Thank you. So our next speaker will be Amy Butler. She is a research physicist at the NOAA Chemical Sciences Lab here in Boulder. She also kindly gave a talk at the Colloquium last, well, two, four and three weeks ago. And today she will be talking about quantifying stratospheric biases and the role of stratosphere-troposphere coupling in S2S models. Thanks very much, Amy. Over to you. Great. Let me just share my screen. Sorry, I'm having little issues. All right. You can see it now. Okay. Let me hide that thing. All right. Can you see it now? Yes. Okay, great. Thanks so much for that introduction, Judith. Today I'm going to be talking about two international projects to quantify stratospheric biases and the role of stratosphere-troposphere coupling in S2S models. And I want to acknowledge my co-authors on this talk. I am Garfinkel, Zachary Lawrence, and Peter Hitchcock. So as I talked about in the lecture a couple of weeks ago, stratosphere-troposphere coupling processes have been increasingly linked to global extremes. And this is a chart from Jomaiuson and Butler 2020 in which we highlight the ways in which the stratosphere has been found to influence tropospheric extreme events. And this extends beyond just what we typically hear about in the media in terms of the stratospheric polar vortex influencing colder outbreaks. There's a number of processes in the stratosphere such as wave reflection events, the quasi-biannual oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, vortex weakening in the southern hemisphere, and chemistry climate feedbacks that have been found to influence tropospheric extremes. And these have a broad range of impacts on infrastructure, health, resource extraction, shipping, and agriculture. But perhaps more importantly, stratosphere-troposphere coupling processes are important to S2S forecast skill. And this schematic is highlighting some of the processes that we think are relevant on these time scales. And in particular, the stratosphere has in many of its processes longer memory than weather. And so we are able to assume that we can get increased S2S forecast skill at least during windows of opportunity when these processes are occurring. But there remains a number of questions about these. For example, what are the biases that are linked to these processes or perhaps to the poor simulation of these processes in S2S models? And also, how can we isolate the role of the stratosphere on S2S predictive skill? Obviously, there's a lot of other things going on such as the MJO that we heard about this morning that could also be driving some of this skill. So picking apart which component is actually attributed to the stratosphere can be tricky. So to answer some of these questions, we are part of a stratospheric network for the assessment of predictability, which is called SNAP. This is a WCRP spark international activity. And it's also the stratospheric sub-project of the S2S prediction project. And I'm one of the activity leaders, and my colleague is Chaim Garfengel at Hebrew University. And this is a list of our steering committee. And the goal of this group is to assess stratospheric predictability and its tropospheric impact. And to that end, we've been doing a number of studies over the last few years. This is the most recent one that was led by Daniella Domisen at ETH. And this was published in a two-part paper in JGR. And it was looking at the stratospheric predictability in the S2S models. And in this study, we divided the models into high-top models, which we defined as having a model top above 0.1 hectopascal and several model levels above 1 hectopascal. And so in our study, we found five of the models we were using to be considered high-top models and four to be considered low-top models. And we found that the high-top models show higher stratospheric predictive skill and that they better capture stratospheric pathways of teleconnections. But today, I want to focus on two current ongoing collaborative projects that kind of expands on these initial results from Daniella's papers. And so that you all be talking about, the first is one in which we assess stratospheric biases in S2S forecast models. This is being led by Zachary Lawrence at NOAA PSL. And it involves a wide range of researchers from 11 different countries. And I'm going to be showing some of the initial results of that study today. And then the second study I'll briefly touch on, but it's more in the initial stages. And it's called the stratospheric nudging and predictable surface impacts project, or SNAPC. The goal of this project is to use targeted experiments to quantify the contribution of stratospheric circulation to forecast skill. And this is being led by Peter Hitchcock at Cornell. And so far, 11 modeling centers have expressed interest in doing these experiments. Many are from the S2S prediction project, but there's also some sub-X and ME models wanting to participate. All right. So before I talk about that experimental project, we're first going to look at the first project assessing stratospheric biases in the S2S forecast models. And there's a broad range of results. I'm just going to highlight some of the main ones. And so sort of our broad point here is that S2S models do show systematic stratospheric biases, which could impact their potential for providing improved predictive skill. And so in this plot, I'm showing the multi-model wintertime zonal mean temperature biases. And here we're comparing to error interim. And the left plot is showing the high top models. And the right plot is showing the low top models. And the top row is showing day one. And the middle is day 14. And then bottom row is day 28. You can see that the biases stay pretty consistent. It's not dependent on lead time, but they just get amplified over time. So they get larger with lead time. So what we find is that in the wintertime and really in all seasons, we see an overall warm stratospheric bias. And because this is a global bias that doesn't have meridional temperature grading involved and it also is not seasonally dependent, we can assume that these are due to some sort of radiative process. And so likely it has to do with the ozone parameterization or the water vapor in the model. We also can identify some dynamical biases. And that shows up particularly in the low top models where we see very cold pole bias in winter. And this is also true during JJA in the southern hemisphere. And this is associated with a two strong polar vortex in the low top models. And so likely one of the things affecting the polar vortex, either the waves that are driving variability in the vortex or the mean state of the vortex itself is not being simulated correctly in the low top models. And then finally, we have tropical biases which show up particularly in the low top model as two cold temperatures near 10 millibars and two warm temperatures near 100 millibars. And we think this is associated with the QBO. And in these models, I should mention, none of them really get an interactive QBO, but they're all initialized with the QBO wins. The low top models in particular struggle to maintain those wins over time. And more work will have to be done to disentangle exactly what these tropical biases are from because there's potential for both radiative and dynamical sources in the tropics here. But to further assess the biases in the QBO in these models, we've looked at a number of metrics. And here's just one example from one model, the CFS V2. And this is showing histograms of the equatorial zonal means zonal winds at 50 hectopascals. And so the gray shading here is showing the histograms for era five, reanalysis. And so clearly we see the bimodality of the QBO. And so normally the winds are either easterly or westerly in the tropics at 50 hectopascals. And this is a, we then do this for a function of lead time. So week one, two, three, four, five, in CFS V2. And so what we can see is that when the winds are first initialized close to week one, the model really captures the bimodality of that. But as we go further away from those initial conditions, we degrade the bimodal distribution of the tropical winds, starting with basically week three and going well into week five. And you can see that they're both the easterly and westerly phases of the QBO are collapsing towards sort of a weak easterly state. And this has influence on the QBO teleconnections in the S2S models. And this is an updated plot from Garfinkel et al. 2018. And here we're showing three metrics related to QBO and its teleconnections and how they evolve in the weeks after initialization. So it's plotted against the week after initialization here. So the left column is showing the individual S2S models and the right plot is showing the air interim data. And here we're looking at differences in these metrics between the easterly QBO and the westerly QBO at initialization. And so for example, here the top row is showing the 50 hectobascale tropical winds, so just basically the QBO itself. And so by construction in the air interim data, what we see is more easterly winds in the tropics compared to westerly winds. And it persists for all the weeks after initialization. And if we look at that in the S2S models in panel A here, we can see that that degrades pretty quickly in a number of the models as the winds tend toward this week easterly state. So we're rapidly degrading our QBO signal in the tropics. This has some influence on the local temperatures at 100 hectobascale near the tropical triple pause, which is shown in the middle row here. And you can see that normally in the air interim, we see colder temperatures for easterly QBO relative to westerly QBO, which is also a very persistent signal. But in the model, some of them managed to hold on to those cold temperatures fairly well from initialization, but especially the low top models tend to lose those temperatures quite quickly. And this also has implications for teleconnections via the Holton-Tann relationship to the pole. The bottom line shows the polar vortex winds at 60 north and 10 hectobascals. And in the reanalysis data, we see that there's on general more easterly winds of the polar vortex during easterly QBO relative to westerly QBO. And we can see that in the S2S models, they capture this relationship in the first couple of weeks, but by week three, it basically completely degrades very rapidly. And this might explain why we don't see a very good QBO influence on the surface in the S2S models. The final thing I want to talk about is the influence of bias on northern hemisphere sudden stratospheric warming risk. So sudden stratospheric warmings can be important for forecast windows of opportunity and generally, well, and occur when the climatological westerly zonal winds at 10 hectobascals and 60 north become easterly. And this means that these events are based on absolute, not anomalous values of zonal winds. And the threshold value of zero meters per second that we use to define them has really important dynamical implications because planetary scale waves can't travel and easterly flow. And so the next time you get a planetary scale wave packet, it breaks at a lower level. And so it has a big influence on how well the signal propagates down towards the surface. So here, what we're showing is the probability of getting an easterly wind for any given day as a function of each target week. So each column is a target week starting on the left with days one through seven. So week one, two, three, and four over on the right. And then we do this for each northern hemisphere winter month from November in the top row all the way down to March in the bottom row. And each line shown here is one of the S2S models. The probability of those models detecting the sudden warming and each little diamond is the error interim risk value subsampled to the S2S initialization dates. And so what we see is that here we're not doing any bias correction on the zonal winds to detect the sudden warmings. And without bias correction, the S2S models generally tend to under predict sudden warmings in early winter, particularly in December and really in January. And then they tend to over predict the risk in late winter at longer leads. So if we're