Okay, everyone.

I'd like to call the August fourteenth, twenty twenty five meeting of the planning commission to order, and if we could have roll please.

Commissioner Carter.

Commissioner Sisko.

Commissioner Horton.

Commissioner Pardo.

Commissioner Sanders.

We have one set of minutes from July 24th.

Are there any changes or corrections, additions?

Okay.

So none for that.

If you are in the chambers and wish to make a comment on the minutes, please make your way to the podium.

Seeing no one, I will go ahead and close the public comment period on the minutes, and then we go to public comment period on non-agenda items.

And Ms.

Carmen, do you want to go first?

Yes, thank you.

Good afternoon, uh Planning Commissioners, Janice Carmen.

Um I just want to uh bring up the importance of trees in Santa Rosa and or Sonoma County too, um, including um the clear cutting.

And you know probably what I've talked about before about the clear cutting that has happened in my neighborhood.

And um I think that there should be uh greater education on uh trees and how our environment uh evolves, not just specific thing like uh about the creeks or cleaning up the creeks or the ocean and cleaning up the ocean, you know, things like that.

I I think that it should be part of everyone's education.

And I studied uh forestry in a different state, but um once the trees are gone, they're gone.

And and it's very, very tragic.

And uh there's also uh infrastructure with the trees that has just come to my attention recently about how the street has imploded and is caved in and cracked.

And uh these were very old trees, over 75 years old, and uh there were about 48 to uh 48 trees, I believe, that were cut uh to the ground.

And it's also a flood um floodplain.

So there's underwater running beneath the trees, and it's a sustainable uniquely um applicable um plan with with the trees, and I feel like the trees get sort of uh short-shifted, uh, and we have a lot of them here, and we're very, very fortunate.

And the trees are largely responsible for uh the air quality and uh also our mostly good water.

And um, I think people need to really realize that they're a leave living breathing thing, and during COVID, uh someone said to me we're all in this together, and they were talking about COVID, but we're all in this together for the climate, whether we like it or not, whether you believe in science or you don't believe in science, it's all related.

And that's just what I want to communicate today is that we get more efficient and motivated to do more education around trees, and that we're also very careful when we cut and allow uh public building or any kind of building.

Thank you.

I'd like to check you down there.

Okay, Mr.

DeWitt, when you're ready and when the overhead's ready.

Hello, my name is Dwayne DeWitt.

I'm from Roseland.

I brought this document from 28 years ago when the City of Santa Rosa was part of what was called a RUDAT, American Institute of Architects came to the town, talked with us about how they were gonna make things better.

And I do believe we need to have a root at right now over for Roseland.

Basically, planning is politics, and the politics right now is that housing gets to go in anywhere it wants to, especially in Roseland, and they're not paying attention to the larger uh issues at hand.

One of those issues is that the infrastructure hasn't kept pace with what's going on.

I have a document here from the uh county permit and resource management department.

It's only uh 18 years old, but basically it pointed out that back in the day that the uh Roseland School District in the city had not adequately prepared to take care of the walkways along Burbank Avenue as it was improved that the risk to pedestrians by a new school that was being put in was high.

And what's happened now is two housing developments have gone in along Burbank Avenue also, and they're not preparing the entire street for the needs of the community.

With this in mind, there's been uh a rumor that we may be able to get um what's known as a traffic signal at the corner of um Hearn Avenue and Burbank Avenue.

We've been asking for that for 20 years.

They're saying it might happen this year.

One of the things to keep in mind is the people who live in the community the longest do pay attention to what happens, and they're very concerned that the city allows numerous things to happen without catching up on the cumulative impacts that those things will have on the neighborhoods.

It's really, really important that you folks be those advocates for the community.

You may see them yourselves and the district uh elected official that appointed you as all you're answering to.

But it's really important that you, as this planning commission, take on the advanced planning and not just rely upon staff, but you yourselves talk with the community.

We haven't had a forum out there in over a decade about what's going on.

Now they're putting in this new development up at the Roseland Village Shopping Center, plowing in hundreds and hundreds of more housing, which has been going on along Sebastopol Road all the last two to three years.

So thousands of new residents and thousands of more cars have come into Roseland since we've had any kind of a real RUDAT type of approach to what's going on.

You folks could ask for that, and we could get it going.

We'll be asking our elected official, Mr.

Alvarez to do that.

We understand, though, that it's the majority rule, and the downtown city folks have never really cared about us over there.

So please speak up for the disadvantaged, underserved, overburdened of community of Roseland.

Thank you kindly.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda?

Seeing no one, I will go ahead.

I will go ahead and close a public comment on this and bring it back to our uh statement of purpose.

The planning commission is charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws in the City of Santa Rosa.

Duties include implementing of plans, ordinances, and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings, and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed.

So with that, we are on to 5.2 commissioner reports.

Are there any reports?

Okay.

Um then we will go on to department report.

Item number six.

Thank you, Chair Weeks, members of the commission.

I'm Jessica Jones, Deputy Director of Planning.

Um, just a quick note to the commission.

Um you may recall uh a few months back the commission took action on the Elm Tree Station project, uh, and the the commission voted to deny the proposed gas station at that site.

Uh that action was appealed to the city council, and that um item is being heard by the city council at their meeting next week.

So I just wanted to give that quick update to the commission.

And that's all I have.

Thank you.

Are there any public comments on the staff report?

Seeing no one, uh, we will go uh on to statement of abstentions or recusal.

That did you have an did you have a comment on what Ms.

Jones said?

Okay, then please go.

But and please stick to what Ms.

Jones said about Elm Tree Gas Station.

Okay, well, thank you very much.

But let's get to uh the fact that we were talking in the lobby today, too.

And uh she didn't say the date.

She's she said next week.

The date, she should say the date and the time, because this is one of the problems.

The public cannot make it to the meetings, nor can we find out when they are at the right time or where.

So please, when someone states that state, not next week, say the date, time where it is.

So it is on August 19th at or after 5 p.m.

And anybody in the public can find that information on the city's website, which is SRCity.org.

Thank you.

So then um we will go to statement of abstentions or recusals.

Any okay.

Uh and we don't have any presentations, we have no consent items, no report items.

Uh we have our first public hearing is the Dell Valley drive-through, and this is being continued to a date uncertain.

So we will will not be reviewing that today.

Is there anything else uh Ms.

Crocker I need to say about that?

Okay, thank you.

So then we move on to 11.2, um, which is public hearing annexation pre-zoning 2299 Brush Creek Road, ANX 24-001, and this is an ex parte item, so we'll start with Commissioner Horton.

I did uh visit the site and the unincorporated island.

And do you have anything new?

Uh no.

Thank you.

I've also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose.

Thank you, Commissioner Carter.

Yeah, I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose.

Vice Chair.

I did not visit the site, so I have nothing to disclose.

Commissioner Sisko.

I have nothing further to disclose.

Commissioner Pardo.

I did not visit the site, and I have nothing else to disclose.

Thank you.

And I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose.

So with that, uh Ms.

Beasla.

Take it away.

Yes, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Weeks and members of the planning commission.

Um the project before you today is the annexation pre-zoning for 2299 Brush Creek Road.

The proposal is to pre-zone one parcel in order to annex into the city, and this would be to provide sewer and water service for the future development of an ADU.

And the proposed zoning district is R R20 or rural residential.

Here is the project location.

It's located in the northeast quadrant of Santa Rosa.

And the general plan land use designation is very low density residential.

It's surrounded by very low density residential.

And the proposed zoning district of R R20 is consistent with the general plan land use designation.

The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

It qualifies for an exemption under section 15183 as it's consistent with the general plan, and also under 15319 as the future annexation of existing private structures are they've been developed to a density that's allowed under the proposed pre-zoning classification.

We did receive um one question about why only one parcel of the county island is being proposed for pre-zoning and annexation, and whether or not LAFCO is in support of this.

And the um so LAFCO did do a sentiment survey to gauge interest uh of other property owners within the island, and nobody else was interested in annexing, so we are moving forward with just the one parcel.

Therefore, it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission by resolution recommend that the city council pre-zone the property at 2299 Brush Creek Road to the R R20 zoning district consistent with the very low density residential general plan land use designation.

And if you have any questions or comments, this is my contact information.

We also have the applicant available here, as well as Cynthia Olsen from LAFCO is available on Zoom in order to answer any questions about LAFCO policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any staff questions?

Or are there any questions of staff at the moment?

Commissioner Sanders.

Thank you.

Just out of curiosity, um, what is the current county county zoning versus the zoning that they're proposing?

Yes, so it's zoned um R R B620, and that's rural residential, which uh has a requirement of a minimum 20,000 square feet.

The 20 at the end means one dwelling unit for every 20 acres, but the B6 implies that an adopted zoning map um would allow higher density to allow the development.

So county zoning is a little complicated.

Sounds it.

Um why this particular classification?

Was there any other like maybe R1 could also work there?

So RR is consistent with very low density residential, and R1 can sometimes be two, depending on the um size of the site.

So RR40, there's two different types of RR.

There's R R 40, which has a minimum lot size of one acre, and RR20 has a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.

And this lot is 0.57 acres or 24,800 square feet.

So it's not large enough to be RR 40.

The the parcel size and the general plan land use designation together um is is what led us to uh choose R R20.

And is that requested by the applicant?

Is that how that works?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

And does so the idea is that we're trying to get it to have it also an ADU?

Is that correct?

Yeah, and if you um and so does this allow um something beyond an ADU?

It would allow uh anything that would be allowed currently in any RR 20 zoned uh single family development.

So any other accessory structures or uses uh complying with permit requirements that would be required for the RR zone uh would be allowed, complying with lot coverage requirements, um any any use in the RR district would be allowed.

Okay.

Okay.

And and can you tell me the timeline of like so planning commission, council LAFCO?

Yes.

Is that how that works?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

And um do we know the current capacity for water and sewer on the site now?

Yes, so this site was analyzed in the general plan.

Uh the general plan analyzed the provision of services, including water and sewer and water supply assessment for the entire urban growth boundary of Santa Rosa, uh so that uh annexation can happen and future build out.

And LAFCO also analyzes the provision of services.

And the annexation wouldn't be supported if there was not the capacity built.

Okay, thank you.

And um who connects?

What's like the cost of that once it's annexed, they've got to connect.

Who pays for that?

The property owner.

Okay.

Thank you.

And just one last question, I'm sorry.

No, um with with the I thought you were turning your page.

Yeah, yeah.

I was going to my second page.

I have way I have so many questions I didn't ask, but you answered them.

Um do we risk uh with this, do we risk having a patchwork of parcels because we're doing this one parcel?

Does it set a precedent for other parcels to kind of do the same thing, and then we end up with a sort of patchwork of parcels and then little tiny county islands in between.

Is is there is that a consideration or so I can take the that particular question.

So the answer is no.

Um when we do annexations, um, we do it in consultation with LAFCO staff.

So we uh work with them to ensure that there is a logical boundary um being proposed for the annexation.

Um as uh Ms.

Beesla stated, um LAFCO did a sentiment survey to see if there were any others within the island that wanted to be annexed.

Um they did not.

The issue with trying to force annexation when you have a majority who are not interested in it, is that once you get to the annexation process at LAFCO, it could then stop the annexation.

Um so unless there is uh unless it would create an illogical boundary or would create a an island, um, the city and LAFCO has not been in a position to force annexation, particularly when it could be stopped because of protest.

Um in this instance, you know, it's within an island, it's it's take it's on the edge of the island.

Um so you know, as we can kind of chip away at these islands, we do.

Um, but uh that's kind of the process that we look at for those.

Okay.

And would there would there be any sort of off-site upgrades or extensions that would be needed to complete this process?

No, none are required.

So it's just pretty much self-contained.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Horton.

Thanks so much.

That was a great presentation.

Um so just two quick questions, and maybe they're related.

So one is corollary to Commissioner Sanders' question.

Can so if I'm understanding it correctly, to do the ADU, they need the improved water and sewer service that the city would provide, and that's not um that is not available through the county today.

So just want to make sure I got that correctly.

And then the other one, and maybe this is related or not, is um is there any cost to the city?

I mean, I know it sounds like the applicant's gonna pay for the improvements, but any cost to us beyond just the obviously the staff work and bureaucratic preparation, but is there any other cost um no the applicant there there is sewer and water available in the vicinity, and so the applicant would be paying the cost for the connection.

Um and yes, you are correct that uh they are getting they don't have the sewer and water available for the for the ADU, they're gonna get it from the city.

Thank you.

And then just on the cost issue, there's no other other cost to the city, right?

No.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item.

If you wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium.

You'll have three minutes.

Seeing no one rise, I will go ahead and close.

Oh.

Sorry, I I talk fast.

Hello.

Uh my name's Jerry Camrada.

I'm I'm uh a neighbor next to that property and was one of the people who filled out the survey.

And what I actually went through this process with LAFCO a few years ago, and it kind of became prohibitively impossible for me to do it because of the the topography of my land and what it would take for me to get water from the remaining, they wouldn't let me go over a a culvert.

And so I it was just too much.

And and the city wasn't willing or able to extend the water this the utility main up brush creek beyond Lyric Lane, and that was just short of my house.

So I had to kind of abandon the whole thing.

And I think it's a good idea for this to happen.

I support it with our neighbors because we tried and they're right there, but that's reasonable.

That's one of the reasons why it's you know, among other things, not a bigger, a bigger parcel that you got is it it we when I went through LAFCO, I I actually gathered all of our neighbors together because that was what they required of me to do.

And everybody said nope, we don't want to do it.

So I I that was another reason why I didn't I didn't do it.

So I just want to let you know that that history behind it.

And and there is also an abandoned uh there's an easement between Brush Creek Road and their property, which it has an an easement through which is I consider a fire easement to our property, and it was wanting to make sure hoping that that wasn't gonna be affected in any way.

I don't think it looks like it's part of the annexation, but I was concerned about that that that easement is the only thing.

But otherwise, I th I'm I'm think it's a uh beneficial thing to do for the for our neighbor.

Thank you.

Any other comments and there's a button on the side of the podium.

Oh, that's can I just that can lower it a little if you want?

Oh, that's okay.

Okay.

Um I I didn't plan on speaking, but I am my husband and I own the lot 2299.

And yes, there is an easement for our neighbor.

Um right now we put a hold on um the ADU for financial reasons.

Um our sewer system, I don't know if that's noted.

Can you speak into the microphone?

We have to pump our sewer every month.

Um so that system has failed, and that's the the biggest reason right now why we're hoping because it goes right in front of our house, and we're on septic, and it's a failed system.

They came out and checked it and had it all regular, you know, the the form was filled out and turned in.

So we have been author or it does say that we have a failing sewer system.

So that is at the moment the biggest reason why I hope this goes through.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay, so with that, I will close the public hearing on this and bring it back to the commission.

Um we asked staff about that usement.

Yeah, I was parcel is gonna yes, please do.

So is the parcel untouched or uh can you answer the gentleman's question?

Um I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

I I believe it's the parcel that's um to the east of this subject parcel between there and brush Creek Road.

It looks like there's a sliver of um greenery on the um slide two.

And I think it's that parcel.

Yes.

So I guess the question is will that easement be affected by the annexation?

So I don't completely know the answer to that question.

I mean, if if the easement is on the property, it would, you know, the the whole property is coming into the city.

So um that's certainly something we can talk with our engineering staff about if there would be any issues, but I'm not aware of any issues out there.

So I don't have an answer right now, but we can certainly look into it as we proceed to council.

Okay.

Um and I do see some uh LAFCO representative coming up to the podium's engineer.

I'm sorry, the applicant's engineer, yeah.

Oh, are you the applicant?

I think you're from LAFCO.

No.

You said there was a button.

Where's the button?

Yeah, um right there.

Uh you just raise or lower on the top.

The button's gonna be on the right side of the lectern.

It's missing it.

Thank you.

Oh, is that what she's looking for?

Oh did I get that right?

Oh, sorry.

I pressed it and then it anyways.

Sorry about that.

So um, I'm Casey Talbot.

I'm with Adobe Associates, we're the civil engineers.

Um, as a property owner said, they do have a failing septic system.

So initially, um, you know, we did the annexation um for the potential for a future ADU to connect them to city services.

Now it's a need um to get them hooked up to sewer.

Um we're actually concurrently working on an outside service agreement so we can get them hooked up even sooner because they have a um a city council, or they still have to go to city council and then go through LAFCO.

Um the answer to the um the easement that is not on the property, so that's not impacted at all.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

I think that's it.

Thank you.

Okay.

So uh any other questions.

Would somebody like to read the resolution I'll read it.

Um I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to City Council pre-zoning a property located at 2299 Brush Creek Road to the R R 20 Rural Residential Zoning District file number ANX24-001 and wave for the reading of the text.

And is there a second?

Second.

Okay, so that was moved by Commissioner Sisko, seconded by Vice Chair Duggan.

Let's go ahead with Commissioner Partout.

Um I can make all the requiring findings and uh I'm I'm in acceptance of the project.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sisko.

I also can make all of the required findings and um make the recommendation to the city council for the pre-zoning.

Thank you.

And Vice Chair Duggan.

I can make all the required findings and make the recommendation to city council for the pre-zoning.

Thank you.

Commissioner Carter.

Uh yes, I can make the necessary findings and support the resolution uh making the recommendation to the council to rezone the property.

Thank you, Commissioner Sanders.

I also can make all the required findings uh and we'll support the resolution.

Thank you, and Commissioner Horton.

I also can make all the required findings and um you know, rec support the recommendation to the city council for the pre-zoning.

And I also can make all the required findings and support the recommendation to council.

Um and I would like to thank Ms.

Beasler for getting the information about the sentiment survey.

Thank you.

So with that, it was moved by Commissioner Sisko, seconded by Vice Chair Duggan.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko?

Aye.

Commissioner Horton.

Aye.

Commissioner Pardot?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan?

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that passes with seven ayes.

Thank you.

So we will not have a second meeting in August, so we will see you all in September.

So with that, I adjourn the meeting.

Just for you, Terry.