So with that we will go back to the scheduled items and the first scheduled item that we'll be hearing tonight is 9.1. You'll want to pick up with unless you've already covered it statements of abstention item 7. We did that previously yeah great thank you sorry yeah that's okay so item 9.1 public hearing summer field hills number eight final map modification exempt project MAP modification 549 for New Anga Avenue M.O.D. 21-001 and this is an exparte item so we'll start with Vice Chair Peterson. I visited the site and have no new information. Thank you Commissioner Carter. I also visited the site and have nothing else to disclose. Thank you Commissioner Duggan. I visited the site and have no new information. Thank you Commissioner Holton. I visited the site and have nothing to disclose. Thank you Commissioner Krepke. I have nothing to disclose. Thank you and I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose so So with that, we have Mr. McKay who lead us off. Thank you chair weeks vice chair Peterson and members of the commission. My name is Connor McKay city planner and pleased to be here tonight to present the modification of final map for the summer field hill subdivision number eight. And let me share my screen. The this project is located at 5494 and 5530 new angle avenue. So this proposal includes a request to modify the existing 40 foot front building setback shown on the summer field hill subdivision number eight final map, which specifically is booked 324 pages 39 through 40. To match the 20 foot front building setback established by the 20 zoning district. As I mentioned, the project is located at not junior for avenue. I apologize for that. The project location is 5. 5494 and 5530 new angle avenue in the eastern quadrant of the city of Santa Rosa. As you'll notice it is located across the street from spring like park. Here we have a little bit of a zoomed up aerial zoomed in aerial adjacent on either side of the project sites are rural residential land uses. And then a single family residential to the south flying spring lake park to the north, like I mentioned. Another existing site aerial for both 5494 and 5530 new angle. So the subject zoning is our 20 and this does establish a 20 foot front setback. However, this, these two parcels are subject to a final map that establishes a front building setback of 40 feet. So this modification would reduce this front setback to 20 feet. And this is a screenshot of the certificate of modification, which is included as an attachment in your packet, I believe, which shows the old. Building envelope and the proposed new building envelope, which reflects a 20 foot front setback for both. APN 031 300 033 and 031 300 034. Connor, if I could interrupt you for just a minute. It appears that we are having some technical issues with the minutes technology that record the minutes for the meeting so if we could take a brief pause to assess if we need to reboot the system. I will be back to advise you in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you. The live manager is what helps us broadcast to local TV. So we need to make sure it's working. Patty would 5 minutes be sufficient. I think so. Yeah, it looks like it's, it's finishing up rebooting. It'll probably be two or three minutes. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Planning commissioners and planners. I'm sorry about that. It looks like everything booted back up. They just kind of quit suddenly on us and and now it's all back. Great. Thank you, Patty. We'll give everybody just a moment to get back in the meeting and then chair. I think when you're ready, we can go ahead and ask planner. McKay to begin again. Okay. Thank you. I'll wait for Vice Chair Peterson and Commissioner Holton to log back on. Mr. triple. Do you think we can start without them? Because we do have a quorum. There we go. Okay. So let's go ahead and Mr. McKay, if you want to continue, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, so I'll just kind of rehash this slide. So this slide shows the certificate of modification, which is included in your packet and identifies the existing and proposed building envelope, which reflects a front setback reduction from 40 feet to 20 feet for the subject parcels. And we did receive one email from a neighbor who expressed opposition to this proposal. He claimed that this 40 foot front setback was established to preserve the aesthetic of the entrance to Spring Lake Park. So this is that this modification achieves consistency with the zoning code and adjacent parcels are also subject to a 20 foot front setback. So this reduction would not significantly affect the aesthetic of the entryway to Spring Lake Park. Here are the required findings for the modification of final map and staff can make all of these required findings. And with that, the staff recommends that planning commissioned by resolution approve this modification final map proposed for the summer field Hill subdivision, which would modify the existing 40 foot front building setback shown on the summer field Hill subdivision number eight final map book 324 pages 39 and 40 to match the 20 foot front setback established by the RR 20 zoning district. And I believe the applicant also would like to make some comments but does not have any slides or visuals to to share. And staff is also available to respond to any questions. Thank you, Mr. McKay. Thank you, Mr. McKay. So if the applicant would like to make some comments before we open the public hearing. If they could identify themselves. Yeah, one moment while we get their credentials. Okay. Thank you. And Alice Curtis, it looks like you have the ability to unmute and present. Okay, so I've unmuted. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'm Alice Curtis and I'm speaking on behalf of me, my husband, my Curtis. And our joining neighbors, Stephanie and Roger. I have two points I'd like to address on this. I have a question for you. My husband's health is not what we had hoped in our ageing years. A small one story open floor plan with no stairs. And wide doors would accommodate his wheelchair. In addition to be easier for us to maintain. Passing of this proposition is very important to us for our future senior housing needs. Changing the setback from 40 to 20 foot would allow us enough space on the property to build a small ADU. We've been able to maintain. We've lived and raised our son at this property for 35 years and it's truly our home. Our plans are to move into the ADU and have our son's family of five move into the current home. That would afford us daily assistance and safety. And we'd be able to maintain the property. Our son's plans are to live his life out here and his children already feel it's like home. And the second point I have is fairness. We feel the request is fair. And just because of surrounding parcels. On either side already have a 20 foot setback. We don't feel it's, we feel it's not unreasonable. And it's a normal request. Our joining neighbors, Stephanie and Roger Nacuzzi don't have any current plans for the property, but have to discuss an ADU. For the possibility in the future. Since our two properties are the only properties with the 40 foot setback and only made sense for us to make the request at the same time. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Curtis. So Mr. McKay, let me ask you the other two people who have their hands raised. I believe are the neighbors that Miss Curtis mentioned, but I don't believe they are the applicant. Is that correct? Or are they the applicant? Chair, so the there are two parcels that are listed as the subject of this application. So I think that they are the owners of the other parcel. Okay. And while their name isn't listed as the applicant specifically, I think that comment from them since they are party to the application would be appropriate or allowable. Okay, thank you. Mr. Maloney, can you promote the other two folks who have their hands raised? Yes, one moment. One's a call in with a phone and we like to change the name on it really quick so that their phone number isn't listed. One moment. So we have a Roger and a Steppy, I believe. Hello. Yes. Can you state your full name for the record? Hi, I'm Steppy or my formal name is Stephanie Nacuzzi. Thank you very much. And I want to reiterate what my neighbor, Alice said that I don't think either of us were aware about the 40 versus 20 foot setback just based on the way the street looks. So I think that what we've accomplished is to be consistent with the rest of the street. Although we have absolutely no plans to build anything and may never build anything. My husband and I are like Alice and Mike, and that we're getting older. And may one day be interested in doing what they're doing, having an ADA ADU on the property with the hope that our kids, most of whom live in Santa Rosa. And I would have the main house and we'd have the smaller house. I'm inspired by what they're proposing. I think ADUs are efficient for cities that I've lived in. I grew up in Santa Rosa, but I did move away and lived in other cities. And I think ADUs are a good way to address housing issues within the city. And I support this project when Alice and Mike told me about it. I thought, well, that makes sense. I wasn't aware that should we ever want to have an ADU that there might be an issue with using part of the property because I assumed that we were like the rest of the street. One thing I do want to mention on one of the slides, the first existing site aerial slide. The, the criticism property was highlighted. Our property next door was not, but we're all part of the same application process. And I just wanted to mention that minor point, but I saw that on the, all the other slides that did include both of our properties. So I appreciate your time. And thank you very much. And if you have any questions for us. I think my husband and I are more than willing to try to address any concerns that anybody might have. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Nacuzzi. I don't see any other hands raised. Do you, Mr. Maloney, from any of the other applicants? I do not. Okay. So with that, we would, unless there's any questions from the commission, I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Okay, so I'd like to open the public hearing of this item. And if you wish to make comment via zoom, please select the raise hand feature. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. If you have three minutes, a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of the program. Thank you chair weeks. No one has run using their hand at this time. Okay. So, so then with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. And I will move on to the next item. And I'll bring it back to the commission. Any comments from the commission. On this item. And if not, does anybody, would anybody like to introduce the resolution. I will move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, making findings and determinations and approving a modification of summer field Hills subdivision number eight final map. Now, I've just indicated at 5494 new Anga Avenue and 5530 new Anga Avenue, APN 031-300-034 and 031-300-033 file number m o d to 1-001 and wave further reading. Thank you. a second. Thank you, commissioner Peterson. That was moved by commissioner Duggan seconded by vice chair Peterson. I'm sorry are there any comments on this item from anybody then I think we'll just go ahead and call the for the vote excuse me sure weeks if maybe we could just hear from the commissioners that they can make all of the findings and I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, you're right. No problem. Thank you. I didn't hear the name. Yeah, I can make all the necessary findings for this and see no reason to oppose it. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. I can make all the required findings and I see no reason to oppose it. I'm in favor. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings and I also approve and support this project. Thank you. Commissioner Krapke. I can make all the required findings and we'll be in support of this application. Thank you. Commissioner Peterson. I'm sorry Vice Chair Peterson. I agree with my fellow commissioners. I can make all the required findings and I think in the case of at least one of the parcels it's nice to see that the ADU policy of the city is is getting put into effect doing exactly what it was intended to do. So with that I can support this resolution. Thank you and I also can make all the required findings and as Vice Chair Peterson said this is what the ADU ordinance was one of the things ADU ordinance was meant to do and I think it's a good resolution. So with that Mr. Maloney. Thank you Chair Weeks. Commissioner Carter. I. Commissioner Duggan. I. Commissioner Holton. I. Commissioner Kahlia. Is absent. Commissioner Krapke. I. Vice Chair Peterson. I. Chair Weeks. I. So that is so that passes with six eyes and one absent Commissioner Kahlia and then that takes us to our final item for the evening which is item 9.2 a review of 16 new projects. It's a public hearing review of 16 new projects included in the fiscal year 2021 2022 capital improvement program for consistency with the city of Santa Rosa 2035 general plan and Ms. Meads is going to lead us off but before she does I do want to thank you Ms. Meads for following up after the last meeting and providing us the information and especially the wonderful article about the is that one panel. So I appreciate you following up on that. Thank you. It's my pleasure. So good afternoon. Chair Weeks and Vice Chair Peterson and members of the council commission. I'm going to share my screen. I was having technical difficulties earlier. So bear with me. I think I can do this. Okay. Do you guys see my slide? Yes we do. Oh excellent. I'm so excited. I have to admit I was really struggling with this earlier. So I apologize for how long it took me. So as everybody has mentioned we're reviewing today 16 new projects for the fiscal year 2021 capital improvement program for their general plan consistency. I want to mention also before I get started that on the call just in case we have questions our deputy director of water resources Peter Martin water engineer Tanya Machovitz another excellent water person Andy Allen and we also have Nancy Adams representing transportation and public works in case we have questions about those projects. Now it's not letting me advance. Well there we go. So new capital improvement projects for fiscal year 2021 2022 include local and regional water sewer and wastewater infrastructure improvements. It also includes two projects that are bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements. And I skipped over the slide that talks about the fact that this is actually a requirement from California Code that the planning commission review new projects new CIP projects annually for their consistency with the general plan. So what's included in this presentation are projects that have received no prior funding. This is an example of one of the projects that holds general plan goals for ensuring an adequate supply of water for current and future use. And it will be replacing the sewer main and upsizing water mains in the Sherwood Forest neighborhood. This project is a recycled water storage ponds of discharge outfalls engineering evaluation and any future projects that result from that will be done on a case-by-case basis. Several projects for this year's new capital improvement project program projects have to do with upgrades, upgrades, repairs and replacements at a Laguna treatment plant facility. And this is one example where they will be removing all the remaining stucco from Digester 4 and providing coating and paint to the exposed Digester surface. This is a really interesting project. It is a biosolids land application improvement that will evaluate and provide needed repairs or replacements for city-owned properties that participate in the biosolids application program. So this project is for the geysers and I didn't know this so I'm going to share this information everybody else probably does but the geysers comprises 45 square miles along the Sonoma and Lake County border and it's the largest complex of geothermal power plants in the world and accounts for 9% of the green power produced in California. The city provides recycled water for injection into the geysers reservoir and this project will provide a needed maintenance on pumps at the geysers pipelines bare canyon pump station. Now we're going to switch to transportation and public works projects. We have two new projects included in the fiscal year 2021 capital improvement program and both of these projects the funding being requested is to be used as seed money and we will be looking to augment that with grant funding which should become available in the 2021-22-23 fiscal year. This project is a crossing traffic signal at the smart pathway at 3rd street and it's a really interesting project. There's a lot of detail and coordination that has to happen between the smart train signaling