looking at week four in February and March, it's tending to see more sudden warming center actually occurring. So we might think, well, let's just bias correct those winds and we'll have a more realistic estimate of the sudden warming risk. And so that's what we did in this panel. And indeed, the bias correction does seem to improve sudden warming risk in most months, particularly in January, it gets a lot better, more accurate estimation of that risk. But it does raise the question and Charlotte brought this up regarding the MJO, but the question is, how do we adjust the response following the sudden warming that's detected with a bias correction? For example, if the SSW was only detected after the bias correction, the models did not fully capture the dynamical impact that would have occurred if the winds had truly reversed to below zero meters per second. So it's really unclear how to deal with those dynamical influences down the line. Any one minute or so? Okay, let me just finish up here. I just want to, I've already stated these, so I just want to say this project's in its final analysis phase, and we hope to have a publication on it shortly. And I want to thank the SNAP Stratospheric Biasis team for all their efforts. I did want to touch briefly on the SNAP-Z, because I think it's a really cool experiment. And these are modeling experiments, which will isolate the role of the stratosphere on predictable surface impacts. And to do this, we picked out three events to focus on. And this includes two northern hemisphere major sudden warmings, which are shown on the left plot here. One is the February 2018 event, and one is the January 2019 event. And then we're also looking at the southern hemisphere minor sudden warming in 2019 that was followed by really bad brush fires over Australia. And so all these events were followed by well-known extremes. And the question is, how much of this can really be attributed to the stratospheric event that was ongoing? So to do this, we're targeting these three events, and then we're doing four experiments. The first is just a free-running ensemble forecast, so a normal S2S-style forecast run that's initialized. Then we're doing a nudged experiment, and in both the nudged and controlled experiments, only the zonally symmetric component of the stratosphere is nudged. And the intent is to prescribe the zonally symmetric component of the stratospheric flow without indirectly constraining either the troposphere or the planetary waves that play a central role in the coupling between the two. So we let the waves of all freely, but the zonally symmetric component is nudged. In one case to the observed evolution, and in the controlled case to the climatology. And then finally, we have a full run where the entire stratospheric circulation, not just the zonally symmetric component, is nudged to the observed evolution. And we'll have two initialization dates for each event. The goal here is really to highlight or take advantage of a large number of ensemble members, so we're asking for 50 to 100 members to really be able to detect the signal above the noise. And so we have a later date that will be focused on setting the surface extremes after the event, and then an earlier date to understand the evolution and predictability of the stratosphere. And these details will be available in a publication and prep for GMD. We already have a number of working groups, and I'm not going to go into these too much, but if you're interested in being involved, please contact either me or Peter Hitchcock or I am Garfinkel. We are happy to get people outside of the stratospheric community involved in this, and actually we're searching for people outside of the stratospheric community to be involved in the analysis of these runs, which we think will be useful for a broad range of things, including QBO-MJO relationships. So to conclude, SNAP is an international group of researchers, and we have the goal to investigate the role of the stratosphere and S2S prediction. We have two current projects underway, and we hope these projects will advance the state of knowledge about biases in the S2S models and allow us to better quantify the contribution of the stratosphere to surface predictability. So please feel free to contact me if you're interested in getting involved. Thank you. Thank you very much, Amy. On terms of extremes events and generosity, Amy and I were once on a plane, and we were flying into Japan, into a typhoon, and Amy kindly shared her hotel room with me, so I didn't have to spend the day on the floor of the airport. So thank you so much, Amy. We have time for one or two quick questions. Thanks, Amy, for a thought that talk was really good, and I'm excited to see where these projects go. I wonder if you looked at all that relative humidity or humidity biases in the S2S models. You mentioned, I think, at one point that the stratosphere, maybe there were problems with the water vapor that could contribute to some of these, but did you, or do you plan to look at that in more detail? Actually, we haven't looked at that, although one of our goals of the SNAPC experiments, we are asking for output along those lines to try to better assess that, but we haven't looked at it in the current S2S output, but that's a good idea. Thank you, Anish. Thanks, Stuart. Thanks, Amy, for the really interesting talk. My question was related to the nudging experiments that you're doing. Will you be saving the nudging tendencies as well? Is there an effort in terms of both looking at the nudging tendencies to identify model errors, but also how to improve process representation in the model? That was one question, and then related to that, how good are the observations that go into the reanalysis towards which you're nudging? Is there uncertainty coming in from the reanalysis as well? Yeah, so in terms of the first question, I actually have a slide on this. So we have one of the limitations of the current S2S output is the lack of stratospheric data available, and S2S prediction project has three levels in the stratosphere, which we're basing all our analysis of the biases on, but that's pretty difficult actually to determine all the things going on using three levels, and that's even more than most of the other projects have like SubEx or NNME. And so for these SNAPC experiments, we're obviously requesting more output in the stratosphere and specific fields to help us, and that includes a lot of the tendencies that are going on, and to try to better understand exactly what's occurring when we have one of these events. And so yes, basically it will be available. The other thing is that for this experiment, we're encouraging everyone to use the same initializations based on this error 5 data set that Tim Stockdale has put together for us. And so hopefully there will be no differences in the initial conditions in these experiments, which will help narrow, get rid of that possibility of it causing problems. But yeah, generally I would say what we're nudging with is pretty good for especially the dates that we're looking at. So I don't think that will be a huge source of error in these experiments. Great, thanks. Yeah, thanks so much.


Okay, it's being recorded. So I'm going to leave the meeting now. Just kidding. I believe it's nine o'clock. Others have nine a.m. At the moment. Yes. Okay. So as it's nine a.m., I would like to call the June 24th meeting of the waterways advisory committee. To order. Can we have the rule call, please? Yes, please. Let the record reflect that all committee members are present with the exception of committee member. Adam Sharon. Are there other. Any statements by members prior to. Continuing on the agenda. Would this be the time to. Let the committee know that I need to recuse myself from the. Okay. So. We can actually wait until that agenda item comes up. Okay. A few other items before that. Okay. So. Hey, so. You've done the roll call, Michelle. Or. Okay. Why don't we proceed. Amy, did you want to make a comment at this point? Yes. Michelle would be possible to put up the PowerPoint slide. And so we do just want to note that. We are at Santa Rosa here committed to a safe and inclusive environment. And so we want to make sure that everyone. Acts accordingly. And that staff will be ready to remove people if there are any issues. Or disrespect. And we will. End the meeting if necessary. Just wanted to let everyone know that. So we do expect to have a meeting. To be held in accordance to this. The statement here. Thank you, chair. I'd like to just let the public know. And by the way, I do welcome members of the public. We're always pleased to hear what people have to say. I do want to say though that the role of the waterways committee is pretty much as the title of our committee. Would indicate we review projects only when they. Are adjoining creaks. And we look at the interface between the. Project site and the creek. Environment. And we don't really deal with. More general land use issues on developments. Even if they join the creek, we take, we look at the creek interface. With that, I'd like to move on to the advisory committee reports. I don't have one of my own. Are there any reports? Anyone has from the committee. Okay. Hearing none. We can now start with public comment on. Items that. Are not agenda items. Item four. This is the time when any person may address the subcommittee. On members not listed. On the agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction. Of the waterways advisory committee. If you wish to make a public comment. Please raise your hand now. And for our call in participants. Please select star nine to raise your hand. And then star six to unmute. And I am not seeing any. Hands. Okay. Thank you very much. Next item is item five. The department report. Are there any reports. For the committee by the department. Water department or Sonoma water. Today. Thank you, chair. I'll just start. I had just one item. And that is that we are anticipating moving into a hybrid. Meeting format. Most likely this fall. And that's really being driven by the executive order by the governor's office. And so we have heard that. The executive order that suspend some of the brown act rules. In light of the pandemic. That will be rescinded in September. So we'll be providing more information about how we plan to proceed, but there is direction right now to continue. In a hybrid format. So we will allow. The public to attend and view by zoom or other method. And then also have people available to come or have a place available for the public to attend as well. So we'll be providing some more information on that in the coming months as we get closer. And that's the only report I have. From my department at this time. I have a question on that. Does that apply to the committee members also that we can either zoom or be in person? I'm not sure at this point. So we'll, we'll get into that issue too. Okay. Hey, thank you. I don't hear any other reports. Brady's here. He might have a report. Welcome. All right. Good morning. Good morning, chair, members of the committee. And I'm happy to report our lower Colton Creek restoration phase two project is underway. So we were able to get in the creek on June, June 15th and do our aquatic species relocation. And this year one plus from the drought is there actually was not a lot of water and not a lot of pooled water to remove. The fish and crayfish from so things got underway pretty quick and our contractor is fast at work and. The channel is already completely cleared of all the vegetation and things are, like I said, moving well. And again, this is about a 2200 foot section of Colgan Creek downstream of Victoria drive. And it's a complete channel reconstruction with a restoration in-stream habitat features, plantings and a paved pathway. So things are going well. And it's kind of for, for me, I think it's been years of work to get to this point with the planning, the permitting and the grants and the funding. So it's kind of the easy part for me now to watch the contractor and our engineers, you know, get this thing built. Congratulations, Steve. It's been a long time. When did this project start, by the way? Well, really the Colgan Creek restoration and, and it is a three phase project. It was initially approved by the council in 2002. And then we were busy underway with the different phases of the Prince green greenway in the mid 2000s. And then we constructed phase one near LC Allen in 2014. And then more recently we've had issues with the. Fires and the COVID pandemic. So we've been delayed a couple of years. So it was, it was actually out to bid last year. And then the city canceled all construction product projects that weren't already awarded last year. Congratulations. Great work to you and all the staff that have been involved. All right. Thank you. And I think Alistair has a report on our Creek stewardship program. Can I ask a question of Steve before we move to Alistair? Of course. We just looked at a project on the other side of Colgan Creek, the borders of the East Southern canine companions.  