Good evening, everyone.

I'd like to call the March twenty sixth, twenty twenty sixth meeting of the Planning Commission to order.

And if we could have roll call, please.

Commissioner Carter.

Commissioner Sisko.

Here.

Commissioner Horton.

Here.

Commissioner Pardo.

Here.

Commissioner Sanders.

Here.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Here.

Chair Weeks.

Here.

Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present.

Thank you.

And we have no participation under government code 54953.8.

We have one set of minutes from March 12th.

Any changes, corrections, additions.

Okay, so those will be approved as submitted.

And public comment.

This is the time if anybody in the public has a comment on an item that is not on the agenda.

Please make your way to either of the podium, and you'll have three minutes.

Not on the agenda.

Okay, so what item would you like to speak on?

Item right here.

Okay, and the Spring Lake Village item.

Okay, that is on the agenda.

Okay.

That's okay.

Um so with that, I don't see anybody going towards the podium for a non-comment on a non-agenda matter.

Um, we will go to commission business.

We are charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws in the city of Santa Rosa.

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

And with that, I'll uh we have commissioners' reports.

Are there any commissioner reports?

I have a couple things I'd like to mention.

Um, if you haven't already seen the article in the newspaper, the council on Tuesday uh denied the appeal on the Pure Vita project and upheld the commission's actions.

Uh probably just stole Ms.

Jones' thunder on that.

Um also uh I was able to speak on a panel at Leadership Santa Rosa last week on community development, and I was hoping Mr.

Osborne would be here because I heard he did a one-to punch about planning in the morning, and uh I'd love to hear what that was like.

Um, and then also on Saturday I was able to speak at Luciana and the Bridges program also about um boards and commissions and hopefully encourage some people to apply for boards and commissions.

So uh is there anybody who would like to make a comment on what I just said?

Please go to the podium.

Okay.

Uh then we don't have anything under other, and now we have department report.

Ms.

Jones.

Thank you, Chair Weeks and members of the commission.

Uh yeah, uh, I was just gonna mention the the pure revita item, which you already did, so I will not do that.

Um, and I don't have anything else uh for this evening.

Thank you.

Anyone have any comments on what Ms.

Jones just said?

Okay, I don't see anybody.

Then we'll move it on to um statement of abstentions or recusal.

Commissioner Horton.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, for the item uh that was just mentioned um about Spring Lake Village, just out of an abundance of caution.

I will recuse myself when that comes up.

I um have a one-year lease to live in a house that just kind of is directly adjacent to Spring Lake Village.

So it seems like um there's potential that the tax amendment could affect the uh to use the legal term, the the use and enjoyment of that, uh you know, my use and enjoyment of that lease.

So just to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest or or bias, I will um not participate in the discussion or the vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So you'll leave the the day as when we get to that point.

Yes, thank you.

And say farewell.

Okay, uh anybody have any comments on what Mr.

Horton just said.

Okay.

Uh we don't have any presentations, any consent items.

Our first item is a report item, general plan and inclusion, inclusionary housing annual review report for 2025.

And Ms.

Nicholson and Ms.

Beasley, I believe, are doing the presentations.

Thank you, Chair Weeks and members of the commission.

Uh, my name is Sejan Orbisla, and the item before you today is the general plan and inclusionary housing annual review for 2025.

The general plan annual review report informs the public and decision makers about the progress that the city's made in implementing the general plan and achieving the city's goals, and it also includes the annual review of the inclusionary housing ordinance.

This is required by the state office of land use and climate innovation as well as the Department of Housing and Community Development that we submit this report by April 1st of every year.

The General Plan 2050 was adopted by the City Council on June 3rd, 2025, and it describes the city's aspirations and identifies strategies for managing growth, preservation, and change.

It provides policy framework to guide decision making and funding of public improvement projects, including parks and streets, and it contains seven chapters covering numerous elements, goals, policies, and actions.

And for the housing element, I will hand it off to Amy Nicholson.

Thank you, Noor, and good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

I'm just gonna spend a few moments going over housing related topics as it relates to our housing element as well as our inclusionary housing ordinance.

So at the start of last calendar year, we did notice a an increase in population, so just under one percent from 2024.

This is the second year that we've seen an increase in Santa Rosa's population.

Um starting in 2017, we saw five years of decreases.

So this is potentially a trend in the uh opposite direction.

Last year there were building permits issued for a total of 847 new residential units.

Those were primarily comprised of multifamily units, so those could be attached single family dwellings up to sort of the mid-rise apartment projects.

If you look at the chart here, you can see that last calendar year was a pretty large increase over 2024, representing the third highest year over the past six years for new units.

The housing element includes what's called the regional housing needs allocation.

So this is a number of new housing units that the city must plan for and also produce over a housing element cycle.

On this chart, you can see the progress made on the top line in red in 2025 for permits that were issued.

There was some good progress in our very low and low income categories.

So that's a category that the city continues to struggle producing, and the bulk of the units were in the above moderate income category.

So just to kind of quantify how we're measuring up relative to the overall cycle.

Three years in to our sixth cycle, 60% of our low-income category, 12% of the moderate income category, and 98% of the above moderate category.

That ordinance does require that we report out on an annual basis on the implementation of that ordinance, which has a goal to expand housing available to lower income households.

So last calendar year, although there were 847 new residential units that were issued building permits, only 661 of those needed to comply with this ordinance, and that's because accessory dwelling units and affordable units are exempt from these requirements.

So there's a number of ways that a development can comply with this ordinance.

One is to provide on-site deed restricted affordable units as a part of a market rate development.

So last year we saw 23 affordable units that were built as a part of a market rate development.

Just over 1.4 million dollars in fees were collected last year, mostly from housing impact fees, so new residential projects that paid the fee instead of constructing on site, and then just under 200,000 was taken in for qualifying commercial developments.

And staff has continued to implement the ordinance without issue, and so there are no recommended changes at this time.

The general plan annual review report highlights several notable residential projects that were either either under construction in the building permit phase or in the planning review phase during the year 2025.

Two notable projects that are currently under construction.

The phase one of the Lance Drive project.

The Lance Drive Housing Development was approved in 2024, and it's planned to be constructed in three phases.

Phase one is currently under construction, began in 2025, and it will have 372 multifamily units as well as 20 and 20 of those will be very low-income units.

There's also the Casa Roseland project, which is part of the larger Tierra de Rosas master plan development that received building permits in January of 2025, and construction is expected to be complete later this year.

They're currently accepting applications.

It's a hundred percent affordable project with 75 units.

30 of those will be very low income, 44 will be for low income, and there will be one manager unit on site.

The city and county have been working together on the development of the South Santa Rosa Specific Plan, which is expected to be complete in early winter of 2027.

And the preparation of the plan implements several general plan actions, including responding to changing community visions for the area, as this area has not seen a comprehensive planning effort in nearly 50 years.

And this January, the city released three land use and circulation alternatives.

And those uh alternatives, sorry, we are currently collecting feedback on those alternatives in order to come back with a preferred alternative to move forward with.

And the city also created several programs to support small businesses and increase access for entrepreneurs.

This includes the physical and virtual one-stop shops, which provide business resources and services.

The business concierge program provides hands-on guidance for permitting and licensing to business owners.

The permit ready program helps to streamline approvals.

And in collaboration with the county, the city expanded services and resources for street vendors, food trucks, and microenterprise home kitchen operations.

The economic development team also completed several economic studies and surveys to help guide city investment and policy decisions.

And these include analyses of retail office and grocery sectors, the USL Market Opportunity Report, which was just mentioned, a citywide district-based survey, and the quarterly economic development reports.

And all of these reports and surveys show us district level trends, challenges, and service gaps to determine where programs and investments are needed.

The city also established the downtown enhanced infrastructure financing district, which is a long-term tool to fund infrastructure investments and catalog to catalyze private development and enhance walkability and sustainability.

The city also formed partnerships with small business the small business development center, which will be holding classes for new businesses and entrepreneurs to teach them how to rent from commercial spaces, as well as go local.

The city worked with them on the promotion of underrepresented businesses.

The general plan also has an element on circulation, which includes transit and transportation.

And in February of 2025, the city and MTC unveiled the pilot transit maps and signs to improve wayfinding between the transit mall to the downtown smart station.

And this was a part of a larger regional mapping and wayfinding initiative for the entire Bay Area that aims to connect the nine Bay Area counties so that whether you are traveling by bus, rail, ferry, or a combination of those, the signs would be easy and easy to identify throughout all nine counties.

And so Santa Rosa was chosen as one of two cities to test out with the test this out with an initial pilot program.

The City Bus Youth Unlimited Rides and Unlimited Ridership Programs continued to successfully incentivize transit use.

Since implementation of the youth program in 2021, youth ridership saw steady annual increases from 200,000 at that time to around 450 per year, 450,000 per year now.

Over the last two years, however, ridership remained essentially flat, and this suggests that the program has now fully matured in its efforts to increase ridership.

The General Plan 2050 recommended that the city adopt an active transportation plan, which was done in July of 2025.

And the plan recommends improvements to the city's active transportation network in order to in order to increase vibrancy and livability for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as improve air quality, reduce GHG, and reduce collisions.

Following this, the city did receive several grants last year, and the TPW, sorry, Transportation Public Works Department has actively been working to implement the active transportation plan.

They've completed several transportation safety projects already, which include new bicycle facilities, crosswalk installations, road diets, and the completion of the Hearn Interchange Overcrossing Project.

And in February of 2025, the Redwood Bike Share Program was launched.

The city is continuing to work with the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities, the Transportation Authority of Marin, and Smart to identify and open new hub locations.

The general plan includes two additional state-mandated elements, including open space and conservation.

So some highlights in implementing those two elements include construction starting on the final phase of the Colgan Creek Restoration Project, which is pictured here on this slide.

The purpose of that project is to enhance habitat, increase flood protection, as well as provide recreational and education opportunities for our residents.

Greenhouse gas reduction measures are really integrated into all of the elements of the general plan.

And so as the commission is familiar, that was adopted as part of the general plan 2050 this June of 2025, and city staff continue to make progress on numerous measures and programs that are contained within that strategy.