and city street signaling so it will actually end up having to go for a full review with the smart and the Board of Public Utilities, the California Public Utilities Commission. It includes a crossing arm and a luminaire. This project will design and install approximately 1400 feet of sidewalk to fill gaps along Corby Avenue between Baker and Cottonwood Drive. The project will require a culvert or some type of design feature to cross Colgan Creek and there may be right of way required to construct the pathway. This review of the new capital improvement projects for consistency with the general plan is not a project so it is not subject to CEQA and any of the projects will undergo environmental review before being carried out. So with that the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by resolution find that the 16 new projects included in the fiscal year 2021-2022 capital improvement program are consistent with the City of Santa Rosa 2035 general plan. Thank you Ms. Meads. Are there any questions from the Commission before we go ahead and open the public hearing? Okay I do have one question and that has to do with the grant funding you mentioned on the transportation projects. Is that a federal or state grant or is it a variety? So ear mutage. I'm going to defer that question to Nancy Adams. Okay thank you. Mr. Maloney could you oh there you go. Oh yeah thanks Commissioner Weeks. Appreciate the question. So this is um it's state money that we actually got in partnership. It's kind of a big package. We got it for the affordable housing strategic growth council and it was based on the housing development that's occurring or will occur in Roseland Village. So we got funded transit got actually they're going to be purchasing a bus and then SMART's going to get money for their extension to Windsor and then they're actually going to be they're going to be constructing the pathway there from the connection of Joe Rodota to 3rd Street and so our city project will be the signal to allow that crossing at the SMART path once it's constructed. So exciting projects that we're looking forward to build and as Sherry mentioned we need to have some seed money in just so we can start some of the design work. We're not sure when we'll get the grant agreements with the state finalized where it's a work in progress but we're hoping that will be soon. Thank you very much Nancy. I appreciate that. You're welcome. Okay so uh with that I'm going to go ahead and uh open the public hearing and read my typical uh if you wish to make a comment via zoom please select the raise hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker will have three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself and you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. Mr. Milani do we have any public thank you chair weeks it does not appear that anybody is raising their hand at this time. Okay okay I think everybody left probably staff. Um so with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission. Um and if we could have somebody introduce the thank you Mr. Krepke. I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa finding that the 16 new projects included in the fiscal year 2021 to 2022 capital improvement program are consistent with the city of Santa Rosa 2035 general plan and way further reading of the text. Thank you is there a second commissioner Carter. I'll second. Thank you um so we'll go around and make comments regarding their required findings uh we'll start with commissioner Carter. Uh based on staff's uh analysis and recommendations I can make the finding that the capital improvement program is consistent with the general plan and we'll be supporting the project. Thank you commissioner Duggan. I too can make the finding that the projects are consistent with the general plan and this is always one of the fun meetings to uh to attend every year to see what's going on with the city and what improvements to look forward to. Commissioner Holton. I can also make the required findings uh for the project to or for the plan to or that the that it co that the 16 projects coincide with the general plan and that I also have been supported this project. Thank you commissioner Krepke. Yeah um like everyone else that I can make the required findings that uh the 16 products are consistent with the general plan and we'll be uh voting in the affirmative. Great uh commissioner or vice chair Peterson. I can also make all the required findings uh in this resolution. Thank you and I also can make all the required findings and like commissioner Duggan I am always interested to see uh where we're going to be seeing construction around the city in the next few years so um with that uh the motion uh was made by commissioner Krepke and it was seconded by commissioner Carter uh mr. Maloney. Thank you chair. First we have commissioner Carter. Hi. Commissioner Duggan. Hi. Commissioner Holton. Hi. Commissioner Kalyan. He's absent. Commissioner Krepke. Hi. Vice chair Peterson. Hi. I'm chair weeks. Hi. So that passes with six eyes and one absent commissioner Kalyan being absent and uh with that um we will go ahead and adjourn our meeting until uh the next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission unless there's any other business uh from mr. Triple or mr. Rose. Uh no chair I'm I'm uh great thank you so much for your service this evening and uh have a wonderful weekend bills on so um I'll let uh let him check in with you. I'm just here to close out the meeting thank you chair weeks and actually all the commissioners appreciate all your patience tonight and uh have a great evening and a great weekend. Thank you. Thank you everybody see you in a couple weeks.