And we asked them if they'd be interacting with you guys. Concerning that first, have they interacted with you? And second, do you see any potential issues? I don't think yet. I don't think it's been fully approved yet. Yeah. I have not been contacted by them, but basically their facility is fenced off from the, from the creek to keep a separation there. So I think probably the interaction there may be some plantings they could have along their side of the fence, but are more sort of creek. You know, more like the applicable plantings. So, and our project will be completely separate from them. Like we don't need any property from them or anything like that to construct our project. No, I understand. Okay. Thank you. Welcome Alistair. Hello. from that area and transported them to other pools that would hopefully hold water through the summer. So, you know, there's a lot of life in our creeks that we don't see. And the creeks, I think they're doing okay this summer except there's very little water in them. I think we're going to see the lowest levels that any of us have ever seen in them. In the meantime, we do have a youth core crew that is hired by the Sonoma County by Sonoma water. It's a summer youth core crew but basically our stormwater and creek staff is directing them on projects that are vegetation management trail clearing. Of course, there's always trash to pick up but we have eight weeks of their work there into week two. There'll be hitting all around the city getting different places. We also started our summer youth outreach through Boys and Girls Club, the neighborhood revitalization, summer day camps or not the day camps but their summer camps, not the big camps in the parks. And also with some schools that run summer programs. So those got underway this week. We're still not hosting or sponsoring volunteer events. We support different groups that come come out and organize themselves and then we'll be out there for safety briefing for to work with them to haul off the trash and just yesterday was contacted by the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. So if you're interested in seeing what they can do to help keep the trails clean, you might have seen a letter to the editor, commenting on what they said is a story state down at Prince Memorial Greenway and you know that always kind of hurts me because we put in a lot of time down and a lot of effort, but it is still not as welcoming to the public as I'd like to see it but you know we'll be down there tomorrow with a cleanup crew and we were down there earlier this week, just all the time but it needs so much more attention and we're able to give it right now. The neighbors all around the city have vegetation concerns about, you know, weed abatement and all the vegetation in the creek and that's kind of a tricky thing because you know that the vegetation in the creek is habitat it does keep the creek water cool and fresher and water quality, but there's always a great fear of fire.  You know I don't know if some of them might be intentionally set.  And we're getting also reports through a my Santa Rosa reporting system that's really helpful. And a lot of the reports kind of come on, are about chronic areas such as there's a huge camp in Pomo Creek at Northwest right in the middle of Northwest Community Park that the city has not been able to resolve the stuff along the Prince Greenway. The city has much fewer camps now but a lot of those people have just spread out downstream along downstream of Pearson Street towards Stony Point Road, where there is thick concealing vegetation and they're able to get down to the water very hard to see even from the trail right above. So we have still big problems with people congregating and living in our creeks. One other thing I was thinking of. Oh shoot. Well I'm sorry I can't remember that is just another thing that we're doing that kind of help creeks out along here. And I can't remember what that was but you know you as committee members anybody out there in the audience. You know if you see things that need attention. If you could email creeks at SRCity.org that that's the best way to get attention to those matters. Thank you Alistair for fine work. Are there any questions of Alistair by committee members. Yes I have. Alistair when, when will the, I'm sorry, when will the citizen volunteer cleanup stuff start. You know that's not been determined yet. I'm hoping that this fall maybe you know Creek Week will be the third week in September by then we can really announce and you know to bring out the whole public. Right now we just groups that organize themselves. There's kind of the feeling that these people know each other they're comfortable being around each other. And if they organize themselves we can support them but just to invite anybody in is not what the city is looking at right now. Everything is kind of as we transition out of this last year it's it's it's being worked out at levels and we'll we'll get a heads up on that. Okay, thank you. Well again Alistair thank you. We always appreciate your work and involvement in our committee. Was there someone else who wanted to ask a question or should we move on. Okay our first and only item on the agenda is item 6.1 the stony point flats apartments. Prior to starting the presentation by staff. I'd like to ask if there any disclosures. Are there any comments regarding any contact by any committee members with the general public or with the applicant. And also I know that Kevin would like to make a statement. Kevin would you like to. Yes, thanks yeah I need to recuse myself from this issue due to a prior professional relationship with the owner of the property. So, I will step off at this point and join the audience on YouTube. Thanks. So are there any disclosures of any kind of contact with applicant or interested members of the public regarding the project. Yes, I need to make a couple disclosures. I do have, I have had professional relationships with two of the professional firms that are supporting this project civil design consultants and PJC. And I don't know if those create any problems for me with this project. And I also, I'm part of a neighborhood group that's interacting with this neighborhood group. And I haven't had any meetings with them I've seen emails, but I don't have any direct correspondence with them. And I don't feel that's an issue for me either. Thank you. Anyone else. Carol. I just wanted to say I have had the opportunity to review. I think all of the correspondence that's come in either directly from the public or via staff. Well, great. Thank you Carol. Yeah, we have received several emails and they have been passed along to us. And I also have reviewed that I'm sure all committee members have as we have received them during the last week or so. Any other comments before we move to the item by committee members. So as far as the process today, what we're going to do just for everyone's sake is we're going to have the staff present the proposal, and then ask the applicant if they would like to present as well. Following that the committee members will ask questions of the staff and applicant. And then after that we will open the public comment period on this item. And then we will have a staff response to the public comments after that. Then we will have the community committee discussion and statements by each of the committee members regarding their views of the project itself. So with that, but before you start that I just have one thing I'd like to bring up that before we talk to the planner has to do with the disclosure form. I think it's important to discuss that right now. Go ahead, Arthur. I don't understand why the disclosure form is incomplete. You know the requirements are individuals need and general limited partners need to be identified and, you know, nothing, there's no individuals identified at all for, for the applicant and I'd like to understand that any would you like to comment here. You know actually refer to Connor if possible on that disclosure form. Well, we might as well introduce Connor. Hey, how's it going. My name is Connor McKay city planner and I have not had the pleasure to present at the waterways advisory committee yet so I'd like to introduce myself is great to be here. So regarding the disclosure form that is a good question so I believe that the applicant has submitted multiple questions of their application and that might it's entirely possible that the one that was included with this packet was not the one that includes all of the team members. I'm checking on the previous versions right now but in the meantime, Andrew, do you have any response. Sure. So I'm looking at the disclosure form date at April 19 2021. It does indicate that provide the names of individuals partnerships corporations LLCs or trust who had an interest in the proposed land use action. Listed our stony point flats LP Phoenix development company which is administrative general partner, IH stony point flat Santa Rosa LLC which a managing general partner, and IH stony point flat Santa Rosa LLC which is a limited partner. Based upon the information presented I'm not quite certain of what committee member Diki is is asking for individuals to be listed. Are you suggesting that the LLCs should list all individuals as well. Andrew my last name is pronounced Diki just. So, and I've never seen one quite like this before and that's why I'm bringing it up. It says, you know partnerships identify all general limited partners LLCs identify all members managers and directors. And so I would expect to see individual people listed here. I have an LLC and that's the way it has to be for me when I file paper. And so that's what I'm asking why this has got a lot of organizations on it but no people. Okay, well we'll have to check with the city attorney's office and establish what does need to be listed for LLCs but I appreciate your, your comments and reflection on that and if we do need to revise and have this disclosure form updated. Following review by the city attorney's office will do so. Okay, and I just want to add because I use this as the basis to determine if I have any, any conflicts or anything like that and I couldn't actually completely do it. That's why it's provided so I appreciate that comment thank you. Okay, thank you. With that, we will hear the presentation by Connor McKay. Thank you chair. Can everybody see my screen. Yes. Great. Yeah, so this is the stony point flats project located at 2268 stony point road. To reiterate the purpose of this meeting is for the opportunity for advisory comments from the waterways advisory committee as to how the proposed project may meet the city's goals related to the city's creek master plan general plan and zoning code policies and standards. As a reminder, no final or formal action on this project is being taken at this meeting. So this project proposes to construct a new 50 unit affordable multifamily development on an undeveloped 2.9 acre parcel. The project includes the construction of bike storage laundry facilities tech center fitness facilities and playground facilities. Solar panels will be installed on top of the two main residential structures, which will allow the project to operate at net zero energy in accordance with title 24. And just to provide a little bit of background on the project. So