One of the goals of city staff is to ensure that the progress is clear to both members of the public and decision makers.

And so last year, planning and water staff mapped out a plan to create a public facing dashboard.

This would allow for members of the public and decision makers to understand where various reduction measures are in implementation as well as how the city is reducing overall emissions.

So we have data going back to 1990.

The goal is to have that dashboard launched in the summer of this year.

So some highlights which implement those three elements include the completion of the cannery at Railroad Square project.

This is an excellent example of a project that was able to retain the historic elements of that building and integrate it with the modern development.

The relaunched version allows a user to follow along with Google Maps, so it might be a little bit easier to make your way around, and it does include lots of the graphics and additional information as well.

And then finally, although it's not often discussed in detail at our decision meetings, there is a lot of behind the scenes collaboration and consultation efforts that occur between city staff and our two locally affiliated tribes as we work on city projects as well as private development projects.

You can see an example of one of those items in Courthouse Square, as well as the installation of a temporary art walk, which will be in place for two years extending from Courthouse Square through Railroad Square.

And then finally, our arts team was able to launch an arts roundtable, and this is a place where non-governmental individuals can meet and help to encourage open community dialogue to further art and culture objectives.

These two topics are quite related as climate change is exacerbating the city's experiences, as a experiences as it relates to natural disasters and the impacts of those on our built environment.

Last year, the fire department started an update on the city's wildland urban interface boundary maps, also known as the WUI.

So this map will move forward to the city council next month for adoption.

The fire department also started the update to the community wildfire protection plan.

So this is a plan that is updated every five years.

City staff collectively completed a public draft of what's called a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan.

This is a countywide effort.

The City of Santa Rosa has its own section, and really the purpose of this plan is to identify the hazards that are more likely within our community and to ensure that we have responses and resources in place.

This also helps to ensure Santa Rosa receives the maximum amount of reimbursement money in the event of a disaster.

Planning and water staff continued to work with FEMA on preliminary flood map updates for the Santa Rosa Creek watershed last year.

Those maps are anticipated to be finaled in 2027.

Their planning staff's been working on an evacuation analysis in conjunction with our fire department and emergency preparedness traffic engineering and our police department.

This is a requirement of our safety element that we analyze a range of emergency scenarios and studied the impacts on our traffic network as it relates to evacuation.

So this is a process that kicked off in 2025 and will continue throughout this year.

This will layer be presented to the commission and the council as it ultimately will result in updates to the city safety element.

And then finally, uh, throughout the year, our emergency preparedness staff continued to strengthen their preparedness as well as coordination and operational readiness.

The general plan calls out goals in terms of public services, such as achieving faster response times and providing more opportunities for community community engagement, and this was supported by the completion of the downtown substation, which opened at Santa Rosa Plaza.

This enhances presence in the area, both downtown and railroad square area, and has allowed for faster response times in the area.

The police department also continues to oversee the in response mental health support team program, which aids in navigating the complexities of the city's or sorry, the county's mental health system and secured any necessary resources.

The Santa Rosa Fire Department did experience increasing volume of calls for service, about a 12% increase over the past three years.

However, the fire department also saw improved response times.

The general plan sets a goal of achieving a response time of just under six minutes, which the fire department achieved 82% of the time in 2025.

The fire department is also working on a standards of cover and community risk assessment, and this focuses on response capabilities, response time analysis, resource locations available, and available resources to serve the city, staffing, and workforce.

And finally, the fire station five in Fountain Grove, which was destroyed in 2017 in the 2017 wildfires, has been under reconstruction for the past I believe three years.

Since 1990 until 2025, the water use efficiency programs and state and local requirements have resulted in a 50% increase in the demand for potable water.

This is going from one one 177 gallons per capita per day in 1990 to 88 in 25.

And the Laguna treatment plant is currently undergoing upgrades to the disinfection system.

This has been going on since 2022, and these include the addition of a diversion wet well as well as a pump station.

Once completed, the system will be able to disinfect a peak flow of 70 million gallons per day.

This includes reduced permitting requirements for grocery stores, and this is scheduled for council consideration in April 2026.

And in 2025, the city partnered with regional child care agents agencies to identify barriers and created a guide to help residents launch their own licensed home-based child care business, supporting families and workforce stability.

And throughout 2025, the violence prevention partnership continued their work.

They developed and launched the street outreach and crises response team in January and the team culinary job training pilot program in June.

Finally, the general plan calls for the continuing acquisition and development of neighborhood and community park facilities throughout the city.

Several projects took place in 2025.

The Dutch Floor Neighborhood Park in Santa Rosa, which provided more interesting play and play play equipment and improved accessibility through the renovations.

The city approved plans for a major court renovation project at both Howarth and Galvin Community Parks.

The Martin Luther King Jr.

Neighborhood Park Master Plan was approved by the city council in February of 2026.

And this includes a soccer field, courts, picnic areas, and play areas.

And the initial segment of the Roseland Creek Trail Pathway was installed, which includes a crossing and flashing beacon, improving bike and pedestrian connection across future Rosalind across the future Roseland Community Park site to access nearby schools.

The planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission by motion review and accept the general plan and inclusionary housing annual review report for 2025.

We are available for any questions.

We also have staff from several other departments available to answer any questions, I believe, in person and over Zoom.

And I just want to give a big thank you to all of the staff across all of the city's departments who have been very helpful and collaborative throughout the development of this report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do other commissioners also have questions?

Okay.

So I think what I will do is go ahead and open the public comment on this item and see if we have any questions from the public on this, and then bring it back to the commission, and we can uh ask our questions.

So if there's anybody who would like to make a comment on this item, please make your way to the podium.

You will have three minutes.

Seeing no one rise, I will close the public comment on this portion.

Um, and I just want to say this is a lot of work in my past life.

I helped develop some of this in a couple of different departments, and I know how um I know how much work goes into it, and I don't want to give it short shrift because this is an excellent document, and it really tells the community where we are right now as a community, and you should be very proud of what's here today.

So, with that, um, I will reach out to my fellow commissioners and have them ask questions first, and then I'll end it up.

So, Commissioner Horton.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks so much for the great presentation.

Um, just a really quick question that occurred to me as as you were presenting.

Like when we say we issued X number of building, you know, building permits for units in this income category.

Like after all the permits are issued, what what's just like the ballpark rate of attrition of whether like those units end up getting built or not, right?

Because presumably some amount falls off, and just for whatever reason, financing or whatever doesn't happen.

So after after everything's locked in, just what's what's a just general sense of how many of those end up getting built?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner.

Or would even want to venture a guest because it wouldn't be informed.

I you know, the point at which a building permit is issued, the the plans are approved, and we monitor construction starting um through inspections, um, but we haven't run the numbers of how many may or may not drop off through that period.

So certainly happy to see if we can pull some of that information together and provide it just for the interest of the commission at a later date.

That'd be great.

Thanks, and please don't sweat it too much.

But just what's the general you know, range there?

Thank you.

Yeah, and if I could just quickly add some clarification.

So, one thing to point out the numbers that you're seeing here are they've gone past the entitlement phase, which is when the commission typically sees them, and there's you know, less certainty at that point as to whether the project will move forward when it gets to the building permit stage, it's more certain.

And there's you know less certainty at that point as to whether the projects will move forward when it gets to the building permit stage, it's more certain.

So you know, definitely as as um uh supervising planner Nicholson mentioned, you know, there's no guarantee, but uh for the most part, you know the the the units that we identify for our arena purposes that have building permits issued are moving forward.

Thank you so much.

That's really helpful.

Commissioner Sanders.

Yes, thank you.

And fantastic job.

That is a lot of work and amazing.

We should all you know give ourselves a silent applause for showing that you know people ask for things and and we're we're performing, so it's really great to see.

Um I had a question about the um enhanced fine infrastructure financing, and maybe for the benefit of folks that may not know what that is.

Can you kind of briefly explain what that is?

And then my question then would be when how long does it take for that fund to start turning off some money for our downtown?

It looks like director Osborne's gonna be coming down to help out with that question.

And you stole my question, by the way.

Great minds.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

Gabe Osburn, director of planning and economic development.

Um, excellent question.

Uh so typically how enhanced infrastructure financing districts work, uh, they are a form of tax increment financing.

So we formed the district late last year, so the district is in effect, and this year the district starts collecting revenue.

Now, the amount of revenue the district collects is based on the amount of tax increase that happens in the district.

So essentially, uh EIFD freezes the property taxes.

So the owners do not uh see any effect to this, but from a tax collection standpoint, it freezes it in any increment that occurs just through the general assessed increase value or the assessed increase in value from development.

So when 420 Mendocino developed, that's a fairly significant increase.

That starts getting directed into the EIFD.

So those funds become available in year one if they are generated, and it's usually towards the back end of year one.

Um there's two forms.

You can use that money to develop projects, or you can hold that money and then bond for larger projects.

So there's decisions to be made.

But I think to specifically answer your question, it starts collecting revenue now.

The amount is a bit unknown because as it goes through the assessment process, that determines it.

Um, but it does start collecting immediately, and those funds become available in that year one, year two, year three mark.

Thank you.

Commissioner Carter.

Yeah, since Terry stole my question, I had a follow-on, Gabe.

Sorry.

Um I'll ask it, and maybe it won't require your attention.

Um is there a process for identifying priorities for infrastructure improvements in the downtown.

Yeah, so there really are two processes that take place from a prioritization standpoint.

Uh the EIFD is a really a separate funding source with a separate list of projects.

So when we look at the downtown and we look at the infrastructure needs in the downtown, um, there are various funding sources, impact fees, uh, general capital improvement dollars that can go into street repair.

Uh the EIFD, when we go through that process, there's a long effort with the city council and the board of supervisors because the county did participate in this EIFD to really understand the types of projects that the EIFD can fund.

And what that exercise really settled on are streetscaping, placemaking, general beautification projects.

But then there was also a discussion about the more impactful project that can make a real difference in the downtown, more or less the catalyst project.

And there was discussion about performing art centers, sports entertainment.

