Okay, everyone.

I would like to call to order the September twenty fifth, twenty twenty-five meeting of the Planning Commission.

And if we could have roll, please.

Commissioner Sisko.

Here.

Commissioner Horton.

Here.

Commissioner Sanders.

Here.

Vice Chair Duckin?

Here.

Commissioner Pardell is absent.

And Chair Weeks.

Here.

Thank you.

Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Pardo.

Thank you.

Uh number two, remote participation under AB 2449.

We have none today.

Approval of minutes.

We have one set of minutes from August 14th.

Are there any changes, corrections, etc.?

Okay, seeing none.

Uh we will those will uh be approved as submitted.

And then we'll go on to public comment on non-agenda matters.

And once again, this is for items that are not on this agenda, but that are within this subject matter jurisdiction of the planning commission.

If you have any comments, please make your way to either of the podiums, and you will have three minutes.

Seeing no one rise, I will go ahead and close public comment and bring it down back to commission commission business.

We are 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, area plans, holding public hearings, and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed.

And with that, we'll move to commissioner reports.

Are there any commission reports?

Okay, I would like to mention, as I'm sure the rest of the commission is aware that in August, the council reviewed the appeal on Elm Tree Gas Station, and the council overturned or upheld the appeal and overturned our action.

So I'm sure you all read about the newspaper.

So with that, we'll go to department report.

Thank you, Chair Weeks, members of the commission.

I'm Jessica Jones, Deputy Director of Planning.

Just one quick item for you all.

As I think most of you are aware, Susie Murray, our supervising planner for a development review team, just recently retired from the city after about 19 years.

We were very sad to see her go.

While she was out for a short leave before her retirement, Monet Shakali, who was one of our senior planners, was placed in an acting role for that position.

And I'm very pleased to announce that Monet has been promoted permanently to the supervising planner position for a development review team.

So you will be seeing her face here with our development review planners moving forward.

That's all.

Thank you.

Are there any public comments on what Ms.

Jones just said or what I said previously?

If so, please make your way to the podium.

Seeing no one rise.

Yes, Chair Weeks.

I will need to uh abstain from item 11.1 because my property is located in an area where uh the missing middle zoning is being considered.

Thank you.

Are there any other abstentions or recusals?

Um number eight presentations.

We have none.

We have no consent items, we have no report items, and our first item is item 11.1, public hearing general plan 2050 implementation package, PLN 25-001.

And Ms.

Nicholson, I think you will lead us off.

Yes, good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair Weeks, Vice Chair Duggan, and members of the commission as well as the public.

My name is Amy Nicholson, and I am the supervising planner for the advanced planning section, and we'll be providing a presentation on the general plan 2050 implementation package.

So the general plan 2050 was initiated in spring of 2020, and this was a comprehensive update to the city's general plan, which had not been updated since 2009.

The plan process consisted of robust community engagement, including visioning by the community, uh, which included how uh they hoped that the city would grow and change over time and be physically developed.

This plan was reviewed by the planning commission during uh several occasions and uh most recently during a public hearing in April, where the commission recommended that the city council adopt the general plan and certify the EIR, and that was subsequently done by the council in June of this year.

The general plan is comprised of multiple elements, including goals, policies, and actions.

Many of these can be implemented on a project specific basis as planning staff are reviewing new development projects.

It is also implemented as city staff are forming their work plans, and this can include the development of new policies, and it is also used as a guiding document for city investment in infrastructure as well as city services.

The amendments proposed this afternoon that are before the commission are really specific to the municipal code and zoning code itself and the zoning map.

And so I'll walk through these in a bit more detail.

But here we're really talking about two different types of amendments, some pretty robust text amendments, which include new regulations for missing middle housing, as well as zoning map amendments to about 4,000 properties.

These include 26 properties that were identified to be rezoned as part of the general plan 2050 process, as well as about 2,000 properties that have longstanding inconsistent zoning and general plan land uses, and then about 1,999 properties are proposed to be rezoned to allow for missing middle housing.

So I'm going to walk through the text amendments first.

An example of this relates to the ratio of parkland required based on the number of residents in a certain area as well as the required park developments.

Some examples of that would be children's play equipment and picnic tables.

A set of amendments is proposed to Title 21.

This is a chapter called Growth Management.

Growth Management was enacted in the City of Santa Rosa in the early 90s, and this was in response to some really rapid growth of new residential units, and that was an element in the general plan as well as an ordinance in the municipal code.

Over time, especially as the city has experienced a housing shortage, we have run into some challenges to ensure that we're able to meet both our local and state mandated goals for housing and also comply with the growth management ordinance and element.

And so as part of the general plan 2050, the growth management element was removed, and so for that reason, staff is proposing to remove the growth management section of the municipal code.

And there are numerous other amendments to implement general plan actions.

One relates to new performance standards that are required for new developments in specific circumstances.

In the case where a site may have sensitive species or habitat, there would be a requirement to provide a biological resource assessment, regardless of what the California Environmental Quality Act may require.

In addition, there would be a requirement for a health impact assessment for new residential projects of 100,000 square feet in our R3 and TVR zoning districts.

Those are our more multifamily areas, and this is actually a long standing general plan action, but it's proposed to be included in the zoning code just to ensure it's applied consistently for new development projects.

And then finally, electric vehicle charging infrastructure is now included as a new land use in the zoning code table, and this is really to encourage the use of electric vehicles and help the city to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

There are a number of clarifications proposed in these text amendments.

One is related to our neighborhood mixed use zoning district.

This was created when the city council adopted the downtown station area specific plan and is intended to allow for a mix of both residential and neighborhood serving retail and service type uses.

It was previously considered a residential use.

However, over time and in reviewing the general plan, it aligns more closely as a commercial use, and so it is now being relocated into the commercial land use table where additional land uses are allowed.

Some additional changes include the recognition of microenterprise home kitchen operations.

These are allowed under state law and also the county of Sonoma, and they do not require any type of planning review, and so that is recognized as a part of these amendments.

In addition, there are some adjustments to a zoning and general plan implementation table for clarification.

And a bit more of a substantial change is the way that the zoning code defines multifamily.

It currently defines multifamily as a dwelling, which requires that any multifamily use be constructed within two attached units.

And so now staff is proposing that multifamily be defined by the use itself and not the structure.

So a property that could allow two units instead of just being able to construct a duplex, would be able to construct two detached units, and that would be considered multifamily and allowed under the zoning code.

I won't read through all these minor corrections and clarifications, but these are essentially some cleanup items to ensure that the city review authority is clear and consistent throughout the zoning code to ensure that the vision of the general plan is implemented.

And it also kind of a bigger change that you might note in your packet is the elimination of chapter 2016.

This was the resilient city development measures chapter, which was a temporary ordinance created in response to the tubs fire.

This was superseded in December of last year, and it was not correctly codified at that time, so we're just ensuring that that is removed for clarification's sake.

Moving on to some zoning map amendments here.

State law requires that zoning districts for each parcel are consistent with and implement the general plan land use.

Staff wanted to ensure that zoning was matching the general plan land use.

The exhibit before the commission, which includes a total of 2,119 parcels, would realign the zoning to implement the general plan land use.

So the graphic we were looking at is the land use for all properties within the city's urban growth boundary.

The general plan 2050 did not make a lot of land use changes.

As a result of the general plan 2050, only 26 properties within the city were proposed to be rezoned.

And those properties specifically were located in areas of change as well as by request of property owners who hope to have a rezoning and general plan land use amendment.

So a total of 2,093 properties were identified as having inconsistent zoning and general plan land use that predates the general plan 2050.

So these land uses were established at least in 2009, in many cases decades before that.

However, at the time the zoning was not updated to reflect the general plan land use, and because that is a requirement of state law that is being proposed at this time.

Missing middle housing is defined as house scale buildings that include walk, I'm sorry, house scale buildings with multiple units in walkable neighborhoods.

And just to clarify, middle in this context does not refer to affordability level, it refers to the size and the form of the structure.

Some key characteristics of missing middle housing is that they are in general much smaller in square footage than a typical detached single family house and are almost more in line with what we see with apartment units.

About 1,000 square feet is the typical square footage.

They allow for gentle density, and so what that term means is it allows for more units than the eye really perceives, and that's because they are limited in height and scale, and so it does get more units there, but it it is not in the form of a larger multifamily building.

There's a large focus on the public space and the units fronting with the street, and so they do help to create neighborhoods.

A few more key characteristics include that minimum minimum parking requirements, and parking is also deemphasized in terms of its visual prominence.

So parking is required to be behind the units and not really visible from the streetscape.

Again, all of that is really tying to creating more of a public space for neighborhood or neighbors to enjoy.