the project application was submitted on April 22 2021. We held the pre application neighborhood meeting on May 3 2021. And we held a concept design review at the design review board on June 3 2021. The project is located at 2268 stony point road in the southwest quadrant of the city of Santa Rosa. It is north of Roseland Creek. So here we have an updated site plan. The site plan has actually been modified accounting for the comments made by the public and the design review board throughout the review process of the project so far. The updated site plan has removed the pool area and pool building it's combined the two accessory buildings into one, which is located at the project entrance right here with the two residential structures right here. The approximate disturbed area is 2.3 2.03 acres. And like I said, the site acreage is 2. Approximately 2.93. So that leaves 0.9 acres of undisturbed site acreage. And this aerial rendering is actually the previous site plan or concept. So this is basically kind of just a conceptual. Look at how the project will look generally obviously the pool area and one of those two accessory buildings will not be is are not being proposed at this time anymore. As I've mentioned, and we have conceptual elevations of the residential buildings. And these are also. I believe the exact design and colors and such are still being developed, but this is a general rendering of what it might look like. As far as the California Environmental Quality Act, the applicant is still conducting the sequel process. They are preparing an initial study. Once this initial study has been received by the city and reviewed the appropriate sequel pathway would then be determined. And I believe the applicant team. Many many many members of the applicant team are in attendance. And I'm not sure if they have they don't have a presentation but I'm not sure if they would like to make comments that compliment the presentation that I've just given, but I am available to answer any questions and I have my email and phone number on these slides. Are there any members of the applicant team that would like to make comments I would suggest that the major interest of the committee of course is the interface of the project to the creek, but you're welcome to make any comments you'd like regarding the project. That would be fantastic I thank you chair I appreciate the members of the committee, taking the time and giving us the consideration today on this project my name is Phil would. I'm president of integrity housing, we are co developing stony point flats with Phoenix development. I'm joined today with by Angie Ponce vice president of integrity housing architect Keith labis from KTG why Dennis Dalby from civil design consultants, Justin Heacock from JJ. We're pleased today to be able to bring stony point flats before the, the committee, some very high level background and I'll try not to to rehash too much of what we're going to be doing today. We're pleased today to be able to bring stony point flats before the, the committee, some very high level background and I'll try not to to rehash too much of what Connor went through out of respect for everyone's time. But stony point flats was awarded low income housing tax credits which had been it was a special allocation dedicated under the federal consolidated appropriations act of 2020, specifically to provide relief in consideration for the the loss of housing units due to the fires, stony point flats is going to bring 50 new homes to Santa Rosa households that will be earning between 30 and 60% of the area median income. The project is proposed as 50 multifamily units on a 2.93 acre parcel. This creates a density of just over 17 units to the acre. So plan land use for the property is split currently between medium and low density residential with the overall site and the apportionment of each land use. It allows for a density of 49.74 units. So we're a fraction of a unit over there. The project will apply for a density bonus in consideration of the affordability being offered, which the density bonus language then allows for the unit count to round up, which will take us to 50 units. And so we're not asking for any additional residential units that would typically be allowable under that density bonus application. The project does sit below currently below the FEMA 100 year floodplain levels. We have a plan and a design that will raise the site above this level in order to make it suitable for residential development. A letter of map revision will be filed with FEMA in connection with that work. We've presented the project before the neighborhood before the design review board in a conceptual design review. And we are sensitive to all of the comments that have come in. And we are doing our best to incorporate as many of those comments into the project. And many of the comments that we have received have been very helpful to the design team to truly make this not only the best project for the future residents that will call it home, but also for the neighborhood that it will be developed in. So, as Connor highlighted, we have combined both of the common area, amenity buildings A and B into one building. We removed the swimming pool. We do understand that the area has a precious resource with its water. We are sensitive to the ever developing drought conditions that we are seeing. So the pool has been removed and that allowed us to move the residential buildings further west towards Stony Point Road and allowed us to really open up the amount of area that we are leaving undisturbed. At this point, we're now able to leave nearly a third of the site undisturbed. It will not the levels will not be raised above the floodplain it will be left to truly undisturbed. We've removed the perimeter fencing, trying to create more of an open feel and environment with the project. We're also revising our landscape plan to ensure that all of the landscape that that we are planning is in connection with the project is truly part of the natural fauna that is present in the creek in the area to date. Our goal here is to create a project that enhances the beauty of the creek. We obviously have parcel lines we are not developing over those parcel lines we're not disturbing over those parcel lines there will be no offsite improvements as part of the project to the creek so the creek will not be impacted separately our project will be solely kept to within within the parcel boundaries and we are excited for it we're excited to have eyes on the creek here and we think that this will be a great project to enhance the area. Thank you, Mr Wood. Is that the end of the presentation by the applicants at this point. And we are happy to answer any any questions or further explain any details of the project that might be helpful. Thank you, sir. With that, are there questions of the committee for staff or the applicant. Yeah, yeah, thank you I was taking some notes. Thank you for your presentation. Could I get a little clarification of what a third of the site quote undisturbed means the, the, the, I was following the whole project is moving forward with the elimination of the swimming pool in those buildings, which creates more open space at the back, describe how the undisturbed property plays out for me. Absolutely. Connor would it be possible to bring up slide number five in your presentation. Yeah, one second. Thank you visuals will help tremendously here. So this is our revised site plan, and we would have loved to be further through the development of this, but we are currently in the middle of our revisions right now, but the grade area will be the portion of the parcel that will be developed. The white phase everything to the east there you can see it's still in the rectangular box that portion of land will be left as is. We will not be turning dirt over in that area. There will be no part of the project that is developed on that area, it will sit as it sits today. One would assume that there will be children. Is it going to be open for kids to ride their bicycles on is it going to be open space for this project just left fallow or is it going. It will be open there will be no fencing around it currently we are looking at the future North Point Parkway, which will be moving through a portion of this parcel, it will be dedicated to the city for that future Parkway project that we will be looking at in the future. We have not had the conversations yet with planning, but we would be the development team would be open to vacating that entire portion of the parcel. So, so I guess for all intents and purposes, what I saw when I was out there, the day before yesterday, as how it will look. If and when this project is built. Yes, with the exception of any any buildings that are out there. I have not seen this overlaid yet on the the current satellite image there are barns out there. Accessory buildings in connection with current pastoring activities. Those would be from a safety standpoint those would be demolished and removed. I believe this far out on the parcel is purely the pasture land which would be left undisturbed any fencing around there would be would be taken down and removed. So the project would take care of responsibility for say weed maintenance, but it would not be landscaped it would not be paved over it would be left in its natural condition. Right. Yes. And my second question and here's where I need to apologize. As far as fencing of the development to the creek. I could you review that part one more time. Sure. So initially, we had looked at having a perimeter fence around the entire site. One of the things that came out of our conceptual design review was the leaving the openness to that creek trail and the aesthetic that the feeling that is created when you have a linear fence running that entire property line it is a lengthy line even within the grade development box that we're looking at right now. So we're removing the fence in order to create more of an open field from the property into the creek. On that note, could you tell me what the long black bars are at the property line. Yes, and Dennis Dalby would you like to speak to that I want to say those are bio retention. Yes, Phil I can speak to that this is a Dennis Dalby civil design consultants the project civil engineer that is the required stormwater low impact development BMP features that will clean and and capture stormwater per the city's LID manual. So they're so so Carol to be more specific there they are they are infiltration basins that will be planted and and that's where the storm drain is directed and they're they're on both the the south and the north sides of the property. Perfect. Could you tell me elevation for ice on the creek purposes. Yes, I will tell you elevation at current currently based on the current FEMA map. We are going to be at the, I'd say at the east side that most easterly building will be about a foot and a half above existing ground. We're going to move to the west as the as the land falls will be about three and a half above existing ground at that very front building for eyes on the creek purposes will people be able to see over these structures. Excuse my ignorance here. These are pretty much ground level with plantings they're not. They are there. They are sunken the ones on the south side are sunk are six inches deep. Thank you Carol. Yes, thank you. I've been out of town all week and I didn't get this updated site plan. I mean this is a very very first time I've seen it. And so when I look back on my email, it looks like it was sent out on Tuesday. So I never had an opportunity to look at it because what's what I'm not seeing here is, you know, the setback mapping how that would have changed because when I looked at the building that was in initially in the far left hand corner, the southwest corner, it looked like it was actually encroaching on the setback. It looked like it might have just been the roof overhang, and now it looks like that building has been moved north. And so, and then I can see that the whole eastern section of this has looks like it's been removed and now we're, there's a whole open space that I mentioned. And there's numerous other changes when I'm