Um the categories are intentionally left broad, and then as the revenue is generated, the public financing authority, which is the governing body over the EIFD, can start developing more project scope.

Uh the city council also has to chime into that from a priority standpoint.

So, really, what happens is you take a very broad category and it starts working into a specific place making or lighting project as the revenues developed and you understand how much revenue you have to work on.

Um, so the EIFD has a bit of a different prioritization structure because it does involve a governing board of the public financing authority, but plus a separate council decision, and that's a little different in how the the city as a whole uh determines capital project and five-year plans for CIP in the downtown and the surrounding area.

I think it probably should stay there.

Commissioner CNN.

Yeah, please don't go anywhere.

Um is this for downtown specifically?

Is that correct?

Yes.

So the EIFD boundary has a boundary that is less than our downtown station area plan.

Okay.

It is within it.

And it was really intended to surround the majority of the commercial properties in the downtown.

So it shrinks down a bit, but it is focused on the downtown, but it does include the railroad square area in that.

And when you're saying that the property taxes are frozen, it's frozen within that area only.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Chair.

Yeah, I have other questions, but I just wanted to tag on while Mr.

Osborne is still sitting here.

So in this kind of district uh structure, do they get dissolved after a certain point of time or how long is this district established for?

It's an excellent question.

It's 45 years typically.

Um so and it really there are different starting dates.

Uh so really it looks at the cumulative accumulation over that period of time.

Um these districts, as you can imagine, as the tax increment is going up, the amount that you take in on the front end is fairly small, and then it grows over time.

Uh typically what jurisdictions will do is they'll bond at a certain point in time and do larger projects with this.

Um of the challenges with it in EIFD is it really it attempted to replace redevelopment when we had redevelopment agencies, but the available money is not always there up front.

So there's more of a long-term investment.

And then at the termination of the EIFD, the city then receives all that increment back as well as the county.

So it all turns back, but the EIFD holds on to any dollars it collected during that lifespan.

Thank you.

So any other questions for Mr.

Osborne while he's down here.

Okay, I have a couple.

Um the first one has to do with the commercial linkage fee, which was mentioned.

Uh I when reading through the report, I don't find an indication as to where that money goes and what it's used for.

So thank you for the question, Chair.

The commercial linkage fee as it relates to the inclusionary housing ordinance goes um to the city's housing authority.

So it's combined with our housing impact fee money that we take in, and then it's used to either provide new affordable housing units or to rehabilitate or preserve existing affordable housing units.

But it's it that's not separate from the other inclusionary funds that go to that housing fund because there's specific money that goes to commercial linkage fee.

Or is it all one that goes to housing?

It it is all it all goes to housing.

So back in 2019, when the city adopted the inclusionary housing ordinance that we have now, one of the new components of it, because we previously had something similar.

The new component was adding a commercial linkage fee.

And so that was really to tie the relationship to new commercial uses with the need for affordable housing.

Um not all commercial projects will be subject to this fee, but the ones that were brought in just under 200,000 last year.

Okay, thank you.

Um then I have some questions around economic development that I think you probably can help answer.

Uh what's the partnership with Go Local?

Um, so really go local.

I think from an economic development standpoint, what we have really worked through is understanding how you can support really local businesses, how you can support more of the shop local, how you can support more of the local businesses in the community and bring those dollars in.

Um so much of those initiatives are focused around that.

It's really understanding from a sales tax generation standpoint.

There obviously is really an importance from a national retailer standpoint because they're driving a lot of those sales, but there's also an importance to support our local businesses and make sure that we can have those smaller businesses be the fabric of that you know structure and the overall economic piece.

So it really more or less speaks to our overall strategy for go local.

And the so it's a partnership with the organization that has that issues a go local cards.

It is correct.

Okay.

Um the art walk.

Uh, is there a brochure somewhere that one can find online?

Um I'm sorry, I didn't look that up before.

Yes, there is.

There's uh it's a map and it shows the locations and I can read out that URL too in just a moment if I check my notes.

But that's okay.

It is available on the city's website.

Thank you.

Um the issue around USL and what comes after the marketing report.

Uh so typically with uh the exploration of the United Soccer League, um, obviously that it's really at a high level at this point.

There's been more discussion uh regionally about location.

Um I'm I'm sure you all heard the conversation about the fairgrounds and some of the discussion there.

Um, really what you have to understand when you determine that there is a need in the market for that type of use, and that's really what the market report looks like is how many soccer fans we have here, uh, how much of a demand there is for use.

Um, oftentimes that then moves into site selection and a determination on how you build the capital stack to make the project work.

Um, but very much of that it becomes a chicken and egg discussion about site or financial strategy.

Um, but as you move forward, it it gets more into the capital project discussion of how things get built in various locations.

Um, and much of the conversation once you get through the market analysis, which USL has been able to show that that that need does exist in the community.

We have a very strong soccer community here.

Um, it's understanding how you can figure out what are really the bigger challenges is how you build it and where.

Great, thank you.

Uh and let's see, the walking tour, the historic walking tour is very cool.

Uh, and I love the partnership with the historical society and the fact that it was in honor of Ross Parkerson, who a lot of us knew or some of us knew are still around who knew him, um, and his uh love of the old neighborhoods.

So I think that's a very cool thing.

And I do have one question for Mr.

Lowenthal.

So you don't have to waste your time just hanging out here again for the third day in the row.

And it um it has to do with the um increase in calls by fire.

Uh and it looks like that the majority of calls are medical.

Is that correct?

And if so, has that been an increase over the years?

And maybe next year we could have a chart that shows you know, medical versus fire over like the last few years.

So thank you, Chair Weeks, for the question.

Uh Paul Owenthal, Division Chief Fire Marshal with the fire department.

Uh, we produce what we've heard to as an annual report, which does have those statistics, so I'd be happy to supply that uh to the staff here to forward on to you for not only this year but the last several years.

Uh yes, a majority of our calls are medical related.

Uh we did see a call volume increase over the last uh couple years.

Uh however, with the uh implementation of a couple of our paramedic squads uh over the last uh year and a half or so, um, we were able to uh meet our response times uh a lot better than we typically had, where you saw the response times go uh up to 81% uh for those uh responses within the six minute goal.

Um but again, happy to provide you with kind of the breakdown of the last several years, and I am here for another item, so no worries.

Okay, thank you.

Um as long as he is here, does anybody okay?

Vice Chair Duggan.

I've got one question.

Um there's mention made in the report about the evacuation assessment.

I guess the contract was just led for that, and what's the timeline of that report and and what will be done with it once it's um been completed?

Like how will it be um shared with the community?

Yeah, so you're referring to the analysis that we're analysis that we're doing for evacuations that's tied to both our uh multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan um as well as our uh city's general plan.

So uh the staff that you actually hear with you tonight are working very closely with our department as well as our emergency manager Neil Bregman uh in consultation also with our consultants.

So there's been a lot of really good work that's going into it.

Uh, right now we are at the point of the uh process where we're putting together different scenarios and running different analysis.

Um, but I'm gonna let Amy jump in uh since she's been spearheading that with uh emergency manager Neil Bregman.

Great.

Thank you for the question.

Uh we anticipate this entire kind of technical process to take about six months, so we're in the the beginning phase of it.

As uh the fire marshal mentioned.

We are honing in on our um emergency scenarios that will be analyzed.

There will be some technical um research that happens at which point we'll get to a uh some recommendations and we'll be able to share those with the community.

So what we found and what recommendations may help to alleviate some of the issues that are identified through this analysis.

Following that, there could potentially be updates to the city's safety element.

So if there are uh policies or actions that we can put in place in the general plan, we would do that following the recommendations and the community outreach, then that would come before the commission and ultimately the council for um adoption.

So it would be a general plan amendment to integrate any recommendations that come out of the analysis.

So that process would follow sort of the six month technical and community outreach piece and could lead into you know another six to eight months following that first six months.

Does that answer the question?

Yes, thank you.

Great.

Okay, Commissioner Sanders.

Uh thank you.

So if I got it right, 12% increase in call volume, hitting the six minute mark 81% of the time.

Um with an increase in population of one percent.

Bravo.

Well done.

Um I guess my question then is with the population increase, how many what's the population increase before we start talking about needing a new firehouse?

So thank you for the question, and I'm gonna try and peel this one back a little bit.

So the need to provide an additional uh services in the city dates back to uh late 90s, early 2000s with the recommendation to put a fire station in southeast Santa Rosa uh right now through Measure H, uh, that is what is occurring right now as we're moving forward with the acquisition and potential development of a fire station number nine uh that is hoping to be located uh south uh end of the city limits uh on the east side of San Rose Avenue.

Um that would provide a relief to what we refer to as our Fire Station Eight, which is currently on Burbank Avenue and moving over to Hearn, um, as well as uh the downtown uh station one, um, which currently houses uh engine one and currently engine nine uh through Measure H.

The goal would be to move the measure age apparatus out of station one and down to station nine to fill uh that void down there.

Uh part of the standards of coverage uh that uh was referred to earlier in the presentation is currently in draft form, and that's gonna make some recommendations on where else uh we uh should look at potentially uh providing additional services and or relocating fire stations.

Uh, there's been talk in the past about potentially relocating station six uh further to the uh Oakmont area um and then potentially opening up a station 12 uh in between station five uh and that new location of station six, probably likely in somewhere in the area of Middle Rinkin uh and Montecito, uh, where we have kind of the biggest hole uh with stations six and seven kind of serving that east side of Santa Rosa, which is a pretty large population, and when there's drawdowns in those areas, it has a trickle-down effect on the rest of the city, which then increases response times.

And what do you attribute the increase to the 12%?

Uh our assumption obviously is that the increase in call volume is likely related to development uh and increase in uh housing units uh with more population comes uh more uh residents, um, but also uh a lot of the work uh that our team does with PED is helping to bring new businesses into our community, and so it's not just the number of housing units, but it's also the success of a lot of our businesses here in the community, whether it's Dave and Busters, whether it's the increase of population in the Montgomery Village area.