So the idea here being units that are designed to look like single family houses, just a note sort of on the history of missing middle housing, as you've seen from that previous slide, they were commonly constructed about 75 years ago or 100 years ago, and then sort of stopped.

And part of the reason is because the focus has really been on detached single-family units and then more of the mid to high rise apartments.

Another element has been really just the focus on automobile-centered living and growth, and so again, those two scenarios are a big reason why we're not really seeing missing middle housing in a lot of communities.

Some benefits of missing middle housing is that it can help to address some of the changing demographics of Santa Rosa and many places in the state and the country.

They are smaller units, as I mentioned earlier, so this can help for people that are single or do not have children.

They generally require less upkeep due to their small size or shared civics or shared kind of private public open space.

And then they, while again, they're not required to be affordable, they can provide a less expensive option due to their size for people who may be on fixed incomes.

As part of this project, planning staff did work with Opticos Design.

They're a consultant in Berkeley that created the or coin the term missing middle housing, and so they helped to provide these regulations.

One of the places that they started was looking at properties within Santa Rosa that had a medium density residential land use already under the general plan.

And then we looked at eliminating areas that were hazard prone.

So this map on the left shows are more fire and flood-prone areas.

We also identified areas that were considered walkable, and so that's shown on the graphic on the right, where services are close by, close access to transit, as well as having good sidewalk infrastructure.

So this map here shows the areas proposed for the missing metal housing overlay.

So these are this map shows just over 1900 parcels in the city.

There are a variety of shades, the pink shades relate to the missing middle housing small zone, and I'll talk more about that in a moment.

And then the purple reflects the missing middle medium zone.

And so to sort of describe the general location, we're looking at areas in the periphery of the city's downtown as well as the junior college area along Farmers Lane, Burbank Gardens near Sebastopol Road, and then some clusters near commercial centers in the southeast and northwest, as well as around the Cottingtown Mall area.

Missing middle housing is proposed in five of the city's eight historic preservation districts, and those are shown here on the slide with the circles.

And what that means is that any new development is subject to a planning review process called a landmark alteration permit, as well as height limitations of 35 feet.

And so while missing middle housing could be allowed in five of these preservation districts, any new development would still be subject to the same planning review process that any non-missing metal housing project would be, as well as the height limitation and the requirement to provide some of the character defining elements of the preservation district.

This slide shows a few examples of what are considered the small house scale buildings which would be allowed in the missing middle housing small zone.

And so here we see an example of two different duplex types, either side by side or stacked, as well as a cottage court development where from the street you're really seeing the sides of what appear to be two detached single family dwellings, and then a four-plex unit.

This slide shows some of the larger missing metal housing buildings, and so these would be allowed within the missing middle medium zone, and that area is really focused just around the Cottingtown Mall area.

I will note that the townhouse and live work units can be allowed in either missing middle small or missing middle medium, but the number of units that you can have together varies.

So in the focus here of missing metal small zone, you can have fewer of those small to medium building footprints.

Buildings are typically detached and are low intensity.

I want to acknowledge there's a subzone, and so there's an additional letter added, which is an F.

And so what all of all that refers to is a frontage type that is allowed, and that's really strategically placed in areas that are envisioned more for commercial uses, and it just relates to the design and what's allowed for frontages, and that will make a bit more sense in a few slides from here.

So again, missing middle medium, it still is showing small to medium footprints, but they're slightly slightly more intense.

So the amendments before you relate to both the text of the zoning code as well as the zoning map.

So there would be a new chapter added to our combining district section, which provides all of the regulations for missing middle housing, and then there is a separate resolution before the commission, which shows the various different parcels and then the associated missing middle housing combining district.

I want to emphasize the permitting process.

So when this was presented to the design review and preservation board in August, the board did encourage that staff consider the most streamlined process for missing metal housing developments, and so uh any project that is designed to meet all of the regulations would be exempt from a use permit as well as design review.

However, again, going back to the historic districts, there would still be a requirement for the landmark alteration permit.

So there are a lot of standards, and so I that's one of the reasons the design review and preservation board I think had some comfort in allowing it to be exempt from design review.

I'll go over just a few of the um kind of big areas, and I'm happy to elaborate as needed after the presentation.

One concept in missing middle housing relates to design sites, so this is uh particularly particularly important when you have a larger site that can fit multiple different types of missing metal housing on it.

Instead of going through an actual subdivision, you can have proposed property lines or design site lines where uh the units are sited and then the setbacks and other standards are measured from those design site lines.

This table here shows the requirements for lot width and lot depth.

So it is these are really important because it allows for the structure to not appear overwhelming.

You can also see here on this table that there are permitted housing types based on the small and medium zones, and so this is consistent with that graphic that I showed you earlier with the different types of missing metal housing units.

Missing middle housing provides quite a bit of regulations for how the site is developed and how the structure itself is developed.

So there are setback requirements, there are height maximums, and then there are also requirements for a maximum width and depth of the structure itself, as well as any uh what they call wings, and those are just smaller portions of the building.

You can see on the uh this mouse isn't cooperating, but okay, back here, this is where parking is shown.

And so again, parking is really um it's not allowed to be in front of the structure itself, so it's supposed to be out of out of view here, so that's important for site design.

And then missing metal housing projects are generally required to have private open space.

However, if they're within a certain walking distance from a sort of shared public open space area, they are not required to provide on site.

And so this is just one example here for the duplex stacked unit.

One of these tables exists for each housing type allowed under missing metal housing.

Here we have an example of the frontage type.

So I mentioned this earlier in talking about the missing middle housing flex zones.

Frontage types are really important to allow that kind of street-facing public interaction with missing middle housing.

And so here we see one example of a frontage type, which is a stoop.

And so, if a developer or property owner is coming in to create a missing middle housing project, they not only comply with the graphic I showed you before, if they're doing a duplex project, but also they need to select a frontage type to include in their design, and there are very specific standards here as well.

So the distinction with the flex zone is really just allowing two additional housing type, I'm sorry, frontage types, and that really relates more to a retail frontage.

And then finally, civic spaces.

If the missing middle housing project is on a site that's more than four acres, there's a requirement to provide civic space as a part of the development, and there are regulations included in the packet before you describing that in more detail.

Moving back to the project overall, this meeting, so the amendments to both the municipal code as well as the zoning map were noticed in accordance with the requirements of the city's zoning code and state law through publication in the Press Democrat.

And this is allowed in cases where changes may impact more than 1,000 properties.

As a courtesy, planning staff did mail a notice to all property owners, which would be affected by the proposed rezoning for consistency with the general plan land use, as well as property owners propose to be included within the missing metal housing combining district, and then additional outreach was provided through our subscriber email list as well as on project websites and posting of agendas at City Hall.

We've received numerous comments, especially in the last week or so.

First, I want to touch on comments related to missing middle housing, and these many of these were actually received during our two community meetings we had earlier in the process.

One comment that has been received from several residents related to the impacts to preservation districts.

There were some concerns raised about minimum parking, so missing middle housing only requires one space per unit.

There have been a number of comments received related to the proposed rezonings for general plan consistency.

Many of these were general inquiries, property owners wanted to understand what this change would mean for them and their circumstance.

And the zoning was or is currently single family.

However, because state law requires that those two be consistent and the zoning must implement the general plan, not the other way around, there are concerns raised about how this may impact the use of that property and what opportunities those property owners might have going forward.

And so again, this single-family commercial office zoning, that's just one example of an inconsistency and a use or structure was legally implemented or constructed, but then regulations change.

It recognizes that that can happen over time, and so it does provide an opportunity to continue to sell these properties, continue the use to sell the properties and to make modifications to the property.

So in the example of the single family um property, there is a path if a property owner wanted to do an addition.

It is um it does require a minor conditional use permit, so that is above and beyond what most single family property owners would have to go through, but it is an option to expand or um add on to a house.

And I will add that you know, most maintenance of a property would not fall into that category.

That's really looking at an example of it uh in addition.

So all of these amendments have been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

These were all analyzed in the environmental impact report that was done for the general plan 2050, and that was certified uh by the council in June.

Um, in addition, there is a specific CEQA exemption for rezonings to provide consistency with the general plan, and so that exemption is also highlighted here on the slide.

So it is uh with that that the planning and economic development department recommend that the planning commission by resolution recommend to the city council adoption of the various zoning code and municipal code amendments and zoning map amendments to implement the general plan 2050 to rezone parcels to be consistent with the existing general plan land use and to apply the missing middle housing combining district uh within the city to allow for missing middle housing, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Nicholson.

Um, are there any questions for staff at this time?

Um, Commissioner Sanders.

Just for clarification, can you clarify what is a walking neighborhood?