looking, looking at this that I quite frankly I haven't had time to, to look at the entire thing so that's, that's my first comment. So I have, I have a hard time analyzing the original setback that was in the civil package. And I had questions on that but now I'm not quite sure because it seemed like I couldn't discern where the top of the bank was I saw some 15 put setbacks to the property line. It was really hard to understand. I'll make note of that. One note to the staff is, is a, I've asked in the past at the, the, the overall watershed map be a little bit easier to understand so we can see exactly where the project is, and it's just a real difficult to see when it's on such a high scale. So that's just one comment to that. I don't quite understand the stormwater drainage. I don't know if that works so Dennis I appreciate you identified on the site map it looks like we have a lot of black areas somewhere in the central area, and I'm not sure where it actually trains and outlets into the creek. And so, if we have something that shows that I'd appreciate it. On that access I guess the access and fencing is more of a comment for later but it just seems to me that the access should have fencing. Just because there's a lot of homeless encampments along this and so it seemed like though, seemed like there should be access to gated areas but removing all the fencing. I don't know if that seems like a right thing to do and the overall, the way our community is. And there were some other questions I had on the original site plan which there's some blue annotations that I don't quite understand but I don't see those on this one that's being shown. And I saw that that our committee member, Adam Sharon, who's on the DRB, he'd made comments because I was really hoping to see, since he's a landscape architect we would hear what he had to say on this, but it seems like his comments were made of the DRB and it looks like there was, I just went through the minutes real quick, and it looks like there were some things that were addressed on that. I'd like the applicant to discuss what changes to landscaping and were mentioned and what changes they made to their site plan. So those are my initial questions I have right now. Thank you. And I think I'd like to start with the top of bank setback question I'm hoping that Dennis is able to speak to that. Yes, I can. So we, we, as part of our entitlement process we had our surveyor, St. Queen in Pasarino, go out and survey the creek itself and you can see that in the graphic up on the screen. So that is a ground topo that was prepared by the surveyor, and they identified the top of bank and you can, you can kind of make it out on this plan. The creek trail, which is a dashed line, you know above the flow line of the creek. Just behind that is where the top of bank was surveyed. So that, yes, yeah right. Yes, so so that hand is going through the creek trail and just to the north of it you see another little dashed line that's representing the top of bank of the creek. And then I believe we also had questions about the landscaping, if any landscaping changes or just landscaping discussion in general. This is just, I'm sorry this is Justin Heacock I'm the landscape architect on the project and you know from a design standpoint, we didn't change much about how we're going to interface with Rosalind Creek on that side of the property. So what it was to incorporate a native native cat compatible plant material trees and shrubs and ground covers to naturalize that area and try to marry it to the adjacent Rosalind Creek and adjacent, which I believe is non native grassland and kind of scrub material. We had an opportunity while we were going through this process of doing the exceptional to review some of the Rosalind Creek conceptual exhibits and looked at some of the, you know, plant pallet and community plant material. And we're looking at incorporating some of that into the site to further integrate, you know the, the onsite design with the offsite, you know, and that's, that's the intent, all of those water quality basins along the. Lower portion of the site directly interfacing with Rosalind Creek is going to be planted in a way to create kind of a natural. Swale that's going to be an opportunity, as well as a structurally, you know, water treatment facility as well. Okay, can I just follow up on this you're saying this is the area above the creek in the creek setback itself. Yes, yes, between the buildings and the property line on on that side of the property. But between the property. Okay, but just north of the creek itself you're saying to where the property will be developed. Okay. Yeah, so the intent of the overall design is to incorporate mostly native and native compatible low water use plants to minimize the amount of water usage and run off into the creek and then you know, look at incorporating planting the soil visually and and, you know, aesthetically kind of tie the, you know, the best parts of, of the surrounding areas to to the project and vice versa. It's very challenging trying to figure out the extent of the landscaping that is planned in that area. Sure. Yeah, it well, you know, we took into account the locations of the existing trees on the site and the idea was to try to, you know, reinforce that stand of trees along the run along the creek there so tree species and locations will interface with the existing tree community so it feels a little more natural maybe not. It won't be straight all native but you know because certain trees and shrubs will, you know, lend itself, you know, to screening and those sorts of things so but the idea would be to have a nice comprehensive palette that supports both the native landscape and the need of the project. Once we move into the comment section the, the committee can advise on specific landscape palettes of stuff of that nature. I was also hoping that Dennis or Phil can you clarify the actual location of the buildings from the top of bank. I know that might be that's obviously different from where the LID infrastructure is located so can we just get a little bit of clarity on where the buildings are actually located away from the top of bank. Yes, Connor is Dennis again. We are proposing a 30 foot setback from top of bank and the buildings are outside of that setback. Great, thank you. And Chair, if I can make a quick clarification as well. In, so in talking with Steve Brady, this creek is considered channelized. So that does meet the setback requirements so there is a reduction in the setback, once the creek is channelized and is under ownership and control, so water. Thank you. Connor, Connor, this is Dennis again. I'd also like to add that in the, the easterly section where north point future north point Parkway is cutting through. You'll also see another dedication line. So what what we are proposing also is to dedicate that south east or pardon me at the southeast corner. To the city of Santa Rosa or to the water agency for the future master plan improvements for Rosalind Creek. Great. Thanks, Dennis. Charles. So the one question I didn't hear responded to is, I still don't understand the stormwater drainage. I don't know where it outlets and where that's into the creek. So, so generally the site is going to drain to both the north and the south through the water quality basins. And in the, in the southwest corner of the project. There is an existing field drain. Yeah, that drains into the creek today. That's where our connection will be. Okay, so the, these swales on the southern side are going to are going to all move generally to the west and then hit that field drain and go into the creek. Yeah, that we will, we will, we will pipe to the field drain and then the field drain has an existing outfall into the creek. And then the areas that are in the parking lot that are black water. Are those integrated into this training. Yes, on the along the north property line. Yes. And the central part and where I can down from that just down slide. Yeah, those things, what are those are just sidewalks and, you know, okay, so the only swales are these linear east west on the north and south borders that correct. That's correct. Okay, and the north. How does it, what happens with the north, how does it drain outlet. Same way so so everything generally drains to the west toward the entrance. There will be a structure at the end there that takes a pipe over, you know, south to that existing field drain. Okay. Okay, thank you, James. Charles. Yeah, I think this may be a procedural question but my understanding is that. These are very preliminary drawings and that will have another chance to review more specific dimension site plans and grading plans with more information and a specific landscape plan. I mean, we're hearing a lot about them but it would certainly be who the committee to be able to look at these drawings in some detail, if they'll be forthcoming is that procedurally how we're going to proceed here or is this our only look. I think your point is well taken, Charles and that is something the committee definitely should consider. Amy, do you have any comment on the process on the, as this item moves through the city's process. Yeah, typically, your committee is seeing things early in the process you can provide comments that may impact the design of the site and the structures. So at this point, if you do feel like it needs to come back, that is under your purview so you can provide comments today and ask that it comes back at a later date, but that that is up to your committee. Okay, and if you could also speak to the sequel process here, how the existing EIRs for the Roseland area specific plan might play into the sequel analysis and what the status of the, the initial study for this is so that we may know when we get definitive sequel information on the project. Okay, so the initial study is still in progress and I would not be feel comfortable speculating on how that future sequel document whatever results from that initial study the analysis that's presented there. I'm not sure how we will incorporate the Roseland areas basketball road specific plan EIR. Until we receive that analysis, I don't feel comfortable making any comments about how that might go. Charles, did you have any follow up or you did you feel your answer. I think at this point, my questions have been answered thank you. I wanted to just follow up for one second Carol had asked about the fencing, and could you explain what your intent there is in terms of the fencing with the height and materials. Or has that decision been reached or is that an open question at this point. Sure so at this point we have actually removed the fencing so you know height materials have been pulled from from the equation there to create more of an open natural environment, as much as possible. So there is no fencing between the project and the creek. Correct. The original plan did intend to fence the entire perimeter of the project, but based on a number of the comments that we received during our conceptual design review, we've made the decision to eliminate the fencing. Okay. Are there other questions by committee members. Carol. This is a question for staff, the undisturbed area between the future North Point Parkway and this project. Can you tell me what the master plan zoning for that is in comparison to the rest of the neighborhood and this new project. When you refer to master plan zoning do you just mean the general zoning district of this area of the property. The, the parcel, what I'm going to call directly to the north. What is its future destiny. I think she's referring to the general plan. Correct. Thank you. Let me take a look really quick. So this is actually one parcel right here and this has a zoning of our 318, which is the same as the project site zoning. And as far as the general plan. This portion of the, of the northern area of the site or the adjacent to the site also has a medium density residential general plan land use designation as does the developed the area of this of the subject parcel that is proposed for development. So, but across this extension area is the R16 and low density residential. Okay, thank you. Are there any more questions by committee members prior to opening up the public comment. We don't see any. I had a couple things Steve, if I may. Oh, Mark, please. Yeah, every time I look at this map, my eyes are always drawn to the future North Point Parkway, which seems to be an big impact in combination with with this, with this project. I'm hoping that is for sure going to happen someday. I'm not sure if we can speak to this now but it seems like it's definitely a reasonably foreseeable project that would interface in many ways with with this project. Yeah, and for that, I'm hoping that I think Nancy Adams is in attendance are we able to elevate her to give her speaking permissions. Yes, Nancy, I've given you the permissions to be able to speak you should be able to unmute yourself now. Thanks. I wasn't expected to speak hi I'm Nancy Adams and I work in the transportation and public works department for the city. And I'm sorry I've got it I'm on another call as well. So, to your question, we, yes I would certainly expect North Point Parkway to be to be developed. It's part of the city's planning policy documents related to circulation in that area so. Yes, I would fully expect it to be built. Hopefully that answers your question. And just to follow up on that. The project has been required to dedicate right of way and anticipation of development of this parkway but it has not been identified in the capital improvements program. Okay, all right. I think it's a chunk of the undisturbed land will be left after this, this project. The other thing I just wanted to quickly mention is the fact that I was looking through the Roseland Creek restoration plan. And it does call for a 50 foot setback from top of banks I'm wondering if I'm not sure that is force of law if that's just guidance, but it seems like a number that that's out there for this particular parcel. So, would you like to add a list one or Steve, yes, Steve, are you able to respond to that one. Give me one second while I give him speaking permissions. Thank you. Steve you should be able to unmute yourself now. All right, can you hear me. Yes, go ahead. So the part of the Rosan Creek restoration plan does call for a 50 foot setback but my, my recollection is I don't have that right in front of me but it is the area east of Burbank Avenue within the Rosan Creek Community Park area. So, within this section, I believe just the regular city setback, creek setbacks would apply. Melissa, I've given you per speaking permissions as well. Yeah, I am looking at the Rosan Creek concept plan that was developed and are approved in 2002. And since that time there's been discussion and changes in what's required, I believe in the creek setback for a channel lies channel so Steve Brady this does show a creek setback on the concept plan in this area, but I don't believe that would be applicable today, given that some water agencies channelize creek. And, and if I can I'll add to this is Andrew triple supervising planner for current planning. I would like to add to Steven Alastair's comments. I do believe that the zoning code which would codify them the creek master plan is updated to reflect that when a condition presents where it's a fully channelized waterway, and the channel is owned by or under the control of Sonoma County water agency, then structures can be closer to the top of the bank. Then that distance of 50 feet so when that condition exists when Sonoma County water agency reviews and approves or, or, I guess approves a design in conjunction with the city's review. The 50 foot setback is not required which is what Amy had pointed out earlier in response to questions as well. All right, thank you. Are there any more questions before we have to, I have two more questions. Hey, please. Is, is any of this parcel designated officially as a wetland. Connor. I, I'm not sure is Dennis. Is Dennis maybe Christine from the secret team. Hi, this is Laurie Minaris with do deck. And yes, according to the Army Corps of Engineers it is a three parameter wetland. The applicants conducted a wetland delineation or had one conducted and it was verified by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2019. And usually Army Corps delineation jurisdictional determinations are also recognized by the Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Okay. 0.063 acres so less than a 10th of an acre of three parameter wetlands. Where, where is that located. It's kind of scattered throughout, but largely on the south side of the property. So kind of, it's almost like they'll be largely converted into some of those LID features will serve a similar purpose of what the current functions are of the wetlands. And then my other question is, I just want to continue to understand, you know, the point that Charles made. So was the DRB conceptual DRB, and then is it going to go back to their DRB when there's more finalized plans. Connor. So the DRB provided concept review and typically this project would go to the zoning administrator for final design review, but the director has elected to elevate the review of the project to the design review board for final design review. Okay, so, so then, potentially, if there were, so how would it work. I mean, I understand we can request to see it again. But if it's designed, if it goes back to design review for in the final compilation, will it naturally come back to us. I think if we wanted to take it back to the Waterways Advisory Committee we would want to do that prior to receiving final design review at the DRB. Okay, thank you. Anybody else. Okay. We're not going to be taking public comments on item 6.1. And Michelle, do you want to make any comment here. Yes, thank you. I wish to make a comment please raise your hand for our call in participants. You will please dial star nine to raise your hand, and then you will press star six to unmute. And public comment today will be two minutes, and there will be a timer up on the screen. Just like we do have some hands give me just one moment. Okay. Thank you we do ask that you do have your comments to be a maximum of two minutes. Steven, I have given you you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Can you hear me. I can hear you let me get the timer up for you. In case my internet connection is bad. I'll put my comments in the chat. Okay, thank you. Can you see, can you verify that you see the timer. I do see the time. Okay, once it starts, it'll reset to two minutes. Go ahead. Okay. So I got the card in the mail talking about this project and ever since then I've been, you know, trying to inform myself about the impacts. This is just to let you guys know this is the big subsidized housing complex within 1500 feet of my house. I have a lot of experience with these. They know how they change the community. And this one in particular, I was surprised that it is being built squarely inside a flood zone, the 100 year FEMA flood zone, not a portion of it, the entire project. And then on top of that, you're paving nearly the entire project. And then you're saying that you're going to discharge all this new water into the creek, which is essentially serving as a flood control channel. On top of that, I think the city of Santa Rosa and all local agencies need to seriously consider this paving versus groundwater recharge issue. Because we are building things faster than we're allowing the groundwater to recharge. And this project is a perfect example of that. The plans that I saw had the entire storm drain from this entire impervious area going towards an existing 24 inch CMP. I don't think that's adequate. I'm assuming that they're going to revise that design later, but you can't drain. I think Connor said 2.3 disturbed acres into a existing 24 inch CMP. And then I'd also like to comment, if I'm running out of time here, there's a lot of confusion about what's the, you know, public comments and the North Point Parkway and undisturbed area, but I guess. Okay, thank you, Stephen. We now have Nick. Nick, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute yourself. Yeah, I have it. Let me restart the timer before you begin just one moment. Well, I wanted to before you start the timer I just had a few questions first and I was wondering if instead of the timer I could have Mr. McKay throw up a couple of his slides specifically for and five. You could actually wrap your comments or I'm sorry your questions and with your comments for the two minute period. That way we are giving the same amount of time to all participants. I can't properly give my questions or comments without having these visual aids that I was requesting that's all I was trying to do. We just so that you're aware we do have Connor taking notes. So if you can just during your questions reference what slides you the question is in regards to. He can pull them up when he when he opens it I'm going to begin your time now thank you. Okay. All right well I would like to address a few things that was brought up first off by committee member Carter. It seems that this needs to come before another meeting for the following reasons. First off, you have the setbacks that seem to be should be 50 feet given the floodplain location at the south end of the property that is currently being encroached upon by this development. It should be 50 feet in order to ensure that more of the water can permeate into the watershed underneath the the creek rather than into the creek where it flows away for those of us who are on well water in the area because it fails to provide adequate recharge into this area of the creek furthermore. I believe that the EI you this the committee needs to be able to review once the full EIR is completed. So this way they can adequately review the impacts that this development is going to have on the creek. Furthermore, you cannot discuss this project without also discussing the impacts of North Point Parkway on the creek since how will the drains from the future Parkway drain into the city. I'm sorry into the river and impact the creek. And again that's more additional heartscape that is end up going to be removed so while there's this quote unquote one third area as shown in slide five, that is going to be undisturbed. Parkway is going to go there, and it's going to encroach into the river. Additionally, North Point Parkway is going to remove that eucalyptus tree and other trees along the bank which is specifically portioned, and the requirement of this committee to review and ensure that the destruction of the trees and vegetation are not destroyed and the habitat is retained. Additionally, these type of salamander potential is in this area and it's important that the restoration of this area reflects and a study is done for those. Thank you for your time. Okay, next we have Ryan. Ryan, you should have a prompt allowing yourself to unmute. Yeah. Okay, let me let me restart the timer for you so you have the full two minutes. Thank you. Hi everyone, my name is Ryan Schwab I live on Trumpetta Street and I do want to say I do appreciate the design team trying, trying to make this project work but as everybody can see in here, we're still trying to fit a square peg in a wrap in around the creek. And there are so many potential issues with this project that we're in fear of, especially during the drought. I walked this trail alongside it very often I see the amount of wildlife that is out there in both the creek and the parcel set to be developed. This drought is seriously taking, taking a toll on the environment. And this area of the creek should remain undisturbed. We'll be looking back, you know in five, 10 years. And when there's no living organisms, part of the creek, or part of this parcel, we're going to be really sad and very disappointed. And the other issue is Steven and Nick have touched on is all the water that would normally, you know permeate into the, into the ground and help recharge the ground, the groundwater which we all got the 20% voluntary notice to reduce water because there isn't enough water. It's just going to be mixed with the pollutants from, from this project and carried away by, by the creek and what we need for people that are on well, and other residents that do get their water via groundwater is not for everything to be paved over making it a complete hardscape. We really need to leave some semi rural, rural space undisturbed we can't, we can't just continue paving over and building on everything. Thank you Ryan. If anyone else has any comments or questions, please raise your hand now for our call in participants. You can press star nine, and that will raise your hand. And I am not seeing any other hands. Unless there are others who are interested in speaking, we will be closing the public portion of the item, public participation portion. Is there anyone else to give you one more chance. I don't. Yes, we don't see anyone. Correct Michelle. It looks like we do have one more. Give me just one second. Nick, you should have a prompt to be able to unmute yourself. Yeah, I just wanted to add one little thing. I won't be taking the full time is that while my understanding is that this can be a 30 foot setback. It is not required and is under the purview to recommend a 50 foot setback still under this condition and I think given the flood plains and given fact that the art that this is a, this is a wetland pursuant to the Army Corps of Engineers that a 50 foot setback would be required and permissible in the situation, even though there is a potential for a 30 foot setback permitted. That's pretty much the only additional thing I wanted to say thank you for the extra time. Okay, thank you with that I see no other hands. And if you want to move forward. Yes, with that I will move forward and we have ended our public participation portion of this meeting. But I would like to then go back to Connor and have you respond to any items you feel are needed to respond to by you at this point for the benefit of the committee. Yeah, thank you. Regarding the development during the drought. I have a couple, couple pieces of information on that. I'm sure I'm sure all of us are aware and obviously this is a water focused board so I just wanted to identify that due to water supply planning and implement implementation of aggressive water use efficiency strategies. Santa Rosa's population has actually doubled since 1990, while our total water use has decreased by 14%. So I just, I feel like that's an important kind of piece to include in this discussion about drought and development and limited water resources. Santa Rosa has a plan in place to address short term effects of drought, which are incorporated into our long term water supply planning efforts. And that is required to be extremely, extremely water efficient, more water efficient than existing buildings and compliance with the city's water efficient landscape ordinance and various Calgary and building code standards would require this new development to be 20% more water efficient than what exists throughout our city. And new development actually often exceeds this target so the setbacks, let's see. So, according to our creek side development standards and the zoning code where a fully channelized waterway exists and Rosalind Creek is considered a channelized waterway, and the channel is owned by snow water structures may be closer than the top of bank, then a distance of the depth of the bank plus 50 feet provided this encroachment into the setback area will not abstract obstruct or impair the channel's hydraulic functions, impede water agency access, impair the stability of the slope, or impair the stability of the creek bed fountain as determined by the Department of Planning and the Public Works Department and the Sonoma County Water Agency. Therefore, a 30 or 50 foot setback would not be required. And as no proposal is to be located, no development is proposed to be located on the Sonoma County water agencies land there's not any issues anticipated with this proposal. Trying to think of what else the reduction of the site plan in introduces a lot more vacant, undeveloped land that will allow for additional groundwater recharge. And I also want to mention that the general plan and specific plan and the zoning code for that matter can identify areas that should be preserved for open space. They have there's a specific designation and each of these plans that identifies areas that should be left undisturbed completely. And this site in particular has a zoning designation of our 318, which allows for multifamily development residential development by right. And then the general plan and specific plan both identify this parcel as a site for medium density residential development so in project design, we should definitely incorporate policies of the creek master plan and other creek side standards but the, like I mentioned the the zoning code and the general plan identify this site for development so throughout the review process we do our best to balance the policies of the creek standards and such with the potential of the site for residential development. I'm trying to think if I missed anything Andrew do you do you want to follow up and fill in any of the cracks that I've missed. No Connor I think you I think you've addressed everything sufficiently we can always continue to respond to questions from the committee so yeah. Thank you gentlemen. Why don't we go to the committee see if there are any more questions of the staff, and then we would proceed to making the recommendations. I have. So, is there any restriction on building in the hundred year flood zone Connor or Andrew. I mean I think you just get insurance for it I mean we have a lot of things that are built in 100 year flood zone. I mean there's nothing says you can't build in 100 year flood zone is there. No, we do have chapter 18 dash 52 of the city code does address flood damage protection, and would regulate development in the flood zone. So, what, what, what, what does it regulate. And standards of construction flood ways and such. So in building and building division reviews. The, the flood damage protection. And this project is within 100 year floods on. I believe so but I would ask Dennis Dalby to confirm. I don't know if Dennis is with us still to confirm that point. But Steve Brady has commented that he's here now. Coming in. Yeah, I just saw him as well. Thank you. Hi Andrew. So flood zone flood protection generally what what is required is that the finished floor of the habitable buildings are one foot above the designated flood elevations on the firm maps. And that's been done with this project. Yes, are there, there's a datum difference between the firm map and the city of Santa Rosa datum. But yes, we are, we are at least one foot above the established flood elevations. Okay, thanks Dennis. So since you're on Dennis, this question is going to come back to you on the ground on the bioswells these are also these also provide infiltration right. Correct. That's a requirement. Well, I forget what the impermeable area of the project is but not all of that is going to get to the field drain correct, it's going to be infiltrated any swells. Correct. Okay, correct. That's that's actually correct. The, the BMPs for the stormwater program are required to not only treat the stormwater runoff. But also capture a calculated amount of stormwater. And that is the, you know, that's part of the buyer, buyer retention BMP. So it's a cleaning function and it's a capture function. Thank you. And then my last question. Thanks for my last question is this 50 foot 30 foot issue is just really confused me. I mean I'm looking at the, the staff report and talks about a required 30 foot setback but now I'm hearing potentially you don't even need a setback. And Andrew might have said, or Connor said, so I kind of need clarification on this and to understand that. Can someone comment on that. Sure, I'll go ahead and comment the project, both the the current application before us and the concept that's also been provided by the applicant has has always maintained a minimum 30 foot setback from top of bank, which from one perspective I wouldn't say is consistent with the code for, for that requirement but then the code also does provide exceptions for development adjacent to those channelized waterways. The zoning code does not make exceptions for certain circumstances so I think by way of comparison. When we think about the scenic road corridors, you know certain corridors have certain standards that have to be achieved and regulate development as well as tree removal and such in those corridors. And if, if codification of the creek master plan was to be sensitive to concepts proposed in the master plan, then it would have carved out exceptions or specific regulations for certain creek sections. If it didn't do that, then we would apply that exception to any development along any creek. If it meets those requirements and then of course that is subject to approval by the Sonoma water, the property owner as well as some city, Steve Brady's department and then city planning as well. So they could be within the 30 foot setback potentially and, but they're not correct. Okay. And then the last question is, this is for Michelle, the chat comments those will be presented to the developers that correct, because the developer seems to be very amenable to hearing these things. Yes, I am saving the chat comments, and they will be provided to the planner to Connor, and then he can share them out. Thank you. Any more questions by committee members Carol. So, I've been looking at Google Earth this whole time looking at the neighborhood which is a fascinating overview. And I'm wondering if staff can give me some perspective. A whole lot of development has happened in this area over say the last 2025 years. Entire neighborhoods were built 20 years ago, also backing on the creek, it appears, and I'm wondering if the standards have changed at all. If it's a more lenient approach the city's taking a more stringent approach. Now, how are the standards that projects in 2021 are being held to compare to neighborhoods. Also backing on this creek that were built, say, in the late 20 teams. I think the Trump beta neighborhood was built about 2000. Does that give you enough information to address staff what my concern, or or my need for education. No, that's great that and and a great question thank you. So I would say that the standards that we are reviewing this project under today are the most restrictive standards that have been in place. I'll invite Steve and Amy and Alistair to comment as well because I am newer to the city I've only, I've only been here five years so certainly, I believe there's, you know, some some historic activity that could inform these comments at this point in time. It looks like the the last amendment to the the creek side development standards was done in the 2004 2005 timeframe and and so and maybe the maybe this the creek side development standards were only codified in the early 2000 so what was happening prior to that was was not subject to standards, but then with the with the development of the creek master plan and then codification of the creek master plan. Then we do see the emergence of those more restrictive standards to which development is subject so please other city staff please feel free to chime in, because it is a very interesting question I appreciate it. Thank you to see if Steve or Alistair wanted to win. But Andrew I think your response was right on. I will say that. Overall you are seeing a lot more development occurring within this area because of the specific plan and it's designated as a priority development area. It is a decision that was made when the priority development area was established, and the specific plan process proceeded. And, but there is a new opportunity to kind of review and and comment on the growth of the city and where that growth occurs, and that process is really the general plan process. And also plan Bay Area is out for public review as well, and that is a regional planning document that does talk about the priority development areas in each community and the growth that is entertained within those and how that fits into the whole regional concept. So I think if there are folks on the line who want to review those processes and documents that's a really good place to comment on the amount of development that may be occurring in the area. But Andrew's comments are correct in terms of the actual creek master plan and how that interplays and what that timeline is. I can just add one thing and I think Andrew covered it well but one thing is the original creek setbacks I believe we're actually in the late 1990s and then in 2004 is when they were enhanced at that time and one thing to really with the creek master plan, the creek master plan is not where you go for creek setbacks we look at the zoning code so the creek master plan didn't change anything with that so just always keep keep that in mind whenever there's a creek thing I mean we look for the creek master plan for you know areas of call for restoration and trails but it's really not the place for creeks head back at this time the way it's set up we look at the zoning code and in this case it's complicated because you have the 50 feet a 30 feet and you have an exception, and I did during the meeting was able to review more parts of the rosin creek restoration plan. And, like I mentioned earlier there is a distinction between the creek setbacks within the future rosin creek community park area. So there the plan actually did call for a 50 foot creek setback where the rest of the plan actually showed a drawing of the approximate location of where a 50 foot setback would be if those applied to a project, I think. And that that's great Steve thanks and yeah I did forget that in 2004 I believe there was a basically a republication of the zoning code. And so when I was looking at my reference materials I think that's why it only went back to 2004. You know Steve brings up a very interesting part and or point and chair I think that that from your perspective your past service to the city you could also appreciate and inform any comment you might want to have about this. If we think about the general plan as embodying the community's vision for that long term, you know long range development of the community. And then our specific plan still doing the same thing reflecting vision, but getting more specific than the policies that are contained in those plans are then codified through the zoning code. And so when we when we review a project, we do have to look at how those certain policies are codified. So, so, you know density and allowable densities are are in part established by the general plan but then codified through zoning districts. So when we look at this project and we see that the maximum allowable density for the project site would be 49 units, and then we review the zoning code and we learn that the zoning district does permit this by right. And then that starts to starts to set the parameters for which the project is reviewed. And so to understand that kind of process from vision to policy to codification to project review. I think is very important, especially in the conversations that we're having about projects in the Rosalind area. So I just wanted to share that. Any other questions of staff before we continue on with our statements. Okay, why don't we start with our. Okay, thank you. There's some big sheep on this property. I'm pleased to see that when I looked at the property with, but that's just kind of a fun thing to say. I appreciate the, I appreciate the staff with being able to respond and answer all of our questions. I appreciate the developer and, and his and their professionals to be open to making changes and working with the neighborhood and, and with the city regulations and, you know, what our comments are going to be. And I appreciate the neighbors were being active and respectful and bringing up very good points. So I just want to say that. I think that removing the fence is a good idea. I just, it seems like there should be something that allows access and provide security and fencing. So I just want to point that out. I sure like to see more about the landscaping. I just don't have a good feel for how this project interacts with the creek through the landscaping. I just want to understand that better. And I really need to see more about the wetlands. I wish we would have had a map which sees, see how that was discerned. You know, if Army Corps and fishing wildlife are involved with that or even the water board. I'd like to know what they're, what they did with it and how this interacts, how the wetlands put, and this is a really, really small area and wetlands definition is is elusive. Not always clear, but sure like to have something to look at to understand it a little bit better. And we didn't have that so. Because of those comments. I'd really like to see this come back to to our committee for further evaluation. And that's all I have to say right now. Thank you, Charles. We, thank you. Senator Carter summed up our reservations or my reservations anyway about the project. I think the explanations we've gotten today from staff and the applicant make it sound like a good project. I certainly think we could have done more to review the project in the context of the general plan and the Roseland specific plan to understand that those overarching policy documents guide what we do in these areas. Our review is how the project specifically interacts with the creek. And possibly more context about the creek master plan and how it affects our review of the project. So as Arthur said, more specific landscape information would make it much easier to comment and provide direction on the project. We have engine site plan so we understand where the buildings lie in relation to the top of the bank and grading plans that show us how the water flows and moves on to and off of the site and into the creek if that's where it ends up. And perhaps a brief statement on the general high hydrology. Everything we've heard tells us that it's being treated properly but we don't have any documents that show us that and because of that I would like to also see the project come back with, as I said, more specific landscape information, grading and dimension site plan information. Thank you, Charles and Mark. Well, often when projects come into us they've already gone through all the stormwater calculations all the mapping so since this is a conceptual thing we don't have that information we often do we have to assume it's going to be done correctly. I think I definitely want to second what art said everybody's been doing a great job and I really appreciate their work on this, especially when it gets contentious in any way. But, yeah, I think I should come back to the committee at some point, when it's maybe better firmed up the details on on stormwater because I share the same concerns about kind of a black box right now as far as what's actually going to happen on the site. So, that's pretty much all that I have to say at this point. Thank you Mark Carol. I'd also like to express appreciation of both staff and to the presenters and the neighborhood. I think this particular board for, I think a little over a year now, and I think projects like this are going to become more prevalent, especially in this area, and how we handle our review of this project as it relates to the waterway. This is an isolated case and I think how we weigh in what our concerns are moving forward. This is kind of a template for additional projects, specifically the project directly to the north of it. If this one goes in, say in the next two years, its potential sister project may go in four years and that's more pavement and it also backs on the creek. These projects don't work in isolation and I'm concerned that however we address this project needs to be a prelude for how we look at other projects, if a high density project or any project goes in of this magnitude that borders on a creek. We need to be consistent in our approach so with that as a prelude. I don't have nearly enough information on this project to say anything other than, well this is very interesting. But, but I don't I don't have what I need right now to say anything other than. I'm all for high density housing. I don't happen to live in this neighborhood. I think how I would feel emotionally if I did live in this neighborhood would be far different from the objective stance I'm able to take. And I, I want to say that I appreciate people who live near a project of this magnitude relate to it differently than I do. That's it. Thank you girl. I do want to thank the staff. I want to thank the applicants for their openness and then particularly I want to thank the people representing the public who came and testified and provided us with information and questions that we hope we have at least begun to answer. I think generally the project and I generally support the idea of the project there's some details of course that many details that are left to be discussed as my fellow members of the committee have pointed out. There's a whole interface between the creek and the project itself is very undefined, like I guess by intent, but it makes it challenging to be able to really get a handle on how the project will relate to the creek itself which is a big question for us, and the fencing which I think we need to consider a fence open in terms of its appearance, but a fence nonetheless because my understanding is there is on private parcels. Not, it's not allowable to have direct access onto water agency parcels at least that's my understanding. And that other than that. I think also as other members have said we really should have this come back when it's more defined and I think that process will continue but I look forward to having this come back for us to, to have more of a specific way of evaluating the project. Any concluding comments by anybody else before we do. Yeah, thank you Steve. And this is, I kind of separate this may have for staff. In the future, if we have updates that come out to stuff like this. For me, it just wasn't enough time. And I know the email said we have updated site plan but I need better notification because I made my site visit. I did everything based upon the stuff I had originally. And so I, and I just need more time so that's the first thing. I hope we see an updated disclosure form when this comes back. And, and then this 50 30 exception issue. It should have been addressed in the staff report. We should have had that information initially to help us and so this is just my feedback to the staff. Thank you. Any other concluding comments by committee members. Amy, is there anything from your end that we need to consider or at this point. No, well, we'll work with Conor and to bring this back at the appropriate time and just committee member Dike I absolutely hear you and we'll definitely take note of that for the future meetings. Thank you. Okay. Well, we thank you all. And with that we will now adjourn our meeting of the letterways advisory committee. Thank you all. Thanks everybody.


Yes, healing miracles are for today, but that doesn't mean that going to the doctor or taking medicine means you lack faith. As someone in the healing ministry, I tell you, one of my biggest concerns in this area is this unbiblical idea that taking medicine or going to the doctor is somehow a demonstration of a lack of faith. Paul told Timothy to use wine for his sickness. Jesus said, healthy people don't need a doctor, sick people do. Now, Jesus wouldn't use medical practice as a positive in his analogy if he thought negatively of it. We don't reject paychecks just because we know God is the one who provides, so why would we reject medicine just because we know God heals? We mustn't resist anything that works to accomplish God's will. Don't limit God. You can believe for your miracle while also taking practical steps toward health.


The establishment of CTF-64 will allow us to do several things that we could not do in the past. An operational command for the new Aegis Ashore facility, a tactical level command to oversee ballistic missile defense, parity with our other services such as the 603rd with the Air Force and 10th AA MDC in the Army. And now we have an equal command to them in the Navy as we support the European command.


Happy Holidays from the College of Engineering and Applied Science. Happy Holidays! Happy Holidays from the double E department. Happy Holidays from Advancement. Happy Holidays from the Engineering Advising Office. Happy Holidays! Happy Holidays from Double E.