When you bring more people to our community, you're gonna see more uh increased call for services.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So thanks, Paul.

Uh, we don't have a resolution, but I'd like someone uh if they would to make a motion that would be to review and accept the report.

So somebody willing to do that.

Okay.

And second.

Okay.

So uh that was moved by Commissioner Sanders, seconded by Commissioner Carter.

And we'll start with Commissioner Horton for comments before the vote.

Um thank you, Chair.

Uh no, no other comments from me, and I can uh I've reviewed and accepted all the findings of the report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sanders.

I echo the same sentiment.

I can Commissioner Carter.

I support the motion and I'd like to add that uh I wish there was a way to make this more palatable and consumable because uh showing how the city's actions originate in the general plan is a message that needs to get out there all the time.

So thanks for doing that.

Commissioner Cardo.

I'm in approval of the project.

Thank you, Commissioner Sisko.

Yeah, I just echo everything that um other commissioners have said about what an amazing piece of work.

I mean, I'm always so impressed when we get it, like how much is going on that and I think I know a lot about what's going on, and I find out there's a lot more going on than I knew about.

And this one is particularly interesting because it's the first uh review of our new general plan format.

So I I found that to be uh very interesting, but it is an amazing piece of work, and um really congratulate the staff and all the departments that that worked on it, and I'll be uh accepting the report.

And Chair Degan.

I was gonna say the same thing, Commissioner Sisko just said, and thank you for all your hard work.

And I know it's like hurting cats to get all this information and get it in this form.

And uh this is one of my favorite meetings every year just because it's so interesting to hear what's been going on in the city.

Um I can too can make all the findings that are required.

Thank you.

And I also can accept the report and feel this should be required reading for everybody, but how you can make that happen, I don't know.

Um thanks again for all your hard work on this.

And with that, if we could have a vote.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko.

Aye.

Commissioner Horton.

Aye.

Commissioner Pardot?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanders.

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that motion passes with seven ayes.

Thank you.

And so we are going to be going now to item 11.1.

If I might uh this is a public hearing.

Oh, and I'd like to thank all the staff who's out there in another never land um on Zoom who um had a late night um this item on Tuesday and our probably hopefully can I'll go home now.

Um item 11.1.

This is a public hearing, 27 foods and food fuel C UP, planning record 3230, Coffee Lane, PLN 25-0348, and this is an expart ex parte item.

So, Commissioner Horton.

I have visited the site.

Thank you, Commissioner Sanders.

I as well have visited the site and have nothing further to add.

Commissioner Carter.

I visited the site and have nothing further to report.

Thank you, Vice Chair Duggan.

I also visit the site and have nothing further to report.

Commissioner Sisko.

I visited the site and have nothing further to report.

Commissioner Pardot.

I too visited the site and have nothing else to report.

Thank you.

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

So with that, lead us off.

Good afternoon.

The project in front of you today is 24-7 foods and fill spirit cells located at 3230 coffee lane.

And alcohol cells require a major conditional use for it, which is why we're funding the planning commission tonight.

The advocate is proposing to add spur cells for all off-site consumption.

And this site was already approved for wine and beer cells, as you'll see on the next slide.

And here this slide shows a brief project history of the site.

On January 31st, 2001, Mono Project 97-0002 approve wine cells for all-site consumption.

On July 30th, 2004, Mono Project 04-018 was approved along beer and wine cells for off-site consumption.

On August 14, 2025, this project application was submitted, and two weeks later it was deemed complete.

On March 6, 2026, a notice of public hearing was distributed.

And here is an airview view of the proposed location, which is in the Northwestern Quadrant of Santa Rosa at the intersection of Coffee Lane and Pana Road.

And the yellow star indicates the proposed location.

And here, the zoning line's destination is light industrial, which is consistent with the general plan line's destination of light industry.

The green triangle represents the product location, which complies with zoning code section 2042.034B5, which states that alcohol should not be placed within five feet of the entrance, nor to check out.

And this is a site plan of the site, and the site is delineated by the red outline, and this site is developed with 12 self-service gas pumps, two self-storage units, a coal wash, and a store itself.

This project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environment Equality Act, and it is categorically exempt pursuant to SICA guidelines, section 15301 because this is an existing facility.

At this time, there are no unresolved issues as a result of staff review.

No public comment has received for this project.

Staff analysis has included that all finance can be met, and the applicant has reviewed and accepted all consistent approval.

As a recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission approve resolution for this use permit to allow spirit cells for off-site consumption at 3230 coffee lane.

Should you have any questions?

Thank you.

Is there a presentation by the applicant?

Okay.

Yes.

Hi, good evening.

Uh my name is Steve Rawlings.

I am here representing the Bunting family that uh owns uh the uh real estate and operates the uh uh the business.

Um for the record, we do concur with the staff's recommendation and do agree to all of the conditions of approval as presented to you this evening.

I wanted to add some uh additional comments and and also address one issue that has has recently come up.

Um there has uh um it was brought to my attention this afternoon uh and I I shared it with uh uh Mr.

Bunting here that uh there's been a food truck operating there without a permit.

Um Mr.

Bunting and his son were unaware that any type of permitting was necessary for that.

So I want to assure the commission that that was brought to our attention today, that operation will cease.

And if it is to uh happen again, we will make sure that we have all the proper uh permits in place for that uh particular operation.

Um the request that is uh before you this evening is is driven very much by a product that is referred to as ready-to-drink beverages.

We're all probably very familiar with uh white claws and true lease and those type of products.

Um they have become very popular in the last 10 years.

The traditional products that were originally released by those companies uh contain were were made from uh beer or malt type of product, and we were able to sell those products under a type 20 license.

However, all of those companies uh have now come out with new products uh such as white claw vodka soda or truly lime margarita, and there is an ingredient of either tequila or uh vodka.

Most of these drinks are uh what you would refer to as very watered down.

Uh their alcohol by volume is someplace in the 5% to say 8% range.

A so by comparison, a bottle of Chardonnay is going to run about 13 or 14 percent alcohol by by volume.

Uh, and we're able to sell that now.

A medello beer, uh, which is the most popular beer product on the market runs right at about 5% alcohol by volume as well.

So these uh drinks have become very, very popular uh due to taste.

Um I have not uh tasted one of these products before, but uh by all accounts on all of the industry um statistics, uh by far and away, these are the hottest products growing.

Uh beer sales have have declined, wine sales have declined, but this particular segment of the market, which is the ready-to-drinks containing a small quantity of distilled spirits, uh, is the fastest growing uh segment of the market.

Uh the Bunting family and their operation uh would like the opportunity to be able to uh inventory those types of products.

Um that is also true for all of the other major uh chains that you might be familiar with, the AMPMs and the Chevrons, uh so they have been actively seeking a type 21 license.

A little bit of background on that.

There was legislation a couple of years ago that went through um Sacramento, but it was vetoed.

Um the proposal was that any alcoholic beverage that had an alcohol by volume of less than 10%, so in the same range as a beer, um, could be allowed to be sold under the type 20.

That legislation failed, and hence therefore ABC says even if you want to sell these watered down RTDs, you have to obtain a type 21 license.

So that's the real driver for this particular uh request here.

Yes, we are allowed the privilege of being able to sell bottles of spirits.

Um those bottles would be stored in a locked cabinet behind the cashier, and I think on the floor plan you can see it's a rather small uh footprint, and we have conditions of approval that uh ensure that that's where that product would have to be displayed uh at all times.

Um and um uh you know, over the past uh years, um, as I mentioned before, this has become a very hot product, and uh this business who has had an excellent track record about their uh beer and wine sales, would like the opportunity to be able to offer uh this particular product as well.

So with that, um I'm available for any any questions that anybody may have.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the applicant or of staff at this time?

Commissioner Sisko.

Yeah, I have a question of uh staff.

Okay.

And um it's it's mainly for educational purposes for us as the commission.

I also want to compliment you on how you gathered together and presented to us the crime statistics and police statistics.

That was great.

Um, but again, for education purposes, in the staff report, it says the ABC area uh six licenses were allowed, and now there are 12.

So could you just explain the process that the city went through in order to allow the extra six?

Thank you for commissioner for that question.

Um so uh the city does not deal with um concentration of alcohol licenses, um, as you're probably aware.

Um that comes from ABC, and when uh an establishment wants to add a license in a location that is beyond uh what ABC has determined uh is the total concentration, uh they then require a um what's called a um uh PCN, sorry, been a long week, um, public convenience or necessity determination, um, which is made by the city.

Uh so that application comes to the city, it is uh a determination that is made at the director level to determine if there is a demonstrated public need or necessity for the additional alcohol license.

Uh typically when um staff is reviewing this, we're really looking at crime information, working with our police department to make sure that there's no um issue from a uh a police perspective for adding that again because the city does not have concentration requirements.

Does that answer your question?

That's my question, and that's what I wanted us all to understand.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh and I'd like to thank the applicant for addressing the uh food truck, because that was my they had that question.

So Commissioner Sanders.

I have a question for the uh applicant.

You mentioned that um uh forgive me, I'm not gonna be able to regurgitate the names of these low watered-down alcohol uh uh drinks, though I do know what a white claw is, and that is you're saying around five percent.

Is are you saying that the applicant is only looking to stock these sort of watered down uh distilled spirits because you know, as white claw is around five percent, just looking up, they make this thing called a surge, which is eight percent and comes in a 19-ounce can.

So it's a little bit different than you know what what is a glass of wine, five ounce?

19 ounce can, 8%.

So are you are you saying that they're not going to carry that type of thing?

It's only gonna be the sort of five percent watered down stuff.

Certainly.

Um thank you for that question.

Um the RTDs, ready to drink beverages is kind of the acronym that's used in in the industry there.

Um they do range in terms of uh of the alcohol by volume content, um, so they would be anywhere from five, the the top selling ones, which is what they they are gonna want to uh inventory, right?

Are arranging someplace between the five and ten percent uh range there, and um uh so yeah, and if you take a craft beer, a lot of craft beers are around the seven or eight percent alcohol by volume, and as I pointed out earlier, um a wine is is gonna be 13 or 14 percent, and wine bottles are sold at 700.