What is the definition of that?

It has to do with uh proximity, and I'll have to look at the details that are described in missing metal housing, but it's uh proximity to meeting your uh daily needs on foot.

Um so that would be like uh retail grocery needs as well as proximity to uh transportation, so either the smart, either the smart stops or the um transit uh transit hub within the city.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff at this time?

And are we okay to proceed?

Okay, uh so with that um I would like to open the public hearing on this item.

If you are interested in making a comment, please go to one of the two podiums.

We can use both of them.

There is a uh button on the side of the podium that raises and lowers it.

Please state your name for the record uh if and you will have three minutes and you see the countdown timer.

And please um try not to repeat what somebody else said.

If you are in the audience and agree with what somebody said, just raise your hand or give a thumb up, thumbs up or something like that.

So we will go ahead and start with this podium on the what's at the south side.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, okay.

Can you say your name for the record, please?

My name is Sandra Stone.

And 49 years ago, I bought an agricultural piece of property on Marlow Road.

I don't need to see the general plan to know what it is, because I have two story apartments across the street that look like office buildings.

I have two-story apartments on the side of my property.

I have three-story apartment buildings further on the side of my property, and there is a plan for I think four stories on Ridley.

So I see what the future holds, but the present is important to me to preserve.

Someday my property will join these, and it will be a shame.

The islands of dirt that we have along the channel provides insects, weed seed, worms, things for birds, things that make this city designed for living.

I need agricultural zoning.

I have 95 walnut trees, I have a tractor, I have a disc.

I make dirt, I make dust.

So why am I here?

When I know what I say doesn't matter.

The decisions have been made.

To notify us one week ago about this meeting is not fair.

To not give us any more notification, but we can look in the press Democrat to find out when this goes to the city council is not fair.

And zoning ahead of time to make it easier for the subdivisions who are going to make millions, isn't my concern.

My final comment is that when my area was incorporated into the city limits, the county and the city representatives told us that no one could change our zoning but us.

That turns out to not be true.

So anything you say, like this isn't gonna change your life.

Does anybody have any questions for me?

Thank you.

And we'll go to the other podium.

And you can lower it.

There's a button on the side towards the door.

There you go.

Thank you.

My name is Pam Frasca.

I live at 303 Talbot Avenue, a residentially zoned home that is potentially going to be rezoned commercial office.

It was my twins' birthday weekend.

My father purchased the home as he was living in Palm Springs and his health was declining.

He thought it time the family lived together in one home.

He arranged his trust so that I could live out my life in the home, and upon my death, the home would belong to his grandchildren, my twins.

I don't believe he would have purchased a property with a cloud hanging over the zoning that would one day be changed from residential to commercial office.

His dream was that one of the twins would live there and raise their family in the same idyllic neighborhood we moved into back in 94.

My father lived his last six years with us in this home.

My children grew up into outstanding adults while living in this home.

Their father died in this home.

A residence is much more than zoning.

It's families, memories, gardens, lots of beloved pets, and cherished experiences.

The love and camaraderie in our neighborhood has grown strong over the years.

This kind of family feeling and support is a rare and treasured component of our neighborhood and is felt by all.

The ability of Santa Rosa to discern what is good for a neighborhood does not give me the confidence that this zoning change is in any way a good idea for our neighborhood.

When people ask me where I live, they always say they love this neighborhood.

We bought our home from the son of the man who built it, 1939.

It is a legacy home, a strong redwood home, as were built back in the 30s in a legacy neighborhood.

Please reconsider changing the landscape of the Talbot Parker neighborhood into something someday unrecognizable.

We are part of Santa Rosa history.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll go to this podium.

Thank you.

Just a couple of quick questions or comments.

If you first date your name for the record, please.

I'm sorry, do you?

Yes, my name is Dan Reynolds.

I live on Talbot Avenue.

And I just wanted to start with a question.

Is when I believe it might have been uh slide 20 or such said that the goal was to create neighborhoods, but why are we saying the goals to create neighborhoods when it's obviously designed to destroy them or to change them beyond the recognition of those of us who saved and scrimped and planned to buy houses in these neighborhoods?

It's I can only have to say that there's no function served of most of your middle missing middle planning and nomenclature that has any relationship to at least my life and that of many of our neighbors.

The missing middle should stay missing.

Our neighborhoods are fine.

We do not need to have them chipped away to have these little sections of, for example, I'm speaking particularly in regard to the idea that Parker Avenue would be turned into something other than what it currently is.

There's no need for that.

It destroys the neighborhood, it takes one little chunk away.

And that being replicated all over the place is just the camel's nose under the tent.

Pretty soon you'll have pushing it farther in, pushing it farther in, and we won't have neighborhoods as we know.

We won't have neighborhoods that have defined Santa Rosa.

I just don't see the point in it unless there are people behind the scenes getting benefits that we aren't supposed to know about, because it's just absolutely terrible.

Our neighborhood density is quite sufficient, and everything that is planned has serves really no function.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll go to this podium.

Good evening.

My name is Brad Childs.

I live at 1545 Parker Drive.

It's at the corner of Parker Drive and California Avenue.

One block in from Montgomery Drive.

Across the street from me is a house, and behind that house is the first United Methodist Church.

We have lived there for 25 years.

It has been referred to as Americana.

I do not see any reason to change the format of the neighborhood.

Everyone has been living there.

A lot of my neighbors have been there for many decades.

I just heard about this meeting yesterday, which very upsets me greatly.

I would be across the street from a house, my neighbor, that would be incorporated into commercial rezoning.

The church is behind them.

We've already been impacted by changes to Provident Hospital, things going on at the church.

How the house can be in commercial zoning is beyond me.

I did not hear of any public meetings about this until yesterday.

I'd like to know who requested this change.

Was it Provident Hospital?

Was it the church?

Was it just some idea that came up um in the city by the planners?

Oh, let's just do this or that uh it's this doesn't work.

And I'm I wonder why this meeting is being held today when I'm told that June 3rd, the City Council accepted the general plan anyway.

So I don't know what this meeting, how this meeting serves us we we just finished fighting with getting the massage parlors regulated in the city what's next thank you thank you and we'll go there hey everybody my name uh can you all hear me can you speak into the microphone maybe it needs to be raised a little bit uh hello is this better a little closer to the microphone hey there that's perfect thank you there my name's Armando uh I'm a resident over at West Ninth Street and I did want to provide a couple of points of concern for number one there's a reality that this meeting is being held many during many people's working hours so the true impact of the civil society is not comprehended by the amount of people are here a lot of us working class folks have to work until 6 30 7 o'clock at night just to be able to meet ends meet so that's one of the realities that's not reflective here.

The second reality that's impacted by the plan is there's a plan to redevelop Santa Rosa.

We as paying citizens we have been funding the projects that Santa Rosa has been doing since the start of time here what is the reality that's being put on those impacted homeowners is it just displacement is there going to be any additional impacts or any projects that's going to help us be able to relocate maybe to a different part of the city or is it more you've made your taxes you've put your time here we don't really have a use for you anymore so we're gonna go ahead and take back your land through the use of eminent domain the fair market value is not going to be sufficient to help anybody within the affected zones be able to relocate because everything that's in the area is completely out of price we're already blue collar families that have to work 10 12 hour days just to be able to afford the current payments that we're currently making so it's very unfair that Santa Rosa is turning its backs on the communities that help build it agriculturally help build his projects through the funding of all of the financial support through the property taxes.

So it seems very unfair that there is no real plan for the impact of families every decision that's being made is being made by people that are going to be unaffected because I can guarantee the people behind the books choosing what zoning is happening where it's happening they're not going to choose their own properties.

They're not going to choose any property that's near them because they don't want to affect their purpose their personal property their property values or their own personal well being they're choosing to impact neighborhoods of people that really cannot do anything to defend themselves that's the second point.

In addition to that it's the reality that the term gentle density is very contradictory.

If anybody here has to commute from Santa Rosa to Rona Park from Ronan Park to Windsor it is very comprehensive that there's already congestion that's happening on all of the freeways you can say that there's public rail you can say that there is a significant amount of bus transportation that's happening but what is that really doing to affect the city there's not much that's going to be happening because it's out of reality for somebody to take a 45 minute bus ride just to get to one of the rail transit locations have to take another bus uh another hour to get to the other end of the rail stop and then be able to take another 45 minutes to an hour to be able to walk there.

It makes no sense to gentle density increase the people that are living in the city without creating comprehensive plans that will go ahead and better the city so that it's public transportation is superior.

Looking at San Francisco it makes perfect sense you're able to get from point A to point B within 45 minutes through one rail looking at Santa Rosa you have to take bus up one to get to bus stop two to get to the rail you get to the end of the rail you take bus stop two to be able to walk another 20 30 minutes.