Your traditional uh wine bottle is 750 milliliters, uh, which is gonna give you about uh four uh six to eight ounce pores out of each um of those bottles.

So those bottles are more like 24 ounces.

Uh if I got my math right, um it's gonna be somewhere in that in that particular neighborhood.

Um thank you.

Just for clarity, um, a craft beer costs maybe six bucks, whereas a white claw may cost three dollars.

So it's a little bit different, right?

Correct.

Okay, and and and as I mentioned, any any of the um products that are you know um uh a traditional bottle of uh of spirit is is gonna be more, you know, a much higher alcohol by volume, and that is why it's stored and only displayed behind the cashier there.

Um I also wanted to you know point out to everybody that that um uh part of our conditions and uh are that we have to have uh responsible beverage training service for our uh people that are engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Um those programs are approved by ABC.

ABC sponsors one of their own programs that most retailers use.

Uh they emphasize uh it's a seminar type of format.

There is a test at the end.

Um, but those are uh they emphasize you know two two big things.

One is conducting proper identification checks so that you're you know eliminating hopefully uh no sales to minors.

Uh in this company utilizes a scanning uh device to help uh uh you know they look at it visually and then they scan it.

And the second thing is is that um uh they focus in on uh signs of intoxication because a little known fact it is illegal to sell to somebody who is uh uh displaying uh intoxicated behavior.

Um and uh uh ABC runs those type of sting operations quite a bit, and uh not only does the business kind of get fined and have a mark on their um uh on their license, the individual employee is going to get a fine as well.

As a as a person, they're gonna get a citation, and in this company's uh policy, they will be terminated um immediately.

So uh and they are very well educated on those couple of things that I just pointed out to you there.

Thank you.

I have uh one question for staff.

Uh if I may.

Um of the slides, it mentioned that um the alcohol related crimes in that location was 20, 21, 22 incidents or those individual incidents that we saw there.

Can you repeat the question again, please?

So there was one slide that showed the uh alcohol related uh crime statistics, and I believe that at that location it were like maybe 22 are are those 22 separate instances of an alcohol related crime?

Yes.

Okay.

And how many alcohol related crimes are acceptable before we start saying, hmm, maybe we should take another look.

Um I don't have the answer, and police isn't here, but I can get back to you and ask police about that.

And and and within a staff report, there's a pe there's a letter from police that says they have no issues with this, so I'll I can get back to you with that with the answer.

Right.

That's tough because we have to make a decision now, you know.

So it's that's that's hard.

Uh, because if the alcohol-related crime thing is 23, well, then this is that 22, it's right on on the cusp.

So maybe we can get a little free.

All right, commissioner, if I may, just um uh uh to add a little bit.

So I I don't think that there is a a line, you know, in the stand as to you know when is too many.

Um, but as um uh planner Briscoe mentioned, this um uh item was referred to our police department.

We've been working very closely with them, particularly after our last Planning Commission meeting to make sure that um we fully understood the crime issues um in the areas, and so they took a very good look at at this item and did not indicate any concerns with the number of crimes that were in this area and adding this this alcohol license to it.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, Commissioner Carter.

Um first of all, thanks, Jandon again for a succinct and thorough staff report and presentation.

Um the there was a one of the slides said there's currently 12 licenses in the census district.

I'm assuming this 21 type license will replace one of those and we'll end up with the same number.

Is that correct?

Or will this add another license in the census census district?

Um yes, the existing type twenty license will be canceled upon the issuance of the type twenty-one license.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

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

If you have any comments, please make your way to one of the podiums.

You'll have three minutes.

Seeing no one rise, I'll close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission.

Uh, would somebody like to enter the resolution?

I can do that.

I move a resolution of the planning commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for alcohol sales, distilled spirits for off-site consumption with fresh produce located at three two three zero coffee lane, file number PLN two five-zero three four eight and wave for the reading of the text.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Okay, so that was a move by Commissioner Sisko seconded by Mr.

Duggan.

And we'll start with Commissioner Horton for comments.

Thank you, Chair.

Just uh very brief comments from me.

I strongly support this.

Um I think it's in the public interest, and I I just appreciate the the time the applicant has taken and the time the staff have taken.

Uh and the fantastic presentation as usual.

So I can make all the required findings and declarations and we'll be voting yes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sanders.

And we'll uh support the resolution.

You commissioner Carter.

I can make the required findings and I'll be supporting the resolution.

Thank you.

Commissioner Pardeaux.

I too can make all the required findings and an approval of the resolution for the conditional use permit.

Thank you, Commissioner Sisko.

I too can make the required findings and we'll uh vote for approval of the conditional use permit.

And again, really appreciate how staff pulled it makes it our job so much easier, and I can feel like I feel have a lot more confidence in making this approval.

So thank you.

Vice Chair Duggan.

I'm also in support of the resolution and can make all the findings.

Thank you.

And I also will be supporting the resolution and can make all the required findings.

So with that Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko.

Aye.

Commissioner Horton?

Aye.

Commissioner Pardot?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanders.

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that resolution passes with seven ayes.

Thank you.

Thank you all on this.

And we will move on to item 11.2.

We'll make just a minute while we let Mr.

Horton.

Okay, so actually we'll take about a five-minute break and then we'll come back.

I spoke with the applicant in a Zoom meeting, and uh many years ago I had a professional relationship with a member of the applicant team, but that was a long time ago.

Commissioner Sanders.

I misspoke.

I was on autopilot.

I did visit the site.

I did meet with the applicant.

Sorry, that was just uh met with the applicant and also met with uh a neighbor uh at the across the way uh Villa Los Alamos Los Alamos.

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Pardo.

I also visited the site and I met with the applicant via Zoom.

Thank you, Commissioner Sisco.

I visited the site and met with the applicant's uh representative.

And nothing else to disclose.

Vice Chair Duggan.

I visited the site and also had a Zoom meeting with the applicant representative.

And I also visited the site and had a Zoom meeting with or had a in-person meeting, sorry, uh with the applicant's uh representative, and nothing further to disclose.

So with that, now Ms.

Shakali, you can lead us off.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Weeks, and good evening, members of the commission.

The project before you is Spring Lake Village East Grow.

So the project is an expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village, continuing care retirement community located on Montgomery Drive.

The proposal would add 32 independent units on a nearby parcel, which would include 14 cottage style units and a three-story villa that has 18 units.

And in the next three slides, I'm gonna go over the required entitlements for this project.

So the project requires approval of a conditional use permit under our zoning code, community care facilities with more than six beds require a use permit in all residential zones and must be located at least three hundred feet from another facility.

The project would also require approval of a hillside development permit because a portion of the project site have slopes that are greater than 10%.

And the proposed project would involve grading in those areas.

However, the project has been designed to minimize disturbance to natural topography and vegetation, and it meets cities' hillside development standards.

Also, as a result of this project, uh the site located at two to five Los Alamos Road will require to be rezoned to PD from rural residential to B D PD to be consistent with the current zone of the uh Spring Lake uh Lake Village.

And also as a result of this rezoning to PD, the current policy statement for the Spring Lake Village will be uh amended, amended accordingly.

And here is where the project is located at the corner of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road.

The zone for this parcel is rural residential with Cenic Road combining district, and the general plan land use is low density residential.

And here I will go over the history of this project.

So the project was originally submitted in 2014 for 24 independent senior living units.

In 2016, the city issued a notice of preparation for the environmental impact report and held a scoping meeting to receive feedbacks from community agencies and tribes.

And the same year, the applicant made changes to the project, added two additional parcels to the overall project site and increased the number of units from 24 to 32 units.

As a result of this change, another notice of preparation was sent out.

And in 2021, the draft environmental impact report was released for public review, and it was presented to the planning commission for comments.

Following the circulation of the draft EIR, the applicant elected to move forward with alternative two maximum avoidance alternative, which is identified in the draft EIR as a environmentally superior alternative.

And in 2024, after three years, the project was enacted due to change of ownership, the applicant submitted plans.

And in 2025, following additional consultation with the tribe, the applicant made further modifications to alternative two and submitted revised plans.

And in March this year, on March 11, uh the final EIR was also released for public view.

So in this next four slides, I'm gonna go over the changes that have been made since 2014.

This is a project site when the application was submitted in 2014.

That shows 24 proposed units, and they were all on a uh the current vacant parcel.

And this slide shows when the project was modified in 2016, added two additional parcels, and the number of the units were increased to 32 units.

And this slide shows the site plan for alternative two, maximum avoidance alternative.

This is the um alternative that several planning commissioners showed express interest, and it was their preferred option for approval.

And the applicant elected to pursue this alternative and submitted plan reflecting this plan.

And as we can see, it reduces the overall development footprints and minimizes grand disturbance.

And here is the slide that shows the modified version of alternative two submitted in 2025, which is the project before the planning commission for review.

As you can see, this version further reduces the development footprint, removes the two parcel with existing single family homes from the project area, and minimizes grading while maintaining the proposed 32 units.

From 2016 to 226, the city conducted tribal consultation, beat representatives from Lytton Rancheria and Federated Indians of Great and Rancheria.

The process began with uh formal AB 52 notification and continued through meetings, site visits, cultural resource study, testing requests, and ongoing review of project and environmental materials.

Throughout the consultation process, tribal input and request led to changes in the project design and the modification of mitigation measures, which required additional testing to further reduce potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Following an extensive and productive consultation process, the city sent a pre-closure letter to Federated Indians of Great and Rancheria in June 2025, and a closure letter on Monday, March 23rd.

The letter outlined the good faith effort and project modification made at the tribe request.

Yesterday, the city received a letter from the tribe indicating objection to closing consultation.

However, the city has found that good faith effort has been made, and therefore the city considers the city considers consultation complete.

And as for the CIQA, as you know, I mentioned in the beginning, the project had gone through a long extensive environmental impact report, and our consultant will go over the process and give you the highlights of highlights of the key findings.

All right, thank you, Monet.

Uh good evening, Chair Weeks and Commissioners.

My name is Brian Baccherini.

I'm consultant with GHD, and I will give a brief five-minute overview of the EIR.

All right, there we go.

So the draft EIR was circulated for public and agency review in 2021.

As Monet described, it evaluated the originally proposed project as well as one design alternative.

So during the public review, there was a planning commission public hearing where comments were received, as well as through written letters from the public and reviewing agencies.

So the draft EIR identified impacts of mitigation for these topics here.

I'll just walk through them briefly.

For wildfire, mitigation is included to reduce potential for fire during construction.

For noise, mitigation includes reducing construction noise and vibration, and for ensuring that mechanical equipment and the emergency generator meet the city noise limits.

For bike safety, mitigation includes placing signage on Los Alamos Road.

For biological resources, mitigation includes protections for special status species, nesting birds and bats.

It also includes compensating for a fill of a very small seasonal wetland and a roadside drainage, and for protection and then replacing trees that would be removed in accordance with the city's tree ordinance.

And then finally, for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, mitigation includes treatment plan, monitoring during construction, avoidance measures, and other procedures to minimize disturbance.

The originally proposed project resulted in three significant unavoidable impacts.

Alternative two did not result in significant unavoidable impacts.

So for that reason, it was identified as the environmentally superior alternative.

So the next few slides will just highlight a few of the changes to the project in the environmental setting that Monet and I have discussed so far.

As Monet explained, after the draft EIR was released, the project was paused.

The city and the applicant took a closer look at the project and the alternatives, and then the focus shifted to alternative two.

The city then conducted the additional Native American tribal consultation that Monet mentioned, and as well as additional departmental reviews of the new project plans.

A refined version of alternative two was ultimately developed, and that's what is being proposed now.

And the modifications were discussed and evaluated in that final EIR.

So another change was the addition of off-site transit improvements along Highway 12.

These include moving the westbound bus stop to before the Los Alamos intersection and then extending the sidewalk to the eastbound stop to improve ADA access.

Another change was to the environmental setting along Los Alamos Road.

So after the draft EIR was released, PGE completed a project with in within the city right-of-way, included a new utility vault.

You can see there a driveway and utility lines.

So the vinyl EIR discusses this and reviewed these changes.

Summaries of the public and planning commission comments and responses to each comment received.

It also includes eight master responses that addressed common concerns along with an evaluation of the project changes that we just went over.

We looked very closely at whether recirculation of the draft EIR was required and determined it was not.

The project is a refinement of an alternative that was already evaluated in the draft EIR, and the changes were evaluated and determined not to result in any new or worse impacts.

So final slide, just overall summary.

The draft EIR evaluated the original project in alternative two.

Alternative two was identified as the environmentally superior alternative.

The draft EIR was circulated for the review.

Comments were received, and then after that, the project was paused to allow time to further evaluate and refine alternative two.

A modified version of alternative two, as Monet has discussed, is now proposed.

So that concludes my overview.

Thank you, Mune.

Okay.

And I have to continue my presentation now.

Okay.

So since the project was notified three weeks ago, staff have received five emails.

One of them were questioning the final EIR document, and they wanted to review it, which I shared the link for draft and final EIR, and also we received four emails from neighbors within the vicinity project site.

They were opposing the project due to uh fire evacuation, traffic, pedestrian safety, and biological resources and traffic collision in that area.

Staff provided the final EIR and uh the draft EIR documents to uh this commenters and uh explained that all this uh topics were analyzed and evaluated in those documents.

And with that, it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission by five resolution recommend that the city council one certify the final EIR adopt CEQA findings of fact and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, two approve a minor conditional use permit for a committee care facility, three, approve a hillside development permit, five, adopt the rezoning of two to five Los Alamos Road to PD and next adopt a text amendment to PD for the Spring Lake East Growth project consistent consisting of 32 independent senior living units located at 225 Los Alamos Road, 5808 and 5815 Melito Road.

The applicant has wearable presentation.

If there are no questions to staff, we can listen to the applicant.

Okay, thank you.

That was my presentation.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and hear from the applicant and then bring it to the commission for questions of staff and the applicant.

And if you could say your name for the record, please.

Good evening.

My name is Mary McMullen.

I'm the chief operating officer for Front Porch, which is the nonprofit aging services and senior living owner of Spring Lake Village.

I just wanted to take some time to express the importance of how this modest development will address not only the need for senior housing, but also general housing in Santa Rosa because we attract local folks who move to our community and free up housing for new families.

In addition, as part of Front Porch, Spring Lake Village brings great experience and a solid legacy of innovation and attention to detail that we will continue in this new neighborhood.

We are an employer of choice in Santa Rosa, and our residents are an integral and important asset for the Santa Rosa community.

So we will add to that asset if this is approved.

Our residents invest their time, talent, and donations in local nonprofits and in supporting local businesses through their commerce.

As you can see from the timeline, Spring Lake Village and Front Porch have invested years, almost a decade in this planning process because we believe this neighborhood is a responsible expansion.

Our commitment to planning extends to our commitment to continued partnership with the city on fire management and evacuation preparation.

Our commitment also extends the pedestrian and bike path and shuttle for residents to integrate the campuses and to continue our collaboration with city traffic to manage the load on Montgomery Drive.

Through the extensive revisions made to the plan, we have shown our dedication to resolving key issues and creating an additional asset for Santa Rosa.

I know we have other comments.

I do ask for your support of the application and invite your questions of me and the project team.

Good afternoon.

My name is Barbara Schusman.

I'm an attorney at Perkins CUI.

I've been assisting the applicant with this project since the inception, which has been a very, very long time.

As you've seen, the CEQA process for this project has been extensive.

It has been thorough.

And it's really been the result of a lot of hard work by your city staff, by the EIR consultant, by the members of the community that took the time to comment thoughtfully about the environmental report.

And all of that hard work has gone into a project that now comes before you with no significant environmental impacts after mitigation, which is quite an accomplishment.

I do want to touch on tribal cultural resources.

Between 2017 and 2021 in particular, a lot of consultation occurred.

The consultation focused on several topics.

One was the types of studies that should be performed to identify the potential cultural resources on the site.

The applicant team submitted the normal architectural, the archaeological study that one submits for NEIR.

That study, you know, showed a boundary, showed some archaeological resources on the site.

The tribal representatives asked for some additional studies, some that were not commonly done, but nevertheless, the applicant team agreed to them, paid for them, and had the studies undertaken.

The tribes were invited to participate in the studies and to monitor during the studies.

The consultations also addressed the mitigation measures to be included in the EIR.

The tribes were given the opportunity to weigh in on those measures and to make amendments to them.

The tribes were provided the text of the EIR and were allowed to consult on that.

And then, of course, the development of the maximum avoidance alternative, which the applicant team, the city, you know, really worked hard to change the project completely in order to maximally avoid cultural resources and tribal cultural resources.

And the tribes were provided drafts of that and were able to comment upon it all along the way to get it to the place where it is now.

After the EIR went out and we received comments, again, the city consulted with the tribes, and as you know, further modifications were made to the project in response to the tribe's comments, including the commitment to do further studies on the area that are outside the boundaries that were determined by the prior studies.

So to the extent there's anything unknown out there, we will make sure that that's discovered ahead of time and that consultation continues to occur with the tribes to make sure that all resources are handled in the most respectful way possible.

We are we also moved several of the components even farther from sensitive areas.

So in some, we are disappointed that the tribes have objected to the closure of consultation, but I do want to say that this is not the end of those cult this collaboration, that under the mitigation measures in the EIR, tribal monitors will be on site.

There are many steps for further consultation to occur all during the process.

The applicant team will do so in the most respectful way possible.

We do agree with staff that closure of consultation is appropriate, and we ask for this commission to recommend support.

And again, we really do thank staff for all of the hard work at every point along the way, and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

So I'll bring it to staff.

Are there any questions of staff, the applicant or the consultant before I open the public hearing?

Okay.

So with that, um, I will open the public hearing on this item.

If you'd like to make a comment, please make your way to one of the two podiums.

You'll have three minutes.

There will be a countdown timer on the screen there, and I think over there, um, to for you to be aware of your time.

So we'll use both podiums.

And there's a button on the side of each podium to either raise it or lower it.

And before you start, if you could please state your name for the record.

Okay.

And you might want to that button.

Okay, hopefully this is you can hear me clearly.

Yes.

Yeah, we get like real close.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Rachel.

Um, I am one of the many residents at uh Villa Los Alamos, directly across from the proposed site.

Um I have quite a lot to unpack, so let's get started with my concerns.

Um the first one is how distressing the environmental impact report was.

This expansion uh, as you know, would essentially bulldoze 7.28 acres of land.

It would require cutting down 264 species of trees, which also includes 76 live oak, four redwoods, 18 valley oaks, olive, apple, walnut, and wild plum trees.

So we're not talking eucalyptus here.

This is actual um species that support our diverse wildlife.

Uh I I did hear and appreciate that uh replacing the trees was discussed.

I would have questions.

Um of these trees are um they're older than a hundred years old.

Um, would it be the same species being replaced?

Would it be just landscape filler?

Um, so I have questions about that.

Um we're also concerned, obviously, about the uh threatened species um of amphibians, birds, bats, steelhead, um, and the noise and the light pollution.

I did hear that there was um attempts to try to mitigate that um just from the PGE work alone, it caused eight months or this is just an estimate, but a very long time of significant traffic delay and confusion in the area.

Um this could not be a worse spot to build.

It is such a dangerous intersection.

Highway 12 and Los Alamos has had so many accidents as it is alone that to add more chaos into it is just only gonna amplify the problem.

Um the other side of that, then you've got Montgomery, which is a major thoroughfare uh going to Spring Lake and Anadale.

So again, um, this is for pedestrians, everybody accessing uh the bridge to Channel Drive, cyclists, it's a big, big problem as it is.

Adding additional would be um very concerning.

And okay, I'm gonna run out of time, so I'm gonna skip over that.

But wildfire risk, having been um evacuated there many times, uh trying to get out Montgomery is backed up completely.

It was a nightmare.

We sat unmoving for 30 minutes while wild fire and flames were coming towards us.