So I just want to coin that there's a lot of people impacted and the term gentle density is a very great oxymoron that's being overlooked so please have some consideration for everybody out there.

Thank you.

And you can lower the podium if you want to can you hear me hello?

Yeah I'm Christine Temez I live on Carrio Street in the Ridgeway District one of the streets proposed for the small middle housing rezoning I first would like to point out that the preservation district ridgeway pushed for that and we went through a process to get you know uh preservation district, and now even within like a 10-year span it's now being pushed as being maybe redistricted.

Um, I think uh one of the main points for that area is that you know, you talk about gentle density, you talk about creating neighborhoods, but there is no neighborhood there, and there is no ability to create a neighborhood there because what we're impacted by there is a college, uh two high schools, uh college avenue, Mendocino avenue.

The neighborhood is small in itself, and it's created by small homes that live in that neighborhood.

Adding apartments and multi-units is actually gonna probably deter people from moving into that neighborhood.

I purchased that home there after looking at 50 different houses in Santa Rosa.

I specifically chose the Ridgeway District neighborhood because of its preservation and because of the size of the neighborhood and the small density of the housing there.

Um people will not, at least in my perspective, as a millennial, will I not be looking for a neighborhood where I'm surrounded by multiple units of apartment that doesn't create a level of safety for me, that doesn't create a walkable, desirable neighborhood for me.

Uh, that doesn't create any type of uh what we would call a need for like preserving my or people that we want to stay living in Santa Rosa, you're going to probably create a more of people leaving those areas.

Just my perspective.

Um, but again, with the traffic situation in that area, if you go there any time between 7:30 in the morning and 10 o'clock a.m.

good luck getting in and out of that area, and creating more housing in that area is only gonna exacerbate the problem of the traffic and the flow that is already being created by the multiple high schools, the junior college, the unified school district, the firehouse, and all the people using that pathway to get to their government jobs.

So, again, you know, utilizing the spaces in the right way makes sense, but this is not a space to be utilized in that perspective because it is not, as you know, it's already been zoned for preservation historic district, and there's a reason for that.

So it feels like maybe there needs to be a reanalyzation of the proposed areas and really looking at it and a day-to-day perspective versus like a general planning perspective, because if you are out there in the day-to-day, you will see what realities are.

Is this a walkable neighborhood?

Is this a drivable neighborhood?

Is this a neighborhood where we can add more homes and create more traffic and invite more people to move in?

Or is that going to deter people from moving to these areas?

So I think these are things to look at.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, hello.

My name is Christina Sunderlage.

I'm on Talbot Avenue in Santa Rosa.

And um, I'm gonna take us back to the uh proposed zoning change from residential to um commercial office that is on the south side of Parker Drive, which is directly behind and parallel to Montgomery Drive, between Doyle Park, which is right at Memorial Hospital's the end of the campus, all the way to all I mean uh Doyle Park Drive, all the way to Alderbrook.

So it's kind of a two-long block strip there that is showing to be changed to office.

Um these houses are you know from the 30s, 40s and 50s, and we do not have a historical neighborhood designation.

Possibly that should have been done, I don't know.

And I do want to apologize really for not participating in this process earlier on.

Um I know Karen has come to several of our meetings with um with the hospital.

We have ongoing neighborhood issues with that, and we have a neighborhood group that that does participate.

Um, we I also only heard about this change yesterday, because again, I haven't participated in the general plan process, but but still um this change from residential to office is so hard to understand when we have these beautiful homes.

A lot of them do have ADU units, and many of them have the potential to have them, so we have this potential on this these couple of blocks here, which are more than two blocks, but to have more units there.

But why would we be adding office space when we have all this empty office space in our community already in Santa Rosa?

Not just Santa Rosa, well, so I think it's really wanting to be about promoting these neighborhoods, whatever the density is, we're still gonna always need single family homes.

It's just like the previous speaker spoke about.

That's what a lot of people want.

A lot of people want to build a granny unit.

It's great, we're doing that now.

So, what I want to do is um try to be proactive about this because I feel like I'm behind on this, but um, what what do we have now that we can do as a neighborhood group to protect this from becoming office space with potentially you know a single family residential on one side and then maybe potentially having if if lots were purchased by developers or by providence, that we could end up with you know four-story medical buildings or whatever directly across.

So I know oftentimes we we try to have some interface between the the one story and the four-story, and this could potentially uh mean that we don't have that in this really lovely neighborhood.

I also want to say that I am not I do not live across from where this will be, but I think it's a um it's a thing about the community, it's a thing about the fabric of a neighborhood, and I live I've lived there since 85.

I can't even do that math, so um I want to see it um be a still a vibrant walking neighborhood for families and old people.

So I appreciate your time.

And I think my question may be related or asked of the planner about what can we do now to remedy this.

Thank you.

Sure, thank you.

Uh anybody else would like to make a comment?

Okay, well, go to that side, that podium.

Yes, please.

Okay, how does this sound?

Do I have to switch it on?

Uh no, it's on.

All right.

Just speak directly into it, please.

All right.

Um it's gonna be a little repetition at this point because you've heard from the neighborhood a few times.

My name is Dennis Fraska, 303 Talbot Av.

Uh the proposed zoning change affects, as you've already heard, a legacy neighborhood of homes built in the 30s and 40s.

Actual reasons for this change or justification have been difficult to find, other than it's part of the general plan.

Montgomery Avenue has commercial activity, Parker Street does not and never has um examples of commercial office zoning are front and center on Montgomery, in the way that uh what was doctors and dentist's office or medical services businesses, uh, over time have gradually migrated to massage businesses in this medical district.

Um there are two massage businesses at the corner of Talbot and uh Montgomery, another one at Doyle Park and Montgomery, and two more at Talbot and Forth, which are in residential type buildings, and um this presents a realistic picture of what this zoning change will do over time.

Um there are several commercial vacancies in the few blocks east of Memorial Hospital, both for sale and for lease.

Um there's substantial vacant commercial property all over town and close to memorial.

Um this neighborhood lives with and accepts emergency vehicles and sirens and helicopters constantly.

So changing zoning is an additional detriment to the neighborhood that will most certainly affect property values and for what?

More commercial space that is already available.

So we believe that uh the negative impact on our neighborhood property values can be documented and verified commercial office space on Montgomery and Doyle Park has coexisted successfully with residential on Parker Av and Talbot Av for decades.

So I have to ask who is driving this change, uh thank you for considering my comments.

Thank you, and I would like to uh reiterate that if you um are making comments and somebody else has already made those comments, please provide maybe something new or different, um, so that uh we can hear everybody's issues.

So we'll go ahead and with this podium.

Hi, my name is Greg Nash.

I work or I live in the 1400 block of Parker Drive, right next door to my neighbor right here.

Um my family's lived there since 1970.

Um, so life basically lifelong resident of it and seeing quite a bit of changes for it.

Um honestly the letter that I received in a mail was a real the first notification for this.

Um, you know, Press Democrat doesn't help because you know I don't know how many people actually still regularly read it, and um I went and looked on the website just to see what kind of uh uh changes the change to commercial zoning would mean for my property.

And the first comment here about you know minor permitting is the only thing that I've heard so far, but there's gonna be quite a bit of other things.

What's it gonna mean to my insurance company that now that's that it's uh rated commercial, is that gonna change that?

And because you know that California loves their insurance companies and they love dropping people, um, how's that gonna affect things?

We also have residential parking on our street.

How is that gonna change, or what's the ability of that gonna be?

Because that was quite a fight to try to get that um for it, because uh, you know, the hospital hasn't always been the best neighbor, you know, for us.

We've lived with quite a bit of changes um with them, and uh I do want to reiterate the other this this neighborhoods existed since the 30s.

My house is probably one of the first ones in a neighborhood for it, and we want to preserve that um and really looking to get more information that I just couldn't really find as far as what does this change mean for the properties that are identified and are even across from it for it, like they you know brought up commercial.

What kind of commercial is driving this?

You know, consistent with the the general plan, okay.

How did that you know this block specifically or even this whole thing get changed?

And as part of the general plan, I don't see you know I could see sure if you were trying to change it to this you know higher density um housing, sure, that would make sense.

You're making a neighborhood into a neighborhood, but we have way too much failed uh commercial real estate already, expanding stuff for this for these types of uh businesses that that go in there, or like they've already pointed out, the m number of massage parlors and other businesses that tend not to stay in these places, it doesn't make any sense.

And and just the information um and outreach that we saw on here that as you know, instead of sending letters for when it was originally changed, hey great, that doesn't really help me, you know, coming here surprised tonight to find out and honestly bewildered and scared of the future of what this really means.

Is this just another step that we're a great a another corporate hospital because they are corporate, they're profit-driven, can decide, oh, we're gonna pursue eminent domain and we're just gonna take over because we want this to now be office buildings for our commercial uh support for medical.

You know, it's a reality for this neighborhood and has been for quite some time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else?

Okay, well, go ahead on this podium over here.

Yeah, hi, uh, my name's Curtis Bennett.

I live on near Talbot and Montgomery.

And uh about three years ago, my wife and I moved here from San Diego, and part of the reason was we were seeking out to live in a small town and to uh live in a bungalow style house in a walkable neighborhood.

And we were so grateful to find the uh area around Talbot, and uh it's just been great.

And it's a magical place to live.

The neighbors are so welcoming, there's a great sense of community.

I love walking my dogs.

It's it's awesome.

And uh I'm very disappointed to hear that there will be potentially commercial uh um occupancies and uh zoning change uh in a neighborhood that is frankly pretty pretty a wonderful place to live.

And um, so and I don't understand because when I walk around the neighborhood, all I can see is vacancy, vacancy, vacancy, vacancy everywhere, and in between the vacancies are massage parlors and dispensaries.

So I would argue that the general plan doesn't seem to be achieving the goal of a diverse economic uh landscape.

Uh and maybe maybe uh uh that uh perplexes me that we would want to build more in the face of of the current landscape.

And the last thing I want to say, well, two more things since I have plenty of time, is that the amount of notification was ridiculous.

When they were gonna put cranes in on the street to lift uh AC units on top of the medical office building, there was a week of notification on the block that said be aware there's gonna be heavy equipment on the street, and so what we have here is a fundamental change to a neighborhood that's gonna be quite disruptive and affect property values, and the notification was me finding out from my neighbors yesterday.

That is completely unacceptable and uh reflects poorly on um you folks making the rules, and um yeah, so that's it.

So uh I think you should uh think twice before you rip up a neighborhood.

Uh it seems to serve no purpose, and and and lastly, I'm sorry, I forgot what I was gonna say.

Um I appreciate you wanting to have diverse comments up here.

My comments are very similar to that of the previous speakers, but this is our right and an opportunity to speak our mind about something we find troubling.

So I would appreciate that not being a talking point from the folks on the planning commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there um you can lower the podium?

It's there's a button there.

Hello, and if you can speak directly to the microphone so we can hear you.

My name is Alana Kelly, and I just have one question, and maybe this is going to be addressed further in this meeting, but I'm wondering if or how these zoning changes will affect property tax rates.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay, seeing no one uh rise, I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this and bring it back to the commission.

Um I have a couple of comments or a couple of questions, and if my fellow commissioners could also uh chime in on the questions or comments that they have from what they heard from the public.

Um, but I'll go ahead and start.

Um can uh you explain again why this zoning change is being requested.

Sure, thank you, Chair, for the question and to all um the members of the public who spoke.

Uh the majority of these changes, so with the exception of 26 parcels, so just over 2,000 uh properties are proposed to be rezoned to implement the longstanding general plan land use.

So these land uses were established prior to 2009, and in many cases um decades before that.

The California government code, so state law requires that zoning be consistent with the general plan land use, and that is the reason why these um zoning map amendments are before the commission.

It's to bring these to bring our zoning map in compliance with state law, which requires that the zoning district implement the underlying general plan land use.

So these land use changes have been in place for a long time, yes.

So we did pull out um our paper general plan maps to do some research based on some of the comments we received, and so as it relates to the the properties uh near Montgomery.

Um, those uh that general plan land use of office has been in place since at least the 1990s, um, but the zoning has been um single family uh as well since that time.

So that inconsistency has been in existence for uh about three decades at least.

Okay, thank you.

Um I did want to mention to everybody that this is scheduled to go to the city council on November 4th.

So um I don't know if that was mentioned before or not.

Um can you talk about uh the noticing again?

I apologize.

Can you repeat that question?

I get um just talk about the noticing requirements and how long this has been um in the works and the fact that the council did approve the general plan, but these zoning changes are coming after to implement the general plan.

Sure.

So the mail notices were sent out to property owners that would be impacted by these zoning changes, and so if you did not receive a notice but you're in this neighborhood, in particular the one near Memorial Hospital, it's because your property is not proposed to be rezoned.

So on the south side of Parker Drive, the properties are proposed to be rezoned from the single family zoning district to the commercial office because the general plan land use, which has been in place since the 1990s, uh is office.

Whereas on the north side of Parker Drive, the general plan land use is for low density residential development, and so in that circumstance the zoning is consistent.

Um I do also want um I'm sorry, I'll finish the noticing uh the day requirement as well.

So the zoning code and state law require that when there is a change that may impact uh fewer than 1,000 properties that that a direct mailed notice goes out to affected property owners, um, in the case where more than 1,000 properties may be affected, a notice in uh the press Democrat in the case of Santa Rosa will suffice, it meets the legal requirement.

However, because this is impacting people's property, we wanted to ensure that they were made aware of the proposed change and the upcoming public hearing, and so we did mail that notice 10 days in advance of the meeting, which is what is required under the zoning code in state law.

Um I did want to add that even though the zoning right now for these three blocks along Montgomery Drive is R 16 because the land uses office and has been that way for a number of decades, any type of commercial development allowed under the office commercial zoning district would be allowed, even though the zoning doesn't say that because state law says when there is an inconsistency, you need to apply the standards of the implementing zoning district.

So, in the case of these three blocks, that implementing zoning district is commercial office.

Thank you.

Um then uh my comment about the general plan being approved by the council and that this proposal tonight is to implement the general plan.

Can you just reiterate that?

Sure.

So the general plan was adopted by the city council in June, and the uh rezoning changes really were not a part of the general plan 2050 because those have been around for several decades, and so that wasn't discussed as part of the general plan.

No changes were made to land use in these areas that are before the commission.

So when we're rezoning for consistency with the exception of 26 properties, and those are those were identified in areas of change as a part of the general plan, as well as by property owner request.

The remaining 2,000 parcels are reflecting or are being amended to reflect the general plan land use that was adopted by the city council in 2009 with the general plan update at that time, or updates prior to it.

It just I'm being vague because it depends which property we're talking about.

But these are uh land uses that have been in effect since at least 2009 for 2,000 of these properties.

Thank you.

Um, the woman who spoke from the Ridgway neighborhood um talked about that it's a historic neighborhood and is that this was gonna change the preservation.

There was gonna change it from a preservation district.

Can you talk again about how um missing middle uh intersects with historic neighborhoods?

Sure.

Uh in the case of our preservation districts, those preservation districts still remain as as such, even with the proposed missing metal housing combining district.

So all preservation districts have a base zoning, so that base zoning in many cases is for single family housing or for multifamily housing, and then they have what's called a historic combining district.

When you have a historic combining district applied to your property, that means that you are subject to an additional set of regulations in the city's zoning code, including um height limitations, as well as a different permitting process that properties outside of preservation districts are not subject to.

Okay, I will uh see if my fellow commissioners have questions.

Are we still talking about what um some of the public brought up that we want to follow up on?

I'm sorry.

Um, somebody mentioned at the moment.

A potential impact on um their tax um rates and/or um insurance if they're if they're living in a commercial commercial office zoned house.

There are no property tax implications based on the zoning changes as it relates to homeowners insurance.

I I'm not an expert, so I don't want to to speak to that.

I um based on my research, I've not seen any indication that a zoning change would impact the the cost of homeowners insurance, but again, I'm I'm not an authority to speak on that.

Um, I'm certainly happy to um do some additional research and present that information uh by email, and we can put it on a web page, uh, but I I can't add any more than that at this time.

Thank you.

Were there other questions that I missed?

Commissioner Carter.

If I may um so uh with respect to the uh commercial office zoning that's been in place on particularly the Parker Avenue properties for a number of uh general plan changes previous to this.

Was there any recent analysis done on uh office space needs to verify that those were the correct land use designations that have been existing there?

I know around medical centers the need for office space seems to grow continuously, but was there any specific analysis in any of in this or any previous uh general plan analyses?

Thank you for the question.

Uh, as part of the general plan 2050 update process, there was uh an existing conditions and recommendation report done which did um include uh market demand study and analysis of uh necessary and and anticipated uh commercial office and residential uh space and and unit count.

Um so I can share that.

I don't I can't speak to the exact numbers, but that was analyzed early on in the uh general plan update process back in 2021.

Commissioner Sanders, um I was looking at the uh at the general plan and and uh some of the key aspects of the general plan, um, is that it's livability focused, right?

Um, and several bullets kind of stand out promoting affordable housing in neighborhoods, uh sustainability, mobility, equity, and one that just kind of jumped out at me is community character.

And I think that a lot of the folks here, particularly who live in the Talbot Parker area, that's kind of what they're talking about, is community character, and in the general plan, I think the language says preserve neighborhood character and foster healthy community.

So I guess my question is what is the remedy for folks who really justifiably aren't necessarily excited about having an office building across the street from their home where their kids at one time were playing, you know, they were like kids like me playing football in the street.

Is there a remedy that I mean clearly doing nothing is not an option because then we're in um conflict with state law, but what is the remedy for folks?

Thank you for the question.

Uh so in the case of the properties on the south side of Parker Drive, so those th those three blocks where the general plan land uses office and the zoning is proposed to be changed to office commercial, but is currently single family.

The way to remedy the um concern about the neighborhood changing uh to a more office commercial type area is to do a general plan amendment to those properties to change the land use to what's called low density residential, and then the zoning uh the rezoning could go alongside that general plan amendment to make those two consistent, and so the zoning would be single family, would which would then implement the new uh land use of low density residential.

So general plan amendments can happen in one of two ways.

One it can be uh applicant initiated, so we do have a general plan amendment application, that can be submitted.

There is a fee associated with that.

Uh the other option is if the city council directs planning staff to add that to a work plan, and so then um then it's it's more city driven.

Um in either case the process is the same, so it would come before the planning commission.

Well, first staff would do analysis, and then it would come to the planning commission as a public hearing, and then ultimately the city council.

So there is a means to resolve this through a general plan amendment for uh those various properties along Parker, and so those can happen in one of two ways through application uh initiated by the property owners, and it can be one application and it can include all those properties, uh, or through the city council directing staff, and that would be a city initiated uh effort without a um an application and fee.

And that's how would that process be initiated?

I mean, you say that the the residents of that area would have to initiate that that's nothing that happens from the day as tonight.

Correct.

So the residents could submit an application for a general plan amendment tomorrow, um, and then it would be processed.

Um if it's a city initiated project, then it needs to be directed by the city council who helps to establish staff's work plan.

And so um reaching out to the council, expressing the concern, and then the council can direct staff to take it on as a um you know city initiated project, and then that would move forward through an identical process as an applicant initiated one, it's just a matter of application and and fee.

And then just really quickly, um, from whatever decision is made here tonight, what is the what are the next steps so that people understand that this happens today?

The next step is what in this process.

So the next step is uh to go to the city council, and that is a public hearing, and so uh the the commission will act tonight and we'll make a recommendation to the council.

The council will then hold a public hearing as well.

That's scheduled for November the fourth, um, at or after 5 p.m.

Because it will be a public hearing, and uh then the council will take action on the proposed amendments.

So assuming the council um introduces the ordinances as written, those would go into effect.

So the zoning changes would go into effect sort of late late December.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um just one quick clarifying question from your question, and then I had a few of my own questions as well separately, but on the public comment.

So just to make sure I got it right.

So in the historic district, missing middle housing, um, you would have to abide by the height limit of the historic district.

I heard that correctly.

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

Okay, other comments.

So we'll start with Commissioner Horton.

Uh thank you for the great work and great presentation.

So just a few comments.

Um, so first of all, I I drive an electric car, and the biggest barrier, especially as a renter, is by far the access to charging.

I was trying to charge it at the mall the other day, and it was like a line of electric cars down the parking lot.

So uh very excited to see that provision.

Um I wanted to ask a couple questions.

One is about the biological resource and health impact survey, and I probably didn't give this the attention it deserved in the general plan, but I'm um kind of wondering how that's weighted, you know, I understand the the need, but I'm kind of wondering how that's weighted when you know ultimately if it's making it more difficult to build um your potential conceivably more difficult to build infill housing in the city that's creating you know pressure for sort of urban sprawl in the unincorporated area where there's probably not gonna be that kind of assessment anyway, and potentially a more significant impact to the environment.

So just would love your thoughts on that.

I don't think I'm too hung up on it, but um just just concerned about kind of the red tape there, I guess.

Thanks for the question.

I want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly.

So is your question about the um the unintended consequences of requiring uh a biological resource assessment?

Exactly, yeah.

So I think the way that this is written uh in the general plan as an action is is pretty narrow.

So it's it's required in cases where there are identified or known a known likelihood for sensitive species or habitat, and so we have uh various different maps and resources, a way to see generally in this area we can expect uh these types of species or habitat, and um only in those cases would we be requiring a biological resource assessment.

I will add that you know oftentimes when you're looking at an undeveloped site anywhere in the city, unless you qualify for some type of CEQA streamlining measure, the um staff would be requesting one of those to ensure there wasn't some um sort of unanticipated impact to uh biological resources, but uh the state has moved toward more um projects that are exempt from CEQA, and so uh this is a means to be able to analyze impacts and um be able to offset them as as necessary.

Thanks so much.

Okay, great.

And then um, yeah, I think I think that was about it actually.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sanders, any questions?

I guess I have one question, and I don't know if this is uh the proper time for this question.

But um, is there a way to make a recommendation from the dais today that alerts council of my concern about what's going on in the Talbot area for them to really take a look at the zoning um that exists there and really make a determination as to whether or not we need to have that be commercially zoned in that neighborhood, and I don't know, I don't know the process of that.

Okay, let me give it a let me give it a shot.

Um I think we can um we take our action tonight, and we can have comments that then we pass on to the council.

I'm getting some head nods from staff, um, and that's how that would occur.

Um, but I so follow up on that question.

I want to piggyback a little.

If there was a change, if there was that change that did occur by the by the council and directed staff to make those changes, what kind of consequences would there be?

Do you have any idea as far as our general plan?

Well, actually, the general plan would be revised, so.

Okay, so um, but we could make um we could whatever our action is tonight, we can add in language that can be passed on by staff during uh the presentation at council on November 4th as to there was a concern by X number of commissioners about such and such.

Is that yes?

That's accurate.

So in the staff presentation, we would certainly summarize this meeting, um, the public comments received as well as the commissioners' comments, and then there's also a section in the city council staff report that will provide a written summary as well.

Okay, thank you.

Can I just ask a quick clarification?

Did is that a recommendation to have the council consider initiating a general plan amendment for these particular properties, or are you talking about a recommendation to not proceed with the rezoning at the next council meeting?

There are two different things.

I think I this is one hearing where we're trying to implement the general plan, and then they can take action on that, and your recommendation I think I'm hearing, but I want to clarify would be for them to please take up the issue and direct staff to proceed with the general plan amendment to address those neighborhoods, get them back to general plan designation of commercial, and then the rezoning would be matching at that time.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Would there be to make uh would there be a way to make a friendly amendment to that resolution to excerpt certain properties from the rezoning tonight with our recommendation to council to say that we don't want to rezone them right now?

I mean, this if if the map and the zoning have not been in compliance for over 30 years, why is there a rush to do it tonight?

I mean, that's a good question, but I would envision it being more that you would go ahead and take action on this package for the rezoning for implementation, along with a strong recommendation to to look at this.

And I mean, the recommendation could also be to initiate for the general plan amendment or also to consider exempting these properties at this time and leaving them inconsistent.

So that could be maybe a dual recommendation to really highlight this for the council's um concern and action.

I wouldn't really so much think we would need a friendly amendment to the resolution that we could discuss that.

I I'm feeling it would come better as recommendations, twofold recommendations.

Okay, what would those two full recommendations be again?

So I'm clear.

Oh, I I'm hearing your recommendation, which was for them to initiate the general plan amendment, and then an alternate and maybe in tandem recommendation that when they take action on the rezonings for this implementation package to hold off on these specific properties that are having this uh tension between the commercial and residential uses, so that as a policy issue the council could consider whether to pull that out at their hearing and um and take action on all the other properties.

So I think it could be two things, and they could do one or both.

Thank you.

I like that, um, I have a number of comments.

Uh, I'll I'll try to wrap up what I'm hearing about the uh rezoning uh particular to the commercial office.

I I don't know that there's been sufficient analysis to say we need to rezone these back to residential right now.

Make that recommendation, but I would support a recommendation to have council direct staff to look at whether there's sufficient driver for additional commercial space to make that change now.

That's my only clarification on that one.

And if I may, I'll go on with my other comments.

Okay, first of all, thank you for excellent report.

Lots of information here for us to deal with, and it was well presented and understandable.

So thank you for that.

Uh jumping to the performance standards for new development.

I think the biological resource assessment requirement is a good one.

I'd like to see some discussion of existing regulatory environments and uh previous actions that are in place to protect biological resources.

Uh, because just saying we see a hawk doesn't mean that the migratory bird act does not apply.

There are things that apply that protect the resources that are in place already that can be brought to bear on projects, so some of that should be in the discussion of the biological assessment.

With respect to the health impact assessments, also good to see that, and good to see that uh equity priority areas are still in effect, that's good policy for uh identifying which areas of the city have received uh short drift and services and high impact and land uses.

So I think that's an ideal application of that uh equity priority area policy in the general plan.

Um, with respect to the neighborhood mixed use changes from residential to commercial, uh, does that mean that residential uses are now by permit and not by right for these for areas being changed from where the mixed use is being designated a commercial and not a residential use?

Uh, I note that light industry is only allowed in the light industry area uh for the home occupations.

Are there any, and this may be a level of detail not embodied in the zoning code yet, but a limp any limit to a number of employees, clients visiting if they're not considered businesses and they're still happening in homes.

Um, the missing middle housing, is there any data on the relative affordability of the missing middle housing?

I know it's not affordable in the capital A affordable regulated, but it would be nice to know that uh implementing these types of housing actually do result in uh housing types that are more affordable to different classes of people.

Um do we have have we had discussion with the development community to know if this missing middle housing works financially?

Does it pencil out?

Um with respect to the parks, uh I know what an acre is.

I don't know what zero.00963 uh of an acre looks like that's the requirement for dwelling unit for park dedication.

It works out to 420 feet per dwelling unit or an acre per thousand dwell per hundred dwelling units, which seems reasonable to me.

So thank you for that.

And that's all my comments.

Okay, yeah.

I'm sorry, there were some questions in there.

If you have answers, thank you.

Sure.

So the the first question, I believe, was if um multifamily housing would still be permitted by right if the neighborhood mixed use is reclassified as a commercial district, is that correct?

So yes, um, multifamily is permitted by right in each of the mixed use zoning districts in the downtown uh neighborhood mixed use being one of those.

Um the next question.

Were you speaking about Mikos or micro-enterpr?

Okay, I wanted to make sure I heard that correctly.

So we are uh the city is very uh limited in how those can be regulated, and that's because they're permitted under state law, and then the board of supervisors for the county um authorize them to be allowed within each of the jurisdictions within the county, with few exceptions.

So if the general plan prohibited them, then we didn't the city wouldn't have to require them, but because that was not the case, Santa Rosa uh must allow the microenterprise kitchen home operations.

Uh they the uh standards applied to them are very limited, so um it can we can require that um the noise ordinance be followed so um no um noise levels can't exceed a certain decibel level during nighttime hours, but otherwise um parking um is not something that can be regulated.

The number of visitors um is regulated sort of indirectly because they are limited with how many meals they can serve a day, but it doesn't um to my recollection limit the number of people that can be there at a given time, and so uh that is one of the challenges of this law is that the cities really don't have an ability to exercise authority beyond kind of nuisance um type complaints, and then there were some questions about missing middle housing and affordability.

If there's any studies that show so I um will look through the materials, but off the top of my head, I don't recall what um what those studies show, except that it just relates to square footage and in um in theory that results in perhaps less costly units, but I don't know that there's a real detailed analysis um as a part of this proposal in Santa Rosa.

Um, specifically as it relates to the financial feasibility for developers, that was something that we looked at early on in the process, and so those results are available on the project web page.

Um they are a real challenge to um quote pencil, at least based on the information that the economic uh consultant received from the developers based on the cost of land in Santa Rosa and then the cost of materials and labor.

So uh we proceeded with this initiative because uh it was a grant-funded opportunity and a type of housing that uh many had expressed interest in seeing in the city with the hopes that over time it might be something that would be more financially feasible to develop any other vice chair?

Yeah, I've got um several kind of disjointed, partly because my iPad has died.

Um so I'll try to try to um keep them cohesive.

So um one of the documents, um, the attachment five, and I forget what the document was called, it was one of the studies on missing middle housing, said um PD districts don't favor missing middle housing types typically, and it's a challenge in Santa Rosa because so many of our neighborhoods are covered by PD district documents, and is the city going to try and initiate some kind of study or uh change to um make it easier to apply the missing middle housing standards to the PD districts?

So that's one question.

Um also like it seems like Rincon Valley over by Oliver's Market set Montecito, and I don't remember all the other crossroads, that whole area um, which could have a lot of people who could walk to the stores there.

That does not seem to have any rezoned parcels.

I didn't know if there's an answer to why that is.

So we have a there's a document, um, I think it's attachment um four maybe that's kind of prescriptive about all the designs and um how missing middle housing should be produced, and is that gonna be handed out to applicants when they come in and say I want to develop on this lot so they know exactly uh what they're going to be requested or required to produce, or is that just sort of are you gonna tell them to look at the website and hope for the best?

And um, because I have a little bit of concern with how sometimes our guidelines are not followed very closely.

I know that our in our single family housing guidelines right now, there's a requirement for the porch to extend.

I think a minimum of six feet in front of a garage, and there are so many houses and so many housing developments where the garage is much more prominent than any kind of frontage to the front door.

So I would really hate to see any of these standards be watered down.

And that kind of leads me to my next comment.

So the the requirement for parking in the back is great.

Um a lot of our downtown older neighborhoods do have some alleys that a lot of the alleys are not active at all, some are closed off, so you'd have to access from the street frontage.

So is is the fire department has the fire department weighed in on some of these design types, and they're not gonna require that these driveways are widened and enlarged and have most of the lot paved over for access for fire vehicles.

And I think that's most of my questions.

Um and then the other um changes to the zoning code, as far as the text, the studies I think are fine, taking out the resilience city measures that are um have been incorporated in other parts are fine.

Um, and the only other um problems I have with the zoning code amendments we've talked about as far as the commercial office areas on Parker.

So I'll do my best to answer your your questions.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Um, let's see.

So plan developments in Santa Rosa, we have a lot of them.

Uh they cover thousands and thousands of properties, and the challenge with those is they are they're each unique, they have different requirements for lot size and uh various other development standards, and so that wasn't taken on at least not every single one of them as a part of this project, just due to the extent of the review.

But I will note that you know, a lot of the junior college areas within a plan development, so there are properties um that worked well there, and uh we were able to do that analysis.

So at this time, um, staff is not planning to do any additional plan development analysis, um, but it is um a starting point with the junior college neighborhood and a few other uh PDs or plan developments.

Uh as it relates to the um lack of missing metal housing near the Olivers uh off of Montecito Avenue, there were a number of different factors that went into selecting the parcels.

So uh one was the underlying general plan land use, uh, also the uh various lot sizes.

Um so my guesses is I haven't done this analysis, but it's one of those two um factors that it wasn't the medium density land use or the just various lot sizes weren't um really compatible with what missing middle housing requires, but um can certainly look at that area again and get back to you with a more concrete answer.

Uh as it relates to the guidance document, it sounds like it's more um optional based on it being called guidance, but what it really does is it integrates each of the standards that you see in the zoning code text amendment before you, but it has a lot more pictures and explanation.

And originally the uh text amendments provided by the consultant were very very graphic heavy, which just doesn't work well with our zoning code in the way that it's set up, and so uh we had directed them to create this uh sort of standalone document that could supplement and provide additional explanation for the regulations, but those two things are consistent, and so the uh any missing middle housing development would have to comply with all the standards identified in the guidance document because those are duplicated in the zoning code, and then they can just uh get additional context or ideas or information based on that document.

So we'll certainly use that as a resource uh should a developer uh be interested in missing middle housing.

And uh in response to the question about fire and other um city staff reviewing the regulations, yes, um fire and engineering staff did review them.

Um concern was raised, but I will say that as projects move through the process, they are required to be reviewed by um engineering and fire staff, and so if there is a concern about access, you know, it may be that missing metal housing might not work in a certain circumstance if the parking has to be provided uh in front of the unit.

Thank you.

Okay, um so if help help me get through this.

Um, if there was a is a desire by the commission to exempt certain properties, how would we phrase that?

How would we take action on that?

All right, um there could be a couple different ways we could go with just the recommendations as we discussed, or if you wanted to take action on the resolutions before you, and then you could by separate motion uh make recommendations to the city council to consider at their hearing.

In either way, let me tell you just how I penned out the two different, I believe, recommendations as I heard them.

We can work with this, or we can shore it up when we um type it out for council.

But the first one I have is consider rezoning the parcels along the south side of Parker Drive between Doyle Park.

I'm sorry, consider removing the parcels along the south side of Parker Drive between Doyle Park and Alderbrook Drive from the rezoning for consistency with preexisting general plan designations, and direct staff to bring forward a city initiated general plan amendment and rezoning to designate these parcels as low density residential and R16.

So that would be from Commissioner Duggins first from her request to just go ahead and remove those parcels from their action at their next scheduled hearing.

The next recommendation coming from Commissioner Sanders, would be um to move forward with the rezoning for consistency with the pre-existing general plan designations, and direct staff to bring forward a city initiated general amendment and rezoning to designate these parcels as low designate low density residential and R16.

So the difference just being in the first instance, they would remove those from consideration on their action at their next scheduled meeting and then direct action.

And as the other one would be to just proceed with general plan implementation so that the zoning and general plan are consistent and then later come back and just do a general plan and rezoning package for those specific parcels.

Either way, the recommendation is to bring those into alignment either the general plan and the zoning as both residential and eliminate the commercial.

So we could bring those both of those recommendations forward just as I've read them, or we can go ahead and take action on your resolutions, and then just for a little bit more formality, just to make a motion to direct um or make a recommendation to the city council to do one of two things, and we can type those up as I've read them or something a little bit more articulate.

Can we take a straw vote among ourselves to see if I think the sentiment is take a is it okay for us to take a straw vote and sure?

As to whether you want to do a recommendation or by motion, or as to whether you want to do one or both recommendations, I need you to explain it to me one more time, please.

Sorry.

I was I was discussing that you would go ahead and vote on the resolutions.

So you would be recommending that they bring the zoning into consistency with the general plan.

Okay, is that res that's that's all that would be to take action on all of your resolutions?

Okay.

And then either just say, would you please forward on the recommendations to council, or for a more formal action, you would make a motion saying we'd like to make a recommendation that the city council consider the following two options to strongly consider, and then we lay out those two options, and that way they can decide, you know, from their perspective as a policy matter.

Is it better to remove them and go forward or is it better to continue with this and do a separate path?

But I think your recommendations would be very clear, and I think it would be fine to submit both.

So we would take action on the three three resolutions, and then we would do a separate motion that doesn't have a resolution attached to it.

Yes, just to more formalize to make a motion that the council consider these additional recommendations.

So you are agreeing with staff's proposal and with the with the recommended three or four, however many resolutions we have here.

But in response to what we've heard here tonight, we want to send us a strong message.

Um so just a motion gives a uniform you know a vote so that they can see, hey, they all voted on this motion, they want us to consider these two recommendations.

So I think it's the same result, but it's a little more formalized.

Yeah, I think I either way, staff is going to provide this information to the council, both in the staff report as well as in the presentation at the actual meeting.

Um, but by doing it as a motion, it just it as Ashley said, it makes it more formal.

Um it provides a vote that makes it very clear that you know if it is voted on uh affirmatively by all five commissioners here present today that all five of you are in support of that.

Um it just it it provides um a stronger um uh discussion point to the council.

So uh if we did a straw vote on what Ms.

Jones just said on the acting on the three resolutions and then making a motion to uh request that council remove those properties that we've talked about.

Is that well, it was two recommendations one to remove the parcels and then initiate a general plan amendment, one to not remove the parcels, but to still initiate a general plan amendment and rezoning.

So there I read two different options.

So if you guys just agree that those are the recommendations you want to send, the way that we get there is really not that critical.

Um whether it's a motion or recommendation doesn't really matter to me.

What just matters is do the two recommendations as I read them reflect your um direction to count to council?

So that would be my question for the straw poll.

Do you guys all like those two recommendations?

Okay, so just to be clear, either recommendation would result in the same result if council chose to um follow our um sentiments, correct?

Whichever way they decided to get there, correct.

The the recommendation is consistent in both regards to it would be directing a general plan amendment and the rezoning for consistency with that general plan amendment.

It's just two different ways to get there, depending on how they might feel is the best policy direction for them.

Okay, at the time.

Thank you.

Suggestions on which way to go.

I think it's pretty that's perfect for me.

Which option one or option two?

Well, it's the option that we're going to take action on the um amendment or the as it as it's written with a recommendation to council to consider two um uh proposals, two amendment proposals, which one is to um exempt those properties, or um rezone, so rather than recommending to the council which way they should go, exactly.

We're gonna give them two options and two options for them to do what they feel is the rather than us execute those parcels up from exactly right now leaves it up to the council to the council to make the final decision on the two recommendations, or they can just say we're we're not taking any of your recommendations.

I mean that's their purpose.

Okay.

So.

I am in favor of doing steps staff's direction following staff's direction.

Okay.

Uh so with that, then I need somebody to enter the first resolution.

I will uh move a resolution.

I found out I have nine percent batteries, so I think I can do this.

You want my no, I'm good.

Uh resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to the city council and municipal code amendments to titles 18, 19, and title 21 of the city code and zoning code amendments to Title 20 of the City Code to implement the general plan 2050 file number PLN 25-0393 and wave for the reading.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, was that Commissioner Sanders?

Okay, Commissioner Carter.

Okay, so with that, we'll start with uh comments and if you can make the findings with uh Commissioner Horton.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh yes, I can make all the required findings um and um support this resolution.

Thank you, Commissioner Sanders.

As well, can make all the required findings and we'll support the resolution.

Commissioner Carter.

I can make the required findings for resolution number one.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I can make all the required findings and support the resolution.

And I also can make all the required findings for this first resolution.

So that was moved by Vice Chair Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Carter.

Thank you, Chair.

We'll go ahead and take vote.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko.

Oh, sorry.

Commissioner Horton.

Aye.

Commissioner Pardo is absent.

Commissioner Sanders.

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that pass with five eyes.

Okay, and then we have resolution number two.

I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to the city council rezoning of 2119 properties to implement the existing journal plan land use designation file number PLN 25-0393 and wave for the reading.

Your second seconded.

Okay.

So we'll start then with you, Commissioner Horton.

Can you make all the required findings?

Thank you.

Yeah, I can make all the required findings and I support the resolution.

Thank you, Commissioner Sanders.

I as well can make all the findings and will support the resolution.

Commissioner Carter.

I can make all the required findings and support the resolution.

Vice Chair.

I can also make all the required findings and support the res.

And I also can make all the required findings and support the resolution.

So with that, that was moved by Vice Chair Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Horton.

Thank you, Chair.

We'll take vote.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko abstained.

Commissioner Horton.

Aye.

Commissioner Pardo is absent.

Commissioner Sanders.

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that pass with five eyes.

Okay, and we have our third resolution and vice chair.

Okay, I'll uh move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to the City Council rezoning of 1991 properties to add the missing middle housing combining district file number PLN 25-0393 and waive for the reading.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

So Commissioner Horton.

I can make all the required findings and I support the resolution.

Commissioner Sanders.

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

Commissioner Carter.

I can make the required findings and I support the resolution.

I can make all the required findings and support the resolution.

And I also can make all the required findings and support the resolution.

And so with that, that was moved by Vice Chair Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Sanders.

And we'll move to vote.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko abstained.

Commissioner Horton.

Aye.

Commissioner Parto is absent.

Commissioner Sanders.

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

So now we need to make a motion.

Uh that I'm gonna ask Ms.

Crocker to lead us through if that's okay.

That's fine.

And I wanted to also just uh clarify that this motion would be uh specific to resolution two, as that's the one that addresses the implementation of zoning on these parcels.

So um I'll read it and then someone can just make the motion and second it and vote on it, and I will clean it up if needed when we get back to our desks.

But uh it would be by motion to make a recommendation in connection with resolution two to the city council to number one consider removing the parcels along the south side of Parker Drive between Doyle Park and Alderbrook Drive from the rezoning for consistency with preexisting general plan designations and direct staff to bring forward a city initiated general plan amendment and rezoning to designate these parcels as low density residential and R one six, or number two, move forward with the rezoning for consistency with preexisting general plan designations and separately direct staff to bring forward a city initiated general plan amendment and rezoning to designate the parcels along the south side of Parker Drive between Doyle Park and Alderbrook Drive as low density low density residential and R one six.

So moved.

I second okay, thank you.

So that was moved by Commissioner Sanders, seconded by Vice Chair Duggan.

We can just go ahead and vote on it now.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko is not present.

Commissioner Horton?

Aye.

Commissioner Pardo is not present.

Commissioner Sanders.

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan?

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

That motion passes with bye bye.

Can I make one just correction for recording secretary?

Commissioner Sisko recused herself.

Thank you very much.

We'll make it for the record.

Thanks.

Okay.

So uh do you all have what you need for the November fourth meeting for the council?

Okay.

So with that, I will go ahead and adjourn the meeting tonight.

Thank you all.

And thank you to the I should have said this before when public was still here, but thank you to those who have stood out the whole meeting with us.

So thank you.