There's no turnoffs, there's nowhere to go, you're stuck.

And if you're gonna evacuate seniors safely, then um it it's a slow process.

I see that my time is up, so I'm just gonna close by.

Can I just do my closing argument?

No, thank you though.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Okay.

And hi, my name is Elise, and my mama just did a great speech about why we shouldn't build that.

And I'll be talking about the Spring Lake Village Expansion Project and why it should not be approved.

Imagine noise, bright lights, traffic, and trash instead of a beautiful tranquil meadow.

That's all there will be if this project goes through.

There are threatened species in that meadow, and beautiful plants grow there.

For example, on my way to school every day, I get to see a rose plant, sometimes in bloom.

And I call it the Rachel Rose plant because my mom Rachel has her birthday close to when they bloom.

And if this gets approved, over 200 trees will perish.

And that's not all.

This land has archaeologic significance to indigenous people in the area.

And first of all, think about all the traffic.

In short, this project should not go through.

And if there's going to be um a building there, then it could potentially harm populations of endangered species and the species themselves.

And the trees that have been very important and as homes for animals might be destroyed.

And it's a huge environmental risk, and I've heard that people have been trying to solve that issue, but I just don't think that there's really any way to solve that except not building there.

There literally couldn't be a worse spot.

There's pear trees, wild plums there, and like miracle plum trees.

It's just really beautiful.

And there's all these beautiful flowers, and it's just a really nice place to be.

And I don't think that it should deserve to get destroyed.

And this is not about caring for the elderly.

It's about trying to make a building for greed.

People have been really greedy because they're trying to get money because they think money is power.

Money is not power and money is not happiness.

Real happiness comes from nature.

And that field is full of nature.

If we go in there and you see that there are species there that really matter, you will learn that happiness isn't just from money, it's from nature.

And it's sometimes it can be hard to recognize that, but it's really important too because that's really something that you need to do in life.

I know Mama.

And then I just want to say that it's I really don't see any good reason why this project should go through.

Because it's more about greed than caring for the elderly.

And it's I really don't think that this project should go through because there is significance to many people and species there.

Thank you.

I just want to say thank you so much for what you just shared.

I I felt it in my heart.

Um my name is Laurie.

I live at the Villa Los Alamos condos as well.

I've been there for 30 years.

And I one of the main things I want to address is the noise impact.

Now, I have lived there that long to where I've heard seen the difference with sound.

In my room at night, I I sleep with a white noise machine because of that 16-lane intersection.

Um, I've gone out there with a meter to measure the sound lanes, up to 200.

Uh and that's the truth.

200.

That's from the stop and go traffic.

You have all the different lanes all going.

You get those big semis with the big air breaks, up to 200.

And I just can't envision seniors living so close to that intersection with that sound.

It is anything over 80, 85 is harmful to the inner ear, not let alone the stress level of our neural system.

And the entrance is gonna be right across from ours.

We've already felt an impact of the change from so many people using Montgomery now, coming down short Los Alamos Road, the speed, the animals getting killed.

We are going to be sharing that with this setup.

Their entrance is gonna be right across from ours.

It's a short little road.

It's gonna be quite an impact.

The noise alone, the noise alone.

I watched them build the the one down the road, and uh the the different phases, and a nice country road turned into a parking lot.

There's cars parked all along the road now.

The country road kind of went bye-bye.

I do understand the c the housing for senior, but this is an affordable housing for senior.

This is high cost housing.

I could be wrong, but when I checked into Spring Lake Village, we thought we would move there.

Uh back then it was 5,000 a month to live there, and you had to buy into the place.

I don't know, 100,000, 200,000.

I don't even know what it is today.

So please consider the noise impact, the safety of that road.

We've had a car fly through the intersection, come right into our complex, hit four cars and flip over at eight o'clock at night.

That's just one.

And I live there, so I know and I've seen the difference over 30 years.

The noise is a real impact.

200, 200 decibels.

That's high.

So I don't know how much study they've done when people come to visit, but if you live there day in, day out, you really get the feel and the sense of what the noise impact, the traffic impact.

Thank you.

All of that.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Lucas Farley, and I'm gonna read the closing statement that Rachel wanted to read.

I close by saying I understand that there is pressure to solve ongoing housing the ongoing housing crisis, but this location at this center, at these intersections, are not it.

This is a super niche housing project.

Uh few of which are directed at a small percentage of the population, few of which will actually be able to afford living there.

The people who will benefit most are a handful of French porch board members who don't live here, they live in Los Angeles.

Yet the negative impacts will surely be felt by the almost 26,000 people that live in Rincon Valley.

Sonoma County is spectacular, not because of how many square feet we pave over, but how we balance nature with our urban interface.

Now I like to say that I get it.

We live in America.

Development is the critical component that drives all of this, manifest testing everything.

And from what I'm sensing, this is pretty much a foregone conclusion that all of you will upvote to approve this.

Um but for me, it just when I drive by the other campus, as it is called, I see a security guard out there.

I see a closed-off community.

I've never communicated with a single person from that campus area.

All I ever do is see the guard.

I see people milling about in their own cloistered community, and now I see that moving over near my area.

I know from other people who live along Melita that the overall goal is to create a larger campus, that they are actively pursuing purchasing other parcels.

So all I'm seeing is that this is the next step in a closing off of a cloistered private community in eastern Santa Rosa.

And I just need to put it on record that you will be voting for that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the public?

Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for questions.

Um comments.

Um I will start off with a couple of things that I heard, and if you could all chime in, that would be great.

Um and I'm not sure if this is will be for the applicant or for staff or for the consultant.

So the question about the trees being removed and replaced.

Can you address that?

Someone okay, I could give that a try.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so for for trees, yes, there's there's 264 trees that are slated for removal.

151 of those are non-exempt, uh, which means they're they're bigger than the the city's tree ordinance that says it's not a tree, right?

So 151 non-exempt trees, 140 of the trees that are present are going to be preserved, uh, you know, with protections around them uh and and preserved in place, and then the city's tree ordinance requires replacement with uh suitable uh common species and similar species to those that are removed.

So that's the tree ordinance item.

Question around the intersection.

Um the combination of county, city, state highway 12.

Um not sure even what the question is, other than can you address the the traffic issues and the intersection.

Yes, I can.

There's the so as I mentioned during the presentation, there's there's eight master responses that were developed for common topics that were brought up and kind of the collision concerns at this intersection as well as traffic were were two of those.

So in the final EIR, master response H as an example discusses kind of the collision history.

So in the draft EIR, we we looked at the collision history at that intersection, and you report the number of collisions and they they have it in five-year increments.

And we looked over the last three periods of five-year increments, and the there is a rate that is associated with intersections, and then to determine if there's a significant impact, you look at similar types of intersections throughout the state and what they that the rating is for those.

So for for this intersection, uh the number of collisions uh between 2011 2016 was 12.

Between 2015 and 2020, it was 10, and between 2020 and 2024, it was seven, which gives a rating.

I know this is kind of technical of less than 0.29, whereas the statewide average for similar type of intersections ranges from 0.43 to 0.55, meaning the intersection here is showing to be operating more safely than intersections that are similar throughout the state.

Paul, can you come on down?

Or go to one of the whatever.

Um the wildfire evacuation.

I you know, you talked we talked about this earlier and the first item.

So can you talk a little bit about wildfire evacuation and how that plays in uh perhaps with a senior community?

Yeah, so thank you for the question, uh Chair Weeks.

Uh again, Paul Lenthal Division Chief Fire Marshal with the Santa Rosa Fire Department.

Uh so there's kind of a couple uh directions to take that question.

Uh first uh is to note that uh our emergency management as well as our fire department work very closely with care facilities across the city uh based on our lessons learned from uh our fire activity on measures that they can take to uh help uh handle some of their own issue, essentially handle some of their own issues.

So Spring Lake Villages from an evacuation preparedness standpoint is probably one of the most prepared facilities that we deal with with the city uh and a private uh partnership.

Uh we actually exercise an evacuation uh plan with Spring Lake Villages uh all the way down to the point of actually uh uh taking them to our temporary evacuation point on uh West Third Street a place to play.

Um so from a staffing standpoint, uh they're very familiar with our policies, our procedures, um, and how to uh uh mitigate impacts to public safety for their residents.

Uh from a general evacuation standpoint, um, yes, uh we obviously learned a lot here in our community following initially the 2017 fires, uh made significant improvements uh to how we evacuate and evacuate effectively.

In fact, uh we were actually so good at it now that we had to slow down our evacuation procedures in the 2020 glass fire that impacted this project location.

Uh there was a number of uh comments and some of the feedback we received uh from this project and other similar projects in this area regarding the traffic associated with the 2020 glass fire.

Um it should be noted that that was traffic that we anticipated.

Um had we actually needed to evacuate the area uh more uh expeditiously, we absolutely would have done that regardless.

Uh we've made improvements to East Santa Rosa to uh improve the ability to essentially flush traffic out of East Santa Rosa.

Uh our fire department worked closely with our partners over at Transportation Public Works as well as Santa Rosa Police and to facilitate some of the issues that cause some of the backups on Montgomery Drive, uh Melita, Highway 12.

We've instituted what we refer to as a plush a flush plan, where we have the ability to control the intersections and uh the signals at the intersections and facilitate a quicker, more expeditious evacuation.

Hopefully that helps answer your evacuation questions.

Yes, thank you.

As long as he is standing up there, other questions for Mr.

Loenthal?

Okay, thank you.

Um another question had to do with uh noise and the sound impact and the both the noise of the construction as well as the uh noise for the residents who will be living in these new units.

And I'm not sure if the applicant can address that or staff.

I know no I know construction um has certain hours that that it can occur.

And that that would be something that would be detailed later on.

Is that correct?

And then if the hours of operation has to comply with our construction, can't hear you.

Can't hear you.

Oh, okay.

Correct, the construction hours have to comply with our noise ordinance.

There are certain hours that they have to meet.

And also there are mitigations included uh for the uh noise that is related to the construction hours.

Uh Brian, do you want to go?

Yeah, I I mentioned during the presentation that there is mitigation for construction and vibration controls as well as for making sure that the equipment and the emergency generator are cited such that they're meeting the noise limits, and that's done by uh an actual noise study that was prepared for the EIR that they go out and they took noise measurements at the site along the roadways along Highway 12.

They evaluated you know the increases in traffic noise that could occur from the project.

They looked at what what's the maximum noise that that could occur during construction and how how would that be at the nearest receptor residential area?

So those are all discussed in the EIR, and then they base they run that through noise models, and then they identify mitigation measures that bring those levels down to below the the threshold limits.

So and that's that's what becomes part of the EIR mitigations.

Thank you.

And could the applicant address the um noise for the residents in the new units.

Yes, sir.

Did I have my three minutes?

I the the public hearing's been closed.

Thank you.

The way I would respond in addition to working with the restrictions on time and the management of noise during construction is during operations.

We have communities that are in quite noisy areas in other locations.

We have experience managing noise in terms of working with residents and not contributing to noise.

It's more ambient noise than us contributing.

One of the ways I believe we can work through some issues on this is using an electric shuttle going back and forth from the campuses.

So we are reducing road trips and road noise from our residents utilizing both campuses.

I think this is an area we have to be very upfront and continue to study.

I think for residents who may want to live there, being very upfront about any noise mitigation we can provide, we are willing to do so.

There was one comment, and I don't know if this is important, but it's a clarification.

Um of the commenters um said that our board is going to benefit from this.

We are a nonprofit organization.

Our board members are not shareholders, they are volunteers.

So our board members do not benefit.

The entire organization utilizes any profits we earn to reinvest into our community.

So I just want to be clear about what a nonprofit means.

Our board members do not benefit.

Thank you.

Okay, those those are the questions I had from the public.

Do uh Commissioner Sanders.

Um just piggybacking on the noise issue.

I know we're talking a lot about the noise related to construction.

Um we can't expect you to control the noise, the 200 decibels of noise on highway 12.

That noise exists today without the project there, right?

Uh so my question is operational noise.

We just heard about the electric bus.

That that helps.

Um, but just out of curiosity, what is the majority of traffic going in and out of the um out of the facility?

Uh sure, I can answer that.

Thank you.

Um, what we would expect would be residents coming and going in their personal cars if they don't use our shuttle.

We would have some food delivery, because there is a dining facility in this community center.

We would have um staff vehicles who are supporting the residents there, and then maintenance trucks and and landscaping.

So it would be um managed again, something we would be very cautious about the hours.

Um, and I'm sorry, the last one would be waste removal, because I that that is always one of the more noisy trucks.

Do you have any idea of how many trips per day are gonna be given the size of the dining community there?

Um, it would be probably deliveries two days a week.

Um the trash removal would also be two days a week.

Um the maintenance and the landscaping.

I don't have a handle on how many trips uh would be in and out.

Um again, we use a lot of golf carts, so those are electric vehicles.

Um, and then the the staff parking.

Um we're anticipating we could have six to eight staff members in this neighborhood, so it would be the the trips in and out for those shifts.

Um do you know the size of some of these delivery trucks?

Because as I was there, Los Alamos is like is pretty chewed up.

Yeah, and I would imagine that really large trucks is not a great idea on that road.

It would they or they're not really large trucks.

I the the issue for me is validating the size of the trash removal.

I I don't have that spec.

Um really quickly, you had mentioned that the 140 trees will be preserved of the how many that are there now.

170.

Ah, here we go.

Okay, so the the 140 are to be preserved and 151 are to be removed.

You're gonna have to do the math here, and that are non-exempt overall 264 would be removed.

Thank you.

And I do have one just uh to kind of follow up on the response about your question about traffic for for daily trips.

Thank you.

We we did have we have a traffic study that was done for the EIR.

It estimates what the the daily amount of trips would be, and it was 80.

And in comparing that to CEQA threshold and guidelines, if you're under 120, it's considered uh a less than significant impact.

So the project relative to that is is less thank you.

And my last question is um is the property currently does it currently have public access?

Are people like using that for recreation or pear picking or plum eating?

I mean it's not sanctioned if it happens.

It's not like it's a devoted public meadow at this point.

It is it is private property.

Yes, okay, thank you.

And Commissioner Sanders, I've got just one thing to add, and I will defer to our environmental consultant and noise expert, but I wanted to respond to your question about the 200 decibel uh measurement.

Uh we do have the actual measurements in the EIR as so it measures the existing noise and then the noise that would be added by project generated traffic and construction and operation.

And I'm not an always noise expert, but I did just do a little quick research, and I wanted to point out that exposure to 200 decibels is instantly fatal or causes extreme catastrophic injuries.

Such an immense sound pressure is significantly higher than a rocket launch of 180 decibels.

Um causes immediate eardrum rupture, severe lung damage, and potential severe internal organ damage.

So I don't think that we're looking at 200 decibel levels.

Um again, I can defer to my experts, but I wanted to just put that out there.

Thank you.

That would make sense.

I have a guitar amp that's pretty loud and doesn't get anywhere near 200 decibels, and it hurts my ear.

So thank you for that.

I I apologize.

I I have a commitment that I could not uh change.

So I have a colleague, uh, Christine Gaspar, who uh worked on the AIR, and she will be sitting in for me now.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Uh any other questions by the commission on this item.

Okay.

So with that, we have a total of five resolutions on this item.

So I think we'll do what we've done in the past when there's been multiple resolutions is um we'll enter the first resolution, make comments on the project as a whole, and then go resolution by resolution.

So who would like to Okay Vice Chair Deggan?

I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the City of Santa Rosa recommending that the city council certify the final environmental impact report, adopt the related sequel findings effect and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Spring Lake Village East Grove project located at 5803, 5815 Melita Road and 225 Los Alamos Road Assessors Parcels numbers 031-101-026, 031-101-035 and 031-101-034.

File number MJP 14-012 and wave for the reading.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Sanders, and we'll start with Commissioner Sanders for comments.

Uh it's a great project, and I can make all the findings to uh support the resolution.

And the future resolutions also.

And the future resolutions as well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Carter.

Yeah, I mean we've heard a lot about this project in the same issues we hear on most housing projects.

What about fires?

What about traffic?

What about loss of open space?

The difference here is we have an EIR that's looked at all of those things and said either they're not significant impacts or identified ways to mitigate them.

And I think it's been uh well done and well prepared, and it's thorough, and I can support uh the findings for all of the necessary actions we take.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sisko.

Yeah, I would just echo uh my commissioner's sentiments.

I can find all of uh make all of the findings for this resolution and our future resolutions.

I think it's very well done project, very respectfully done.

Trying to remember the last time I saw an environmentally superior alternative chosen and worked on, so I'm impressed, and um I'll be able to make all of the findings on all of the resolutions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Pardot, I want to thank the applicant for your nonprofit organization.

Um older folks hold a special place in my heart, so I want to thank you for your guys' service.

Uh I can make all the required findings and in approval of the five resolutions recommended to the council.

Thank you, Vice Chair Duggan.

Um, I too can make all the required findings and as um one of the three who sat on this initially years ago, 2021.

Um I'm very happy to see that the reduced um impact, the maximum avoidance um alternative has been adopted and that the um applicant is gonna use that alternative because I think that I think I was one of the people who preferred that um alternative way back when, so I can make all the required findings.

Thank you.

And I also can make all the required findings on this resolution and the uh future resolutions, and I also would like to compliment the applicant for all the hard work and um the changing of the project to make it more compatible and I think a overall better project.

So uh thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye, Commissioner Sisko, aye, Commissioner Horton has recused.

Commissioner Pardot?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanders, aye.

Vice Chair Duggan?

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that all five resolutions.

No, sorry, this resolution passes with six ayes.

Thank you.

So uh the second resolution regarding the hillside development.

Okay, um second one.

Is that the second one?

No, this is CPU, okay.

Sorry.

I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determination and recommending that the city council approve a minor conditional use permit for a 32-unit community care facility for the Spring Lake Village East Grove project located at 225 Los Alamos Road, 55803 and 5815 Melita Road, file number MJP 14-012, CUP 14-099, and wait for the reading.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, so once again, that was moved by Vice Chair Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Sanders.

So we can do a vote.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko.

Aye.

Commissioner Horton has recused.

Commissioner Pardot?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that resolution passes with six ayes.

Thank you.

And we have the third resolution.

Okay, I can make the res I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determination and recommending that the city council approve a hillside development permit for a 32-unit community care facility for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project located at 225 Los Alamos Road, 5803 and 5815 Molita Road, file number MJP 14-012, HDP 14-016, and wave for the reading.

Thank you.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

So once again, Vice Chair Duggan, Commissioner Sanders.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko.

Aye.

Commissioner Horton has recused.

Commissioner Pardot.

Aye.

Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan?

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that resolution passes with six ayes.

Okay, and now we have the fourth resolution.

Uh the rezoning.

I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to the city council rezoning of the property located at 225 Los Alamos Road from RR40-SR, Rural Residential Scenic Road to the PD 0308 SR Plan Development Scenic Road Zoning District.

Assessors parcel number zero one three dash one oh one dash zero two six file number MJP one four dash zero one two R E Z one four dash zero one six and wave for the reading.

Thank you.

Second second okay once again Vice Chair Duggan and Commissioner Sanders.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko.

Aye.

Commissioner Horton recuses.

Commissioner Pardon?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan?

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that resolution passes with six ayes.

And I believe this is a final resolution.

I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the City of Santa Rosa recommending to the City Council adoption of a text amendment to the Plan Development Zero Three Zero Eight policy statement for the property located at five five five five Montgomery Drive.

File number MJP one four dash zero one two REC one four dash zero one six and wave for the reading.

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you.

Uh once again, Vice Chair Duggan and Commissioner Sanders.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Carter.

Aye.

Commissioner Sisko.

Aye.

Commissioner Horton recuses.

Commissioner Pardot.

Aye.

Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that resolution passes with six ayes.

Thank you, everyone.

And uh that with that, I will go ahead and adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission.