program level when you have items that are outside of the city's control or you have you don't know enough of the project specific impacts And so we looked at alternatives to try to reduce those specific Significant impacts and we did look at four alternatives and they're they are identified here on the screen No project no commercial residential A project with no commercial at all and then we had just a blanket 50 reduction of the residential development And then looking at how these could reduce the impacts In general the concept of less development is less impact was concluded here, but um the same types of program level findings would generally be involved So it didn't necessarily completely eliminate say for example the air quality impacts again Because those are based on a program level finding where you don't know the details You still wouldn't know the details under one of these alternatives and the same would be true for the transportation impacts that we found While some of these were very similar to the proposed project They don't fully achieve the project objectives, which is one of the goals of alternatives under sequel And then the revised eir that jessica kind of walked through some of the process We got comments that really wanted to look at um What would happen if the project were to be built before the farmers lane extension improvement Or if the general plan achieved full build out before that so we called it without farmers lane extension But it really meant if the project got built before the farmers lane extension got built And so this is what the revised Eir looked at and we exactly is here and he can go over a little bit more of the conclusions of the without farmers lane extension project and and we can or we can wait and just see if we have questions on those But that was generally the the gist of it These slides are kind of available if we have questions about it It's just showing a little bit of the relationship between the project site itself and where the farmers lane extension project is And then I think this slide is up here also in case we have some specific questions about the future with Without but as I stated before the the conclusions were generally the same even even with looking at the The numbers change slightly but the overall conclusion doesn't change with the impact with the new analysis And with the new analysis looking at a different flow of of pattern Where the traffic would would go if we didn't have the farmers lane extension We had to also reduce some noise modeling to make sure that as the flow moved throughout different streets If those streets would create different noises for sensitive receptors And we found that none of the new roadway segments that might receive more of the traffic still did not exceed the three decibel level Which is basically the Level that's detectable by humans and outside environment And then this is just a slide this kind of demonstrating the number of of comments that we got and that the final Eir that you have before you did respond to the 51 letters received during the 21 17 draft EIR and the letters and emails on the revised draft EIR No changes even though we did conduct some new analysis. It didn't reveal any new substantial changes It didn't have any new information or any new impacts were involved And so no recirculation beyond what we already did was required And then because we do have the significant and unavoidable impacts for air quality and transportation and circulation This does require under sequel what's considered a statement of overriding considerations In which the council will have to decide if the project benefits outweigh the adverse environmental impacts And I believe the statement of overriding is in the in the report in front of you from south And if that does conclude the sequel portion of the presentation So i'm going to wrap up the presentation for you Just wanted to quickly go over the planning commission's action as I mentioned earlier They did review this project In a public meeting and took action on may 23rd of this year And they did unanimously Recommend that the city council certify the EIR and approve the project We did have numerous members of the public who spoke in both support and in opposition to the project Generally those who were opposed Their concerns related to potential increase in traffic impacts at the farmers lane intersection So notification for this process Has been widespread Specifically for tonight's meeting we did include a notice in the press democrat We posted at city hall on our project website We do have a specific website for the project itself which is plan the greenway.com We also have a southeast greenway portion on our Planning and economic development department website So it was posted in both of those locations and we sent it out through various city social media accounts We emailed it to our community advisory board as well as to the project distribution list that has been Created over the last several years Which includes about 950 email addresses We also sent a mailed notice with our new postcards that we've been implementing And that went out to properties Both tenants and property owners within 500 feet of the southeast greenway area. It's approximately 1800 addresses And then of course the southeast greenway campaign has been working very diligently to get the word out Which is evidenced by the the people that are in the room today So with that the recommendation by the planning and economic development department and the planning commission Is that the city council by resolution and we have three resolutions before you tonight The first is for certification of the eir The second is for adoption of the findings of fact related to the california environmental quality act As well as the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and the statement of overriding considerations that terry just mentioned And the third resolution is for adoption of the general plan text and land use amendments And then we have two ordinances before you It would be introduction of both of those The first would be adding zoning districts for the southeast greenway area that would implement the proposed land use amendments As well as an amendment to City code sections 20 dash 23 point zero three zero and 20 dash 26 point zero three zero We are available for any questions that you may have Thank you for walking us through that incredible voyage and you know, I do want to applaud the folks who have been following this Voyage since 2009. It's great to see this amount of community input and participation Before I go further mr. Alvarez any ex parte communications on this item All right bring it back to council any questions on the presentation Mr. Vice mayor Thank you. Mr. Mayor So adding these zoning districts Will that increase the value of the land? So as of right now there are no because the area was identified as a future extension of highway 12 If you look at our general plan land use map, it is a a white line So it does not currently have any general plan land use designation and therefore no zoning districts associated with it Without those land use designation and zoning districts. It is Impossible to determine a price for the land because it you don't know what can be built there So this process that we're going through now to establish general plan land use designations and zoning districts Will provide the information that appraisers need To determine a price for the land because it will tell them what could potentially be built there And that's exactly where my question was going to go is my understanding is that after this step Caltrans is going to go through the appraisal process and then to acquire the land it goes through a fair market value assessment And so my question was specifically by adding this zoning. Are we making it more expensive to acquire the land? And is it impossible to move forward without doing this anyway? Yeah, so I I think the answer to whether it's more expensive is that there isn't an answer because we don't know the price But yes, it will Provide us again with the information necessary to determine what that price will be Great. Thank you Any additional questions? Okay, I will then open the public hearing First up mic rayman followed by steve or binowish Mike rayman from san erosim I've been very concerned about the traffic and also the new possibility of us exceeding the emissions In the document in section 4 13 7 Overpass would reduce the traffic level from 23,000 cars a day at that intersection Down to 13,000 cars a day approximately 48 percent reduction and it would Greatly reduce the level of service right now the level of service Is going to go from an unacceptable level d to a level b also in the Section qa 3 and 6 the proposed project would Generate a substantial net increase in the emissions that exceeds the bay area Generated substantial net increases in the emissions So it will possibly exceed the emissions of the bay area quality board from what I understand In conclusion, um the south the southwest greenway projection will create Uh traffic backup issues at the intersection of farmers lane and highway 12 Along with the new environmental issues Emergency response time quality of life issues for commuters and the entire population of santa rosa will be affected for Decades to come we all know the terrible Traffic impact the inovado narrows has had for decades If this plan is approved has submitted you will be creating issues that will rival the inovado narrows For decades to come The eir is inadequate and should be revised as the impact on the intersection of farmers lane In highway 12 are far too significant not to be addressed as they are indeed avoidable. Thank you Thank you steve rvenowitz followed by wendy elliott Good evening mayor schwedhelm and council members. My name is steve rvenowitz And i'm speaking today representing the southeast greenway campaign I've been working with the campaign committee for almost 10 years as many of the people in the audience have I truly believe this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for our city The campaign has been a model community effort Aggressor roots group that invited neighborhood involvement Which worked with the community to create a vision for the greenway Which initiated a unique partnership With the city of santa rosa sonoma county regional parks the sonoma county water agency land paths and the sonoma land trust City staff have been instrumental in leading the planning effort for the greenway where we appreciate their work The partnership has already raised almost two million dollars for the acquisition of the greenway with help from the open space district the sonoma land trust The community foundation of sonoma county and donations by hundreds of individuals We are committed to raise the funds to purchase this property without asking the city for scarce public funds today's decision We'll provide a critical step in our effort to Create this project the next step will be appraisal of the property and negotiations for its purchase We plan to continue working with the city on the adoption of a parks master plan, which we hope can begin shortly after acquisition We're committed to continue fundraising efforts to construct the needed improvements bike paths walking trails community gardens public open space and environmental restoration I truly believe that one day we will look back at today's action by the council as a creation of a legacy project When the transforms our community Providing needed open space transportation connections Putting aside land for housing Benefiting our climate and contributing to the health of our citizens We all thank you very much for your continued support Thank you, uh, wendy elliott followed by alexa forester Good evening mayor Schwedhelm and members of the council My name is wendy elliott. I'm the conservation director for cinema land trust and I just have to say for the record That it's a tough act to follow steeper benefits It's been for me a real privilege working on the center as a greenway for the last four years Which is about how long the land trust has been involved I think what strikes me is the commitment of the city the professionalism of the city staff The strength of this I think really unique partnership and the vision Of a greenway through san rosa has been absolutely inspiring to me personally and I think for this community The plan before you sets the stage to transform this vacant caltrans right of way into an urban greenway and importantly for much needed housing We urge your approval of staff's recommendation On the yi our general plan amendment and zoning change With your approval we will begin working immediately and in fact we already have been With our partners and with caltrans to appraise and purchase the property and as steve indicated we already have two million dollars Raised and it has been relatively easy to raise money for this project. It is embraced by our funders When the acquisition process is completed and we're aiming perhaps ambitiously for 2020 The land trust looks forward to working to continue our continuing our work with the partners to plan and establish a greenway That has parks trails play areas community gardens links to a regional trail system and amenities for the The community I believe that future generations are going to thank you for your foresight and setting aside this Two-mile 57 acre piece of land for the purposes that have been described to you this evening Thank you very much. Thank you Alexa forester followed by kent gilfee Good evening council members. My name is alexa. Um, I teach at the jc and my family is here tonight My husband and my two sons live in the montgomery village area and I just wanted to give you sort of a more Concrete example of how this can improve our lives We've lived Within a mile and a half of two of the main entrances to spring lake park for six years But um, even though riding our bikes there would be our preferred transportation route We haven't done that because it's not neither nuonga or Montgomery drive are safe for little ones on bikes and so this would give us Access from our neighborhood directly into those amazing resources without having to get into our car And I know I speak for many of our family friends in the area who would also make such a decision also Our friends our kids have had friends on the south side of hoan avenue and we have had to drive them to those To those friends houses because it's not safe for them And if our son goes where we're planning to send him rink and valley middle school on the south side of hoan Getting safely to the south side of hoan will be a daily necessity for him and many of his friends And right now it seems Sad to me that Even though it's less than a mile away and they could easily physically ride their bikes there It doesn't feel safe to send them there. So we see the greenway is really providing an opportunity for mobility non-motorized transport And beyond this the greenways promise of play structures gardens green space active recreation environmental education opportunities It just really seems like a win win win win win win And so i'm really appreciate we all really appreciate your continued support of this project. Thank you. Thank you kent gilfee Good evening, mr. Mayor members of the council kent gilfee principal engineer with sonoma water I just can make a brief statement of support for tonight's recourse of actions Sonoma water is a participating member of the southeast greenway partnership We do support the greenway concept and any a future that allows these parcels of land to remain in the long term in the In the public's trust substantially as open space and parkland And support any, you know related opportunities provide multiple benefits for the public Including certain water management benefits Sonoma water has some particular interests Some existing interests with some infrastructure that we have within the greenway parcels three creeks that Traverse Traverse the parcel that are related to our stream maintenance program for flood control purposes As well as our spring creek Bypass infrastructure that have a nexus to our central sonoma watershed project Which is a federal partnership project that's been in place for some nearly 60 years providing substantial flood control for the city We also have planned a future water supply pipelines a reliability pipeline We've evaluated multiple Alignment opportunities for that pipeline and one of the most favorable is through the greenway parcel adding reliability to our water transmission system, which is of course a a source of water supply for the city as well as Significant other portions of our service area And it's also an alternative that would allow for lower impacts of that pipeline Into the future as opposed to other alignments that would have More adverse impacts in its eventual construction also attracted to Some of the potential stormwater management opportunities that the greenway would offer Particularly as it relates to potential flood control Groundwater sustainability and water quality. So just briefly a support for the greenway concept and tonight's requested actions. Thank you very much Thank you. Okay. This is public hearing Someone afraid to say this you don't have to fill out a card So if you want to speak we have two lecterns up there you can comment on Anyone else like to address the council on this item? Seeing no movement i'll close public hearing bring it back to council any questions for staff or any of the consultants Seeing none. Mr. Tibbets you have this item so if we make one motion If we get seconded we'll have comment and then if that passes we'll have a couple other uh votes Okay, so uh, it's my great pleasure To move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa Certifying the final environmental impact report for the southeast greenway general plan amendment rezoning project file numbers st14-003 Gpam 19-002 And rez 19-007 and wait for the reading of the text Okay, already done. Okay. Let's bring it back to council for any comments on the motion. Mr. Alvarez Do you have anything you'd like to say? Other than you wish you're a quick honor on the finger No, I I know this project has been We have been waiting for this project as it came in for a long time and we've had some Pauses along the way due to some disasters, but it's good to see That we've come to this point and I look forward to working with the community to see it come to fruition. So that's all I have Mr. Tibbets any comments? Yes. Thank you, mayor I just want to you know tip my hat in respect and appreciation to all of you in the audience One of the first community events I attended when I was running for this position two years ago was the montgomery high school Meeting that attracted 200 plus people And I remember walking into into that auditorium and just thinking wow I mean what a What an amazing movement of people who are actually accomplishing something quite significant And at the time to me seemed quite herculean I think admittedly I was a little bit doubtful that it would even reach this point But i'm just very glad that it has and and my deepest respect to all of you for really Being the model as mr. Rabinowitz said for civic engagement and what a group of people can do together And I also want to thank the staff jessica jones and her team for Defining I think what public service means, you know, this has been an interesting dynamic from my perspective It's been kind of the the advocates in their team kind of driving this forward and us providing You know crucial support to see it through and so thank you very much And that's my comments. Okay, miss swimming Thank you. I just want to Praise the greenway for their Really thorough. This is the way to do it. This is the way to get community engagement whether It's jim mcaddler bothering me in yoga class when I'm like had a baby two months ago I don't know who this guy is or you know, david petrits at my wedding Pulling my ear about this people have been bugging me in the oddest places about the greenway for the longest time And you guys have really created a movement and gotten the public engagement in a way that We rarely see and is quite admirable. So thank you very much for doing all this work Mr. Isomir Thank you, mr. Mayor I think we all have a story of sort of how we first Heard about the greenway and how we were involved for me It was a thea throwing me in her Prius and taking a tour of it. I think in 2014 or 2015 At the time I was asking how the legislative offices could help And her answer was basically get out of the way and let us do it So that was a great message in the now here being on council and listening to the comments Many of you were talking about what a great thing that the council would be doing For the future of santa rosa and I want to just turn that back around on you For those of you who've been working on this for a long time For those of us who have kids will have kids will have grandchildren You've really done such an incredible thing for santa rosa and for the future Here in this community. So thank you so much And I also it seems like we've made these comments each step along the way And it really was a true voyage, you know, I start working for the city in 1983 and as a young police officer having to explain What is all this open space? They're supposed to be a freeway. That just didn't make sense in 83 and thank gosh It doesn't make sense now But it has been a great voyage and the folks that have just been staying along with this It's really inspirational not only for this community, but I think for other communities to look at Well, how did santa rosa figure out how to make that work? It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and jessica applied to you and david the rest of your Staff that have carried us on this voyage because when you have those competing interests And I know some of the concerns we had with the tragedy of the fires Staff capacity was at the max, but we still figure out how to get it done So i'm so happy to just be a small part of this 10-year voyage And the important thing too for me is that we're not done So stick with it. I can't wait to see this a thriving thriving prince or southeast greenway So with that, I think we have all our comments Our magical vote cast please little drum roll And it passes unanimously So Council is going to take a quick 10 minute recess because i'm sure some members may want to exit the chamber and Oh, i'm sorry. We have to Mr. Mayor if I could that was one of three resolutions and we have two ordinances So I move they're all going to cheer that much for all three, right? I move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa adopting findings of fact mitigation monitoring and reporting program and statement of overriding considerations for the southeast greenway general plan amendment rezoning project file numbers st 14-003 gpam 19-002 and rez 19-007 and wait for the reading of the text second It appears we have the mover in a second in your votes, please And that passes unanimously It could be after the challenge mr. Tibbets I move a resolution of the city of santa rosa approving general plan text and land use diagram amendments for the southeast greenway general plan amendment In rezoning project file numbers st 14-003 gpam 19-002 and rez 19-007 and wait for the reading of the text It was seconded by mr. Oliver is nice try and your votes, please new technology And that also passes unanimously I move an ordinance of the council of the city of santa rosa approving a zoning code text amendment related to the southeast greenway general plan amendment In rezoning project file numbers st 14-003 gpam 19-002 and rez 19-007 and wait for the reading of the text And we have a second by mr. Rogers your votes, please And that also passes unanimously All right last one I move an ordinance of the council of the city of santa rosa adding zoning districts to the area within the southeast greenway boundaries A 1.9 linear mile area between farmers lane and highway 12 And spring lake regional park in southeast santa rosa file numbers st 14-003 gpam 19-002 and rez 19-007 and wait for the reading of the text second That's seconded by councilman plumbing your votes And then also passing unanimously Are we done? All right with that. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your attendance and enthusiasm. We will be taking a 10-minute break Okay, we'll come back to our meeting. Mr. City manager item 16.3 Item 16.3 public hearing appeal of denial of general plan amendment conditional use permit and tentative map for the proposed dutton meadows subdivision Located at 2650 2666 2684 dutton meadow 1112 and 1200 hern avenue santa rosa Assessor parcels numbers 043 dash 071 dash 007 dash 022 dash 023 and 043 dash 191 dash 016 dash 024 file number prj 18-039 c up 18-101 gpam 18-003 maj 18-006 Amy Nicholson city planner presenting Great. Let me first go walk through the process. We'll be following here So we'll first check with council for x party communications and disclosures And we'll have a staff presentation for five minutes then the chair of the planning commission who is here She'll make her presentation Then the appellant can have 10 minutes To make his presentation. We'll ask any questions. We'll open the public hearing close the public hearing Ask for any additional questions and then we'll seek a motion here So let's start with x party communications. Mr. Oliver's did you have any? None Mr. Sawyer um Quite some time ago met with the appellant and met with staff, but no new information Was provided that wasn't covered by the written materials. Thank you. Mr. Tivitz Uh, I met with the appellant yesterday Okay, miss women I met with the appellant twice and have talked with staff multiple times no new information Thank you, and I also have met with the appellant I think on at least two occasions Talk with staff on at least two occasions, but all the information is contained in all the public documents Please proceed Thank you mayor schwedhelm and members of the council The item before you is an appeal of three planning commission resolutions Which denied a general plan amendment conditional use permit and tentative map for the denton meadow subdivision The grounds for appeal stated by the appellant who is also the project applicant Is that the traffic study for the general plan amendment Demonstrated the proposal would meet or exceed city standards That the denial of the project prior to environmental review And conditions of approval was arbitrary and capricious and that the city has an urgent need for housing The denton meadow subdivision project consists of the subdivision of an 18.4 acre site, which would accommodate 130 detached single-family dwellings and 81 accessory dwelling units The project application originally proposed that 20 accessory dwelling units would be affordable and the appellant has since revised the proposal to include 32 affordable accessory dwelling units Improvements as a part of the subdivision include the extension of the north point parkway and street a lot specific and visitor parking spaces and landscaping throughout The entitlements before the council this evening and also That were denied by the planning commission include a general plan amendment to modify planned circulation for the area And a tentative map and conditional use permit for the 130 lot subdivision The project site is located in southwest santa rosa within the roseland area specific plan boundary And is in located at the southeast intersection of denton meadow and herne avenue This graphic shows the project site and surrounding area. The project site is primarily undeveloped There is one single-family unit fronting on herne avenue There is existing residential development north and south of the site and meadow view elementary school is located immediately west of the project site This is the western portion of the proposed tentative map denton meadow is along the left side of the screen so that is an existing street and then the two proposed streets which would provide access to the private streets and alleyways for the 130 lots are shown in the yellow orange color This is the eastern and northern portion of the proposed tentative map with herne avenue to the north The project includes all detached single-family dwellings and detached accessory dwelling units The garages are oriented away from public streets There are a total of four house plans proposed with three distinct architectural styles The general plan amendment is required for circulation changes That are included in both the general plan and the roseland area specific plan The approved or planned streets are shown here in the dark blue color And the streets proposed as a part of this project are shown in yellow In 2002 and 2003 The planning commission held a number of public hearings to discuss what was the denton meadow master plan This plan covered a 51 acre site, which includes the current project site And a large focus of those public hearings was the proposed circulation True mark homes the current project appellant was an applicant of the master plan In january of 2003 the planning commission directed The project applicant to address a number of issues with a detailed focus on circulation and the design of the north point parkway The applicant and city staff returned in january of 2006 and the planning commission approved the modified circulation presented Which was later recommended for approval to council and ultimately adopted In may and june of 2006 there were two tentative maps approved on the subject site before you Which included both an attached housing project and a detached single-family housing project Both maps have since expired In october of 2009 the city council adopted our current general plan The general plan that we have now incorporated the circulation elements from that denton meadow master plan As you know in october of 2016 the roseland area specific plan was adopted This plan includes circulation goals and policies and plan roadways for the area to not only improve connectivity But to alleviate congestion The specific plan also included a number of land use changes including to the subject site This was done at the work by the request From the applicant who wanted to reduce the density from medium to medium low And to remove the requirement for a mixed use development In march of 2018 city staff members met with the applicant team and held a pre-application meeting In june a neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project And in later in june applications for the three entitlements were submitted to the city In september and october city staff members and the applicant team met on a number of occasions to discuss ongoing concerns Regarding the proposed circulation modifications and in december of 2018 city staff informed the applicant Now appellant that the proposed circulation could not be supported In february of 2019 the planning commission Went with staff's recommendation and denied the application for the general plan amendment use permit and tentative map With four commissioners voting yes to being absent and one voting no In march the applicant filed the timely appeal to the city clerk's office The general plan land use designation for the site is a mix of Medium low and low density residential This allows between two and 13 units per acre and the proposed development does fall within the range As required by the general plan, but it is at the very low end of that density range The project does meet a number of land use and housing goals and policies through providing both detached Single family units and also accessory dwelling units helping to meet the needs of all city residents While the proposed project meets general plan goals and policies by providing a diverse housing supply The proposed density is at the minimum of the required density range And the proposed roadway network for the project does not meet the overall intent of the general plan or the roseland specific plan In regard to transportation In addition the project proposes circulation changes that are directly in conflict with the specific improvements as outlined in the roseland area specific plan The project site has split zoning R16 which is for single family residential development and pd 0 6 0 0 1 which is a plan development for Medium to low density residential development Applications for general plan amendments must address four questions The appellant's responses to each of these questions is included as an attachment to the staff report The applicant is requesting a general plan amendment to the plan circulation to accommodate a certain Housing product, which is a detached single family housing product staff does agree with the assumption that it would be difficult to achieve The housing product type with the planned circulation However, there is the potential for a denser or attached housing Product that could possibly retain the adopted circulation plan and eliminate the need for the general plan amendment the general plan Guides future development through the year 2035 and beyond providing predictability and stability to members of the public and also to developers general plan amendments for specific projects are typically requested to change a land use or increase the density the proposed amendment before you is atypical in that it's requesting a Pretty significant modification to the transportation element with further reaching effects The applicants and appellants written narrative does not demonstrate that the proposed housing project outweighs the city's need to provide adequate regional circulation Even if the city were to approve the requested general plan amendment The applicant could decide to construct a different project or no project Leaving this area With what could be an inferior roadway alignment and no affordable housing This potential scenario highlights that Significant changes to area-wide circulation should be beneficial to the area with or without a development proposal City staff members also anticipate that the general plan amendment may be detrimental to the public interest and convenience By reducing the functionality of two plan connections Increasing congestion along a segment of her and avenue and introducing a high volume right turn at an active school crossing Traffic analysis provided by the appellant does demonstrate that intersections would continue to operate acceptably However, the overall impact to circulation Is anticipated to be negative and this is the reason why a more robust and higher level study is necessary The appellant has provided three grounds of appeal The first is that the proposed project advances important public interest And denial of the project prior to environmental review and conditions of approval was arbitrary and capricious The california environmental quality act does not apply to projects that an agency rejects or disapproves And and therefore the city is not required to complete environmental review Before choosing to reject a project Conditions of approval are drafted at the end of a typically pretty lengthy development review process where The issues have been worked out and planning staff and other city staff had not reached this point and were not able to draft those conditions of approval During the february planning commission public hearing the commission did provide the opportunity for the applicant to request a Continuance and return to the commission with a redesigned project for consideration At that time the applicant requested a full denial of the project to appeal to the council Another point by the appellant is that the proposed project addresses an urgent need for housing within the city City staff certainly recognizes this urgent need for housing The applicant's appeal and written narrative does not necessarily demonstrate that this proposed housing project outweighs the city's need for adequate regional circulation And as previously addressed approval of this general plan amendment does not guarantee this specific project The final grounds of appeal was that the proposed project appeared to be denied based on concerns that a modified street network would result in unanticipated impacts to future projects And that the traffic reports found that project roadways would still meet or exceed city standards As was previously discussed in the general plan section of this presentation And as I will briefly address in the issue section The circulation proposed for this subdivision is inconsistent with the overall intent of the general plan to provide For connectivity relief congestion and adequate circulation While the traffic analysis for the project does demonstrate that Intersections in the immediate project vicinity would continue to operate acceptably the impact of these modifications May be wider felt and there is a need for that Additional traffic analysis that would typically be done as a part of a general plan update or a specific plan public comments were received during a number of Points throughout the development review process including the neighborhood meeting A notice of application and the notice of the planning commission and city council public hearings Attending residents expressed their desire for the current proposal which Provides fewer units than what was approved in 2006 and does so at a two-story level versus a three-story level The majority of comments received In-person and writing by the phone have been about existing traffic issues within this area in particular along her and avenue and Dutton Meadow There's been general questions about the overall circulation plan for the southwest quadrant And concerns that there is not enough available parking in the area and that this residential project would exacerbate that issue this slide shows six projects that are Well, five of them have recently been approved and one is in the review process So the blue ones have recently been approved and the yellow one is currently under review. The project site is near the top of the screen and so the blue and yellow boxes on there total 318 residential units and the project site would include 211 and so A large consideration by city staff Is to really ensure that an adequate traffic and infrastructure analysis is done to modify any roads planned within this area as all of these development projects have Gone through their environmental analysis assuming specific infrastructure would be in place in the future as was previously mentioned This project has not been reviewed pursuant to the california environmental quality act in that it does not apply to a project that an agency rejects or disapproves The applicant did provide an addendum to an environmental impact report that has been included as an attachment to your staff report However, staff has not reviewed that document for adequacy I'd like to finish by recapping the issues related to the roadway alignment First and foremost Staff has found that it is inconsistent with the intent of the general plan not just the diagram But the goals to provide connectivity efficient circulation and reduced congestion And that this type of change requires a more broad Traffic and infrastructure analysis and public process The proposed modifications are anticipated to have impacts to the greater Roadway network in the southwest quadrant and as such the proposed Realignment needs to be considered as a part of the general plan update, which the city is currently embarking on Given that the proposed realignment and resulting impacts to the region Could include property dedications to roadway widenings or level of service impacts for people Who are not noticed within this project vicinity That general plan update is warranted versus a project specific level of review As was shown on a previous slide of the area There's a lot of undeveloped land in the southwest quadrant Particularly in the vicinity of the project site or pending development and much of this land Is not currently developed to general plan build out, which is important for the city to reach our housing targets Further the proposed Circulation changes encourage regional traffic to go through a residential neighborhood The street has been designed at the width of a transitional or collector street. However, it functions much like a Neighborhood street and many People trying to connect from the southern portion of the city might not understand that that could be a future connection point To her and into the freeway The planning commission and planning and economic development department recommend that the council deny the appeal And deny the general plan amendment tentative map and conditional use permit for the dutton meadow subdivision The council has many options one of which is staff's recommendation However, there's the option for staff to return with resolutions of approval and environmental analysis completed This would require that the council Make findings of fact to support the general plan amendment Another option would be for the item to be continued for the appellant to change specific Details relative to the project or provide additional information or analysis I'm happy to answer any questions and we also have rob sprinkles city traffic engineer and jason nut director transportation and public works Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that presentation council any questions for staff Go ahead jack Thank you, mayor So I want to to be clear about this the what we're doing is changing the zoning from eight to 13 or medium low to R16 which is six Units or less am I correct on that? You might be referencing General plan land use change that the project site went through as a part of the rosalina area specific plan So previously this site was designated for medium density residential development, which is I believe between eight and 13 and A portion actually I believe it was medium high which is 13 to 18 and then it was Reduced to between eight and 13 units per acre. So that was a Change that took place in 2016. So I'm sorry for my ignorance on this So today as we sit here in this moment the zoning allows for eight to 13 units per acre Yes, so there's actually two land use designations on the site But the majority of the site is between eight and 13 and then there's a portion of the site That's between two and eight units per acre. So what are we changing it to? So just to answer this specific question the proposal is not for a zoning change It's for a general plan amendment to change a roadway alignment And then the project has associated entitlements that were included as part of the package So because staff could not support the general plan amendment to change the roadway alignment Staff is also not supporting the project entitlements as well. Okay Um another question that I had and you So how will this affect the other 310 units those other three projects in the area? So by changing this Have those other projects been entitled and conducted e irs and gone through that process So all of those projects as they went through their entitlement process They were subject to environmental review and they were all dependent upon the roadway alignment as is currently indicated in the general plan so by changing the roadway today at the council were to uphold The appeal and approve the project Those other projects those other three are going to have to go through revisions of their e ir and that's going to be a How long of a process for them or no no they exist So those will remain but there was never an analysis done With the with the proposed alignment relative to those projects. So we don't have that information Okay, so we're not bottom line is we're not anticipating as a result of a potential action here today to change the general plan We're not expecting any changes to those projects coming to fruition So No changes to entitled projects. They have a right to develop as entitled But future projects so part of the analysis that staff is looking for was a regional based analysis. So Other future housing or other non residential projects in the area and how this general plan amendment would impact those other uses Those those uses that haven't come forward yet. Okay That's it. Thank you Other questions mr. Vice mayor Thank you, mr. Mayor So you mentioned that a lot of the input had been done I do want to make a point on to council member tibet's point those projects while they're entitled There is potentially impacts on those projects due to financing and other issues that come up based upon changes done here You know you you work through a process to develop property and there could be impacts There could be impacts that are out there I mean mine was more surrounding the eir process But if they're entitled see I didn't know if they were Entitled going through the entitlement process would sending them back to change the eir caused them delays But you bring up a good point. It's unknown what that Ultimately, that's why you would want a wider study in these conversations to just for future projects and for impacts on current projects So everybody understood what that was going to do to those types of projects Have we staff Talked to or talked to those other applicants. Excuse me entitled properties to see what this change would do to their projects So that's the one of the key issues Why staff is not supportive of this is because it's a project specific analysis Our area of noticing is limited If you do this through a general plan amendment, it's much broader So we have a 600 foot notice radius where if we do it as part of a general plan update It's a much broader discussion and that's the reason for staff recommending that approach Well, but so I'll just this is maybe more appropriate for the comment section But I would like to just throw it in now and that is you know I think my concern here and I mentioned this to the appellant yesterday when I met with him Is that is this 211 units going to jeopardize the Potentiation or the potential for 310 or more in that other vicinity Now I don't I think the general plan process is pretty long for an applicant to to go through Especially someone who has a project ready to go before the council Is there a reason why we can't look up who holds those parcels and give them a phone call? And see what a change This change would do to their financing and other structures putting their deals together It doesn't follow our our process So if the council gave us direction, we would certainly do that But I think the one of the concerns is Where do we stop because as we look at this? This is a regional potential Potentially a regional impact and so the boundary in our mind is broader than even just the projects that you see That are entitled in the near vicinity I mean, I I appreciate that and I think in a perfect world you're correct my only I mean But there's obviously a difference between an entitled project in the future You know and so I my concern really here today is with the entitled projects. That's it Thank you, mr. Mayor When you talk about the rosin area specific plan, my understanding is there was a reduction in the density requirement on this site Why was there not also the discussion about the realignment of the road at that time? The appellant did meet with city staff And requested the change in land use However, they did not request any changes to circulation at that time. So that was not analyzed or incorporated into the plan Okay, I'm going to ask the appellant the same thing or perhaps he can address it when when he gets his time as well Sue I'm going to ask you kind of a question about the spirit of our affordability Requirements in the city does the construction of this project with the ad use as potential affordable housing Does that meet that that spirit of affordable requirements? The project if it were to be approved would have to meet the half require the housing action plan requirements and I haven't done the analysis as to whether that particular number of affordable ad use would would satisfy those requirements But it again if they were approved they would have to meet those requirements either through construction of affordable units on site or Through the payment of in lieu fees So let me ask kind of a different way So once a unit is sold and a unit having the ad u that's attached to it That's the affordable could the homeowner then come to the city and ask the affordability requirement for that adu to be waived consistent with our adu policy not at this time if if the affordability was built into the project As a condition of approval it would have to remain affordable for the time period that's provided in the approval conditions okay If I may just add to that the adu policy it's universal to apply city-wide and these requirements apply to any project that that incorporates ad use so The owner occupancy and the affordability work hand in hand and they're a trade-off essentially so To be owner occupied then you can rent at a market rate for the adu To lift the owner occupancy then you have to make one of those Unaffordable units so that's part of the policy that the city council adopted. So if the Occupant the owner chose to live in the adu then the home would be subject to that affordability requirement Okay I think there there are two kind of separate issues one is the affordability provisions that mr. Rose is discussing which is The trade-off between affordability and the owner occupied requirement. That's one condition that the Project would have to meet the other is that all of the projects have to meet the housing Action plan I'm sorry allocation plan And have to provide a certain number of units as affordable or pay an in lieu fee so The the project could decide to Have the ad use with the owner occupancy requirement with no affordability restrictions They would then have to meet their affordability requirements By paying an in lieu fee. So those both of those Constraints will apply to the project both the number of affordable units or fee And the the linkage between either affordability or our occupancy It just to close out the contract that can be released by the city If the owner or a subsequent owner decides to be an owner occupant So it doesn't necessarily go on in perpetuity So I I guess That's sort of where my question is that is If the project gets approved based on an understanding of level of affordability that's in it And then the homes are sold Is there any guarantee that in perpetuity that affordable unit stays affordable Or can the owner once they take occupancy can they come to the city and have that requirement waived Or could they move into that affordable unit and keep their home as the market rate? So we anticipated this question and I'll just read what we Received today from our housing department The contract may be released by the city upon written evidence that the owner occupies a dwelling unit on the property In such an instance owner must occupy either the existing single family structure on the property Or the ad you or the junior ad you pursue it to the deed restriction So the answer is no If if I understand correctly The affordability contract With a current owner a subsequent owner if they choose to live in the one of the units then that contract can be Basically released by the city Right, so I want to be very clear because that's exactly what i'm asking is Once the project is approved with the level of affordability If the once the unit is sold if it is occupied by the owner they can have that affordability requirement waived That's correct it's correct in terms of the um ad you regulations As I understand it and I was just talking to director q and That the project itself As I mentioned before still has to comply with the housing allocation plan And so if they don't have the affordable units The I don't know offhand what the number of affordable units would would be required But if they don't have those Under a under an affordability agreement long term Then they'd have to pay the in-laws fees. So what director guin was just indicating to me Is that the project as it's currently configured? That staff and staff mr. Rose can correct me if i'm wrong Does not meet the housing allocation plan and so we'll have to pay separate affordable fees Once they've paid those fees Then the regulations that mr. Rose were talking about kick in and so the affordability That you can trade off as to the affordability or the owner occupied requirement right and so I guess The heart of my question is once the project is approved once it's built once it's sold The owner that occupies it can then waive the affordability requirement anyway regardless of if at this stage The developer paid the in-lu fee or built the unit Sorry, and I don't mean to belabor the point. I just want to make sure we're very clear on this I think it's a good question. So um the the What's being recommended? What's in the plan is to have a 30? I think 30 units of ad use as affordable your current city policy requires that if it's not owner occupants owner occupied What we're saying is that does not account for our housing allocation plan? It does not account for an affordable unit so typically a primary unit and The adu needs to be affordable locked into a long-term contract because the housing authority That gives you the right to not have to pay in-lu fees for the rest of the project if you get 15 percent of those units What they're recommending is not that they're recommending some of the adu's be affordable Which is already per your policy They have to be if the owner if the owners occupy the primary residence and your point your question Can it be reverted absolutely it can so if somebody buys that project sells at the next day They could move into that primary unit and release that affordability contract on the adu the way it's currently set up Okay, uh, thank you Other questions Yeah, can I uh keep you there mr. Hewn? um Just I have a number of questions, but I just wanted to finish up with vice mayor rogers Question around the affordability and locking into it in long term under does the appellant have a A timeline for how long these units would be deed restricted Or is the deed restriction just stay with them because they are adu's Yeah, so the adu's again this is doesn't isn't part of our housing allocation plan This is just a adu policy Our current adu policy requires that those are de-restricted While there's why there's not a primary resident in the in the primary units So i'm sorry de-restricted you have to be in the house somebody has to live there If somebody moves sells that property buys it an investment property Then the adu or one of those units has to be Locked into our affordability contract through the housing authority through the I think number of years. I believe it's 30 30 years 30 years is the contract For the affordability Okay, and is 30 30 years a standard per hour city regulations or our ordinance So adus are slightly different the um of housing allocation plan. I believe is 40 55 years So if if they were to say I want we want to get credit we want to do 50 percent affordable on-site Inclusionary affordable housing the primary unit and adu would be locked into an affordability contract for 55 years Okay, so that's what they are proposing is for 55 years the 55 years is actually for a density bonus So the housing allocation plan, which is for affordable housing is a 30 year term But with this project because they are adu's they're not the primary structures Then that term can be changed if a subsequent owner decides to live in one of the units So what i'm trying to get out here is it sounds like they do want to do affordable housing But that they're given our ordinance and given what their proposal is that Is there no actual enforcement mechanism? available to our city given this plan You know the the the current ordinance would enforce only if Somebody didn't live in the primary unit Okay, um, thank you so um What I wanted to do also I wanted this as a more general staff question Um, can you once again clarify are we voting on this project in particular? Are we voting for a general plan amendment? You would be voting on the projects in its entirety But much the focus has been on the general plan amendment because the real line circulation is Required in order for the subdivision to be possible as they've currently proposed it And given given that this That the appellants um proposal would impact already entitled projects and potentially future projects And we also do have a housing crisis and do want units built. Um, is there an A reasonable opportunity. Um, has there been or will there be a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to participate in a specific or general general plan amendment um going forward Yes, so as miss nickelson indicated, we're embarking upon our general plan update that will take several years another option and staff has Encouraged this for some time is to continue to work with the applicant to find a solution with this particular project As was also mentioned, it's rather uncommon to see a general plan amendment for a roadway alignment for a project A housing project that is at the low end of the density range Most frequently you see general plan amendments. They're asking to increase the density So staff has worked with the applicant for some time staff across all divisions And that is the true desire is to find a solution that works with the roadway alignment as it's proposed in the general plan So to answer the question. Yes through a general plan update It's a lengthy process as an alternative staff has been and continues to be Interested in working on a solution with this current proposal Okay, and i'll ask this question of the appellant as well but i'm curious to um when the rosaline area specific plan was conducted and Whether not you have any insight into the appellant's participation in that proceeding So the rosaline area specific plan was adopted by the council in october of 2016 And as a part of the outreach City staff did meet with true mark homes They did request a decrease in residential density on their project site They did not mention any desire to change circulation And was the circulation as put forth by our tpw staff the same as it is now as it was in october of 2016 Or has anything changed on the city side of it? Has the city changed its circulation plan since 2016? No, it has not Okay, and so it is the case that the appellant did not Request a change of circulation at that time Correct. Okay. Thank you And that opportunity would have allowed that broader scope of analysis And also the broader public conversation that needs to couple with An amendment to a regional circulation route like this Mr. Tewits, yeah, thank you I'm out of city attorney Recognizing that the adu policy currently governs these 30 adu units in the proposed project Is there anything if the council decides to move forward tonight? With this project to condition that those Fall underneath I guess the app versus the adu policy and we restrict them for 30 55 years No, you're the housing allocation plan will still apply and my understanding is they'll pay a fee for that Rather than building on site. That's my understanding But I I guess there's some dispute about that they would like to get the credit for these But under our adu policy the property owner does retain the option of either living in the house and and not being restricted to affordability or Or keeping it one of the units As affordable if they want to get credit for the housing allocation plan as well Both the primary and the adu would have to be affordable. So the the simple answer I've got to Pull out vice mayor rogers here for my clarity The answer is no we cannot condition the the title or the deed to keep those units special No not under not Not under the Adu policy the adu policy gives the property under that option early up here say we'll move you forward But you've got to have 55 years on those adus. We can't do that. No, okay And just to add to that a general plan amendment cannot be conditioned And so as we've indicated the project and the general plan amendment are not coupled Together so the general plan amendment that changes the roadway That will stay with us the project may or may not get built And so there's no way to condition that amendment to go with the project Mr. Vice mayor I apologize. I forgot one other question And I also because I was away from the dais at the start of the conversation I do need to do my my ex parte and disclose. I met with the applicant multiple times I met with multiple planning commissioners watched the planning commission meeting And nothing outside of the publicly available information was learned I did want to ask specifically about the transportation element This is three years in on council for me now This is the first time i've seen a change to the transportation element. How common are they and do we have a history of approving Changes outside the scope of a full general plan or specific plan redesign I'll defer to mr. Nutt, but I can say that in my time here 12 years now. I can't recall a Development project that has proposed a land use change relative to the the circulation It's not to say it hasn't happened, but I can't recall that I'm seeing nodding heads from the director. Thank you Council any other questions for staff Okay, mr. Scho, would you like to uh Let us know about the planning commission process Good evening mayor and council members. Um I'm going to start a little bit differently tonight I usually finish with what our vote was but I want to start with that tonight so that It's really clear what the vote was and what it meant We had five commissioners present Four of us after the staff report applicant presentation and public hearing Were really concerned about We wanted to deny the general plan amendment for reasons which i'll go into later That we could not make the findings for the general plan amendment We really wanted to Keep the housing in our realm and ask the applicant to Allow a continuance to come back because we saw the option the possibility that well Maybe not this particular product that could be a mixture of products of attached and detached But we really want to make clear to the council that the commissioners want the housing And we really are concerned about your council goals about getting housing the uh the applicant uh had started As part of their presentation they indicated that what they wanted us to do What they wanted the planning commission to do was to not make a decision But rather to kick it up to city council To have you guys take charge of this decision Recommend to staffs that they bring forward approval documents and do the sequel work the loan No vote of the commission commission Was in accordance with that it was not a vote To approve the general plan amendment and the project it was simply a vote acknowledging the request By the applicant and that commissioner was stating concerns about the perception in the city of Santa Rosa being difficult to develop So I just want to make sure that it's understood that that vote was not for approval of the general plan amendment and To make sure that we all understand The commission really wanted the housing and wanted to keep the opportunity to keep working with the applicant As it sounds like staff also does to Bring some housing to fruition in that area I'm just going to hit the highlights of what we what we heard in making our decision about the general plan amendment from staff That just as we just heard the general plan amendment proposal for a transportation circulation element is extremely unusual Just not not done For a lot of the reasons why we're seeing That mostly we would see general plan amendments for a land use change Typically an increase in density as opposed to a decrease in density We heard that this particular pro proposal has regional impacts that are unstudied Unnoticed in in terms of the individuals and Landowners that that may be impacted by this change We heard about the history of the modification of the north point parkway back in 2002 The the Dutton metal master plan of which the applicant was a huge part in creating That particular Transportation circulation that north point parkway area They we worked very hard as a planning commission because of that realignment at that time We wanted it to be done correctly And so it took some time to to get that done in in 2006 when the master plan was done And that the applicant brought forward their project in accordance with that alignment and later it was embodied in our general plan As you've heard we were concerned about potential impacts to already approved Projects or projects in the pipeline Potential impacts just to the regional circulation all of the the planning efforts that have gone into effect at this point And and key is just because a project is being brought forward with a general plan amendment If we approve the general plan amendment that stands, but the project may or may not be built As we saw with the applicant's original proposal back in 2006 Was not built Some of the points that we heard from the applicant Really were About the housing crisis and about the need for housing Their history with their land there in terms of having come forward with A three-story attached product and with the downturn in the economy and also just generally Currently that kind of product is just really not very feasible It's not really saleable and no one had an argument with that They did mention that they had come into Aped several times to try to talk with staff about Lowering the height of their existing project or modifying it in some way And that they were met with a strong no that they did can get did not get any cooperation from staff until recently and As chair I was not willing to let that comment go out in the public airways unchecked Or unchallenged and so I had staff Make a statement about Whether and they did not specifically recall applicant coming in over those years with other ideas But definitely describe that there would have been pathways offered You know, you know, how hard everybody here works to try to get a solution to get things moving forward So I really didn't want that perception out there and I wanted that corrected which we did The applicant Did participate And did work with staff as part of the roseland area specific plan process They worked with staff in a way to get their density reduced And we specifically asked the question which i'm glad you intend to ask again Why did you not bring this particular proposal forward at that time to to change the realignment if what you were doing was Having some kind of project in mind and reducing the density and the response that we got from the The appellant was they did not have a good answer for that question um one of the They were really highlighting their housing and their prod their project. They're very proud of the product type And their their ad use One of the things that that we had received As part of our packet early on was a map that showed an even dispersal of the affordable ad use And then at the time of the meeting that had that map had been changed and we had and I think it's in your packet There's a map that shows all of the below market rates with the ad use up against clustered up together against the street and so we asked about that change and Basically the appellant said well we're flexible on that So In our discussion, we were really taking up the first question You know is there a need to change the general plan and for the reasons that that you've heard and and that I'm trying to highlight We couldn't make the findings that there was that there was there was going to be tremendous sort of untested impacts And in favor of one project and that particular project was only looking at those traffic impacts in isolation to a piece of property as opposed to a regional Look and that we all felt that a Certainly it's always worth looking at our our circulation And land uses, but this would be better taken up In a more regional type of process like the roseland specific plan like a general plan update And so um, we hope that that happens So That was really our process and a lot of the details of of why we could not make the findings I think you know staff and then certainly Ms. Nicholson has been very thorough about about that So and then our vote came down to we really were hoping that the The appellant would allow us to continue They did not want to do that they asked for a straight up and down to get up to council And so that was where we came to our 401 vote Okay, thank you for your presentation council questions for the planning commission chair Then thank you so much for that presentation All right the applicant appellant opportunity to provide us information Let's wait till you get live if you can introduce yourself and then I think they'll load your presentation Wonderful, uh, great. Uh, hello. My name is Garrett Heinz. I'm the director of architecture with true mark homes True mark is a local home builder and based in san ramon, california We've been developing residential communities for over three decades throughout the greater bay area In 2018 true mark won the national master plan community of the year award for the fifth year in a row We were also named the 2018 national professional builder magazine home builder of the year I bring this up because it proves that true mark cares about the communities we work with in the homes we build True mark is here tonight because planning commission denied our request for a general plan amendment Based on fears and in our humble opinion and with all due respect assumptions presented by staff not facts Staff's denial presentation reports often use words even tonight such as could anticipated and potentially I am here to provide facts and testimony based on professional evaluations and real traffic models that will clearly unveil the realities and impacts of development In and around the dutton meadows master plan True mark has a significant history with the dutton meadows master plan as mentioned We took it through entitlements for 500 medium density three story homes in 2005 Christofferson homes was going to build our first phase The recession hit they had to drop out. It destroyed the economy destroyed the opportunity for that density The master plan which was approved. Oh, and we also created a 100 acre goby mitigation bank, which has been uh Mitigating cts rare plants and wetlands for this and other major developments in the southwest center rosa The master plan included a four-acre central park, which we already helped dedicate To the city in 2007 with an irrevocable offer of dedication The master plan also includes a 90 000 square foot grocery center Which we all knew wouldn't be feasible until all the once you hold up just one sec. We just lost the sure presentation Yep The yeah, sorry The 90 000 square foot grocery center was supposed to be the destination for this area not Providing a cut through for traffic In that particular area Amorosa village is the only portion of the master plan built over the past 14 years shown there in the red square It is a fully subsidized 100 affordable project by burbank housing providing roughly 160 affordable homes Already within this 500 home master plan Go ahead and skip to slide eight, please As shown tonight again, and we were asking for 211 new housing units 130 traditional two-story family oriented homes All within walking distance to the meadowview elementary school the southwest community park and the future Dutton meadow neighborhood park and a future grocery center 81 of the 130 homes comes with the one bedroom apartment above the rear detached garage an ad u Separate from the main house for a total of 211 diverse housing units for your community We're ready to build these right now. We have all our mitigations in place. We're ready to go staff no longer no longer Sorry, we submitted a formal tentative map application last june and have spent the past year working back and forth with staff Who completely reviewed the project providing numerous comments and directions followed by many plan revisions report revisions to the tune of $500,000 Staff was in support of the proposal guiding us through a positive neighborhood meeting and the site plan Including traffic department comments until late 2018 Staff no longer supported the project due to one thing a street alignment A street alignment supported by staff shown here in a green dashed line That cuts a 45 degree angle through the southwest santa rosa Staff a staff supported street alignment Shown Hold on That requires eminent domain and public funding to occur for 24 property owners A staff supported regional alignment already abandoned to the north of our site A staff supported street alignment that expert traffic consultants now conclude through our studies That is no better than our alignment a staff supported street alignment that creates an unsafe condition By putting a 45 mile an hour arterial in front of an elementary school Let's compare staff's alignment shown on the left in yellow with ours true marks on the right We're only talking about the yellow sections all the green connections will stay intact True marks alignment is three things better for your city Experts here tonight conclude it creates a safer elementary school situation by maintaining a 25 mile an hour street And a signalized easily controlled intersection in front of the men of u elementary school One intersection to handle parent pedestrian and bus circulation Staff's configuration on the left creates actually three points of conflict in front of the school not to mention a 45 mile an hour arterial True marks alignment allows 211 new homes Staff's alignment will result in no additional housing because the 45 degree angles created not only here on our site But all the other 24 properties on this north point parkway alignment Reduces the land efficient land efficiency by 24 5% Thirdly the city if truly interested in fulfilling its key land use and circulation plan for the roseland district Needs to do one thing it needs to build these connections What we are trying to do here is take a general plan from concept to reality And the reality is based on actual traffic modeling by two reputable bay area consultants True marks proposal street alignment performs better than staff's alignment and when completed will reduce traffic to acceptable levels If we cannot build a project that is financeable as presented without true mark no connecting roads that we built and traffic will only get worse We asked two qualified traffic engineers to independently study all the intersections in this in this scenario One is here tonight to provide testimony. They filled out a card for you The results that true marks plan is seven seconds faster in the morning and five seconds slower in the evening True marks plan moves traffic a net two seconds faster than staff's 45 degree north point parkway alignment The bottom line trade-off between the street alignments is the loss of 26 lots and 52 homes That is why we are here asking for your help to break the tie The loss of 52 homes turns a feasible project into an infeasible project In an infeasible project means none of us get anything we all lose This is an important concept for southwest hantarosa because as already pointed out staff has approved 318 new homes just to the south of dudden meadows and that rely on these connections Traffic modeling shows that these 318 homes without true mark adds 90 seconds of delay per car To the current miserable hern avenue traffic problem And takes the hern dudden meadow intersection shown here in the red circle from a d to an f with no relief in sight The street connections through dudden meadows will not occur as shown on your general plan without allowing true mark to be the catalyst For master plan development and build out The street connections that staff has been counting on for these 318 homes will not be built unless true mark has a project It can finance and build Until we have a project we can finance and build traffic on dudden meadows and hern will only worsen To unacceptable f levels But the true mark street alignment as presented will get bank financing and lead to the traffic relief We are all searching for And the new rooftops will be the catalyst for the remaining phases the street connections and the grocery center to develop Per the traffic reports submitted these blue sections go one more will you uh, there you go the blue sections there Ah Let me find my spot The blue sections when complete turn the surrounding signals on hern from fs to bs and c's For better or worse True mark in our 19 acres is the hub of this circulation plan without a feasible development your circulation plan cannot be built for True mark is providing a roadway solution that performs equal to the city's design But with a project that can be financed thus the homes and streets get built True mark is proposing a win-win solution. I believe the residents in southwest center doesn't want a solution Let's look at tonight's decision another way go a couple more with you Here you go If you deny true mark's appeal you get zero homes zero bmr's zero street connections No fees and 300 no 18 homes in the pipeline become at risk Versus if you approve true mark's appeal you get 211 needed homes 32 bmr's that can be deed restricted we can get into that in a minute And the needed connecting streets and 11 million dollars in fees Our request tonight as it's clear We'd like you to ask staff to come back with draft findings and conditions of approval based on what we've submitted Approve the proposed general plan amendment draft resolutions necessary to approve our vesting tentative map as submitted And adopt an addendum to the 2005 Dutton Meadows eir In closing we all know that traffic engineers focus on traffic arborist focus on trees public works focus on utilities your constituents focus on housing And so on You as decision makers must balance it all for what overall is best for the community Not just one issue To me the obvious question that you as decision makers must ask tonight final sentence If you say no to true mark, what is your plan to make these connections across the true mark property ever happen? Thank you Thank you for your presentation council questions for the appellant Mr. Tivis, thank you, mayor you know I One question that I had that you know was news to me and I think a question that merits asking is Why was there the decision to do the reduction in density? So you were you went higher up in no six Was it just the the softening of the housing market was anticipated? Although I think my memories served times were pretty good. No six. I don't know what you were looking at at the time um, you know Can you shed some light on that? Absolutely. So 2006 2007 is when we were approved at that time true mark Didn't build as many homes as we do now And christofferson homes was your best builder in the area at that time and they were online to buy the project The recession was starting to come. They saw it coming and they dropped the project Then the recession really hit and from then on three-story housing in southwest center rosa unless it's subsidized Like bourbon housing gets it's impossible to finance It's way more expensive to build and the revenues on the homes go are lower It's a it's a no win. So again, we have come in since about 2010 My business partner and I have come in and talked to claire hartman more than once and asked Can we please reduce the density and we returned away to build just normal two-story homes like everyone else in that area We were turned away until 2017. We came back in and we were pretty much met with open arms Okay, let's talk now. And so well, I guess it was 2016 when we submitted our application or agreed to support the push in 2016 to Lower the density for exactly what we wanted and we had hoped at the time that we could accommodate the existing street configuration We've tried and we're here telling you we cannot It's not a bluff. We need this many homes and we can do it and maintain your street circulation But it did pencil in 06, you know 6 the three-story townhomes pencil I think I had another question here Oh, and this is something that I think is to your benefit But this property was a cts habitat the required mitigation banking on your part correct the whole 50 acre master plan So I will say that to the to the council that you know, that's a difficult thing for most folks to be able to accommodate Those are those are my two questions for now. I do have a question for staff. Is this not the appropriate time? Is it related to the applicant's presentation it is yes, please go ahead The the question that I wanted to ask is pertaining to the their claim that we would have to perform eminent domain To connect those arterial streets for the specific area plan Are those 24 properties owned by folks other than The applicant and what is our what is our strategy to bring it to fruition? Good evening mayor council members Jason that director of transportation and public works The city is not currently on the right of way through a majority of those properties And would need to acquire them similar to what we've done here through Development activity or if we get to a point where there are a few remaining properties We may have to acquire those through our eminent domain process Okay, thanks mr. Nutt That's all my questions mayor, okay as long as you have questions Yeah, thank you very much gentlemen I wanted to give you the opportunity to answer the same question that I asked chair cisco Regarding the roseland area specific plan in 2016 And i'm hopeful that you can shed some light on why you didn't make this request for circulation at that time We've been focusing for six years on reducing the density That was our main focus that the three-story townhomes attached product in southwest santa rosa was not feasible We had hoped that we could maintain the street system the way we knew it was on the general plan and Since 2016 we've tried and we can't make it work We can't we can't that street system costs us 52 homes 26 lots And that makes the project infeasible Okay, thank you Mr. Ice mayor I also wanted to follow up on one of the comments that was made about the planning commission meeting Can you address why the affordable units were all clustered around the the street rather than Diffused as in prior It was just a diagram. They can they can go anywhere. We can disperse them however you'd like And uh our experience lately with ad use has been very successful Especially because just the general size of the units makes them by design affordable And we've been able to deed restrict them for 30 55 years That is not a problem and it doesn't change with ownership We we can work all through that they can be deed restricted the ad use As long as you'd like And then a question for staff. Have you had a chance to review the traffic plans Obviously, there seems to be a dispute here What staff believes the impact will be on the other six projects versus What the applicant believes will be the impact on the other six projects Good evening and rob sprinkle city traffic engineer um The analysis of the intersections is more than just looking at the level of service which Does meet our criteria for operations. It really does need to look at the regional impacts which which this doesn't do um The way the street layout is being proposed It does put more traffic onto the herna avenue, which is one of the um Direct items in the rosin specific plan that we're trying to avoid The plan that that is in there in the rosin specific plan um Does divert the traffic away from her which accomplishes what we're trying to accomplish here So I'm hoping i'm answering your question with that answer Yes, sort of So obviously we heard about the levels of service For for me in particular and i'm sure for other council members One of the key questions is whether or not approval of the realignment of the road will Have a negative impact on the other six projects that are in the pipeline there as well Understanding from the city manager's previous comments that some of that is unknown I'm wondering from a traffic Flow perspective if you've had a chance to look at the reports done by independent folks if you had a response to it Or or or was it just about the uh the timing? No, I have I have looked at the traffic reports. There's one actually sent recently. Um, I believe towards the end of last week um And there's there's some clarification we need from those traffic reports. Um is specifically the one that was sent last week There are some assumptions in there that I don't agree with in their level of services and um And how they're and what they're including in their About trying to get too specific but just in without including Some of the movements are including in the different intersections um again really just pulling back a little bit Making such a big change too and it may seem like a little change But making the change in how the drivers are going to go through these intersections Is is pretty significant in as far as the overall region is going to uh be impacted All right, thank you Any other questions While you're here mr. Sprinkle if you could just comment or mr. Knight, um, we we heard from the appellant Comments about the speed in front of the schools based on different alignments Can you share me this perspective on the general plan alignment So I wanted to if I could just follow up on sure Vice mayor roger's comments So so we've spent a lot of time talking about the six properties six six proposal or uh projects that are working on Dutton meadow when we think regional we're actually still talking about the airport area We're talking about the corporate center parkway area All of those areas were components and substantial components of the alignment that was being considered during the roseland specific plan And the prior general plan And so I we need to think well beyond what's occurring on dutton meadow And that's really the area of concern that staff has had is when we think about the types of developments That could be going on in the corporate center area And the businesses and and that type of development that we want to occur It was this alignment on north point parkway that was to bring the type of activity the commercial activity In and in and out of that that space And so while we are building residential in and around this portion of the southwest Area there is this substantial commercial district That we've been trying to foster for a couple of decades that relies exclusively on this connection And so that's just something that that when we talk about wanting to expand or needing to expand The scope of the study here It really goes beyond these six other Projects that exist on dutton meadow. It's just something larger Thank you. And then director guen if I can just ask you I know we've talked a lot about housing being a priority for the city obviously the insinuation is Approve get these units disapprove don't get any units. Can you talk a little bit about what we are actually doing or what has been approved recently in san rosa? Yeah, and I think that's a good point. We're We've spent the past couple years with a housing priority with as council put forth We have a number multi-family units. I believe the number I sent an email out last night I believe is over 500 units that have been approved over the past four months four to five months A majority of those are multi-family We are seeing a number of three-story walk-up type apartment complexes around the city Spread around which is a good thing. So that market is strong is what we're seeing Um, we are looking for higher density. We're looking for multi-family. We're looking for near transit Trying to figure out how to bring connectivity through bike lanes and walkways And so all that's coming into play. So one of the things we've we've been pushing is we need housing We need housing more than anything But but we not at not at the expense of other things The character of the community how things are connected and as director not mentioned are how we connect industrial Zones to commercial zones to residential zones to our highway network So that's something we need to look at and keep focus on while we produce this housing But the we are seeing a lot of housing come through as I mentioned Over over about 500 units in this past four to five months We still have another six to 700 units that are close to approvals that are moving through the process So I can go to the question about school safety in the traffic comparing the two absolutely The 45 mile an hour speed limit that was Shown on the slide is is definitely arbitrary Just to give an example her avenue currently is Posted 30 miles an hour speed limit school zones by state are required to have 25 mile an hour or lower down to 15 mile an hour school speed zones with a engineering traffic survey support The design speed of the When I say proposed I'm meaning the rosin specific plan alignment The design seats for the curves is at 35 miles an hour. So this street would never be posted at 45 miles an hour Thank you, mr. Chalets Thank you, mayor. I have two follow-up questions based on my colleague's input You know, where does the her and avenue interchange play into all this will that be a traffic alleviator? Yes, her and avenue will help alleviate the traffic on on her to the approach, but It's it's more localized and it will accommodate the backups that are currently existing there that go Approximately to the train tracks Okay, the second question is a question for the true mark folks.  Yes on the commitment and I'd like to clarify Some of the comments that staff had made about the deed restrictions to clarify what we were proposing Sir if I could just Guide you first if you can identify yourself Sorry robin miller true mark home, sir So you had your presentation if you could just answer the questions that council is asking of you, please sure Yes, we are willing to deed restrict the homes. I was just trying to clarify the deed restriction Okay, I'd like you to clarify the deed restriction Thank you, sir So there staff has been absolutely correct. There is two layers one for the ad use where There is a deed restriction that will say if you are not owner occupied then you are going to Have an affordable component to the property The unit that needs to be the unit of rent needs to be Rented out as affordable Beyond that we were committing to Deed restricting For the the 30 year or the 55 year if the council prefers The 80 the ad use On 32 proper on 32 lots For affordable rate for below market rate. We were deed restricting those specific units Not just if it's owner occupied Just straight up deed restricted below market rate So I just wanted to make that clear that 32 units guaranteed regardless Those are going to be affordable And and so sue is a follow-up we what i'm what i'm inferring based on his comments in yours is He can voluntarily do that when he's issued the title But we have no way of Forcing it. Is that is that correct? We can't you know make it a contingency of our planning department staff To only issue a building permit pending that development um If if the project applicant commits voluntarily offers that up as part of the project itself so the 30 two 32 25 Deed restricted units that then is incorporated into the project description And it's that particular project description that is approved And and will be binding on on the applicant So we could not independently require the applicant to do to provide those units But the applicant can decide voluntarily to offer that up and commit to it And building permits can be held up until the the deed restrictions are in place Okay, thank you. Those are all my questions. Thank you, sir All right any other questions for the applicant All right, thank you gentlemen All right, I am now going to open the public hearing we have currently have two cards the first speaker GP radich followed by chris kenzel Go ahead to your life. Thank you My name is gp radich. Thank you for Hearing my comments mayor and council members First of all, I want to clarify something that I heard tonight that The speed limit on her and avenue has never been 35. It's always been 30 I got a ticket for speeding at 35 I know from personal experience Moving right along The traffic I've been studying the traffic since I've lived there and it's been 20 Years, so I've had a personal study of it because I use those roadways etc etc as they are right now they need help If if more trap if more houses a higher density comes before Roadway adjustment. I mean her her and avenue has already been widened Once and it's still inadequate all of the keep clear Paint on the roadways indicate that there's a lot of people And they're all bogged down at the smart train crossing too and that wasn't shown in any of the Illustrations so that would be a traffic signal as well So it's it's alignment is being discussed but not volume of traffic and My request is just designed for the reality of the area It's a service sector and how I define service sector is that these are people that use their vehicles to get to the non-service sector, which is um all the unaffordable houses to put it politely And so these people can't use public transit. I can't take my chainsaw On a bus. I mean I could But I don't know how that would go over According to the bus driver or the smart train and from there I have to get to my job site so these are the people that live in that area and lots of cars for every one of the houses that are being built Every adult has at least one car. So it's 211 Proposed houses. You double that it's 422 new cars and that's just for the adults then the teenagers want to start driving Those cars have to be accommodated by the roads and also parked when they're not being in use So those are some of the points that I wanted to bring up and I thank you so much for Being here so late. Everyone gets an espresso next time Thank you. Thank you Chris Kinzel followed by thomas ells Good evening mayor and council. My name is chris kinsle. I'm a traffic engineer with tj cam transportation consultants We were asked by the developer to review the previous study that had been done by W trans and but to to look at it in a fairly specific manner and that is our our starting point was at the Diagonal roadway proposed under the general plan alignment was not feasible. So what can we do? Alternative to that and and how does it work and how does it compare? So I think we we concluded was that both alignments provide Adequate service both now and in the future. I think what we did find was in absent of this Development and and the street running through the development Then the approved projects that the 300 plus approved projects will need to Continue up Dutton meadows and make a right turn at her and that intersection then becomes failed In the long term when all the street connections are built that are planned on the general plan The conditions are going to be acceptable What we found was that the One of the one of the points that's been made tonight is that the We don't want to run through traffic through the residential neighborhood And you know when you think about it when you put these two Streets up side by side They're both running the traffic through the residential neighborhood One of them does it with higher speeds and and and and has this similar Impact in terms of how the levels of service work and so on but in terms of Attracting through traffic to the neighborhood at a higher speed And we're told tonight that maybe it's there's going to be more traffic someday Running through the single-family neighborhood. I'm not sure that's a positive thing or is in keeping with the general plan We also noted that the diagonal roadway when it lands near the school presents I realize that the design is not finalized But there's some driveways there the main entrance to the school is a northern driveway and this is right at the end of the curve and The alignment will provide require all the traffic on Dutton meadows to make this jog through the intersection make a left turn We're going right up the street and the end of that curve Then is the main entrance to the elementary school So, uh, there's That issue as as well So I wanted to make the point that it seemed to me that both roadways do the job And one of them provides for traffic and enough capacity Through the neighborhoods at a lower speed. Thank you. Thank you. Thomas ells Thank you for the opportunity to speak and Thank you for staying here and considering this Going back many many years now I met with a planner who did the design of these roads At that time That was already going through the master plan process had just gone through the master plan process And he was approving the golf course driving range and And we spoke that day but more to the point it was the intent of All of the design effort to bring traffic from the northwest to the southeast To shunt it away from What is the corby over crossing and and her and avenue? Because it can't take the traffic of having all that commercial area over by the airport if I point and using north and Normally rather than when I'm facing but and and as well as the commercial area that that replaced the the Hotel that was there on santa rosa avenue for the raiders and all that I forget what it's called now But the point is is it to put that commercial in over there? You couldn't have all the traffic going over her and all that commercial. We couldn't have both of those Because hers can't handle it and even with the with the new design it can't handle it. So That is that is proposed yet. So if all that traffic is going to her You're really going to end up with a supermass worse than it is now Actually worse than it is now That's why that traffic had to go from the from the northwest to the southeast on those kind of jogging alignments like that Um, that that was the purpose otherwise that it would have to you would have to have at her You would probably have to have a runner park expressway Right there Okay, that's the kind of traffic that you would have and that's the kind of design That's why at runner park expressway. They had to redo it three times. They rebuilt that three times Why didn't he why didn't he why didn't he uh in order to accomplish that? I think I don't anyway Um, I can't explain that but but that's what it it was and that's what would have to happen at her And that's why that traffic goes like that And it probably needs to and I'm really sorry about that for that project because um We need that project and we need and and we need those roads and the circulars but It's been this way for that entire time for since 1994 1995 Sorry, thank you Thank you, Thomas. Those are all the cards I have you don't have to fill one out If you'd like to address the council on this item, would anyone like to make any additional comments? Seeing no one rise I will close the public hearing Council any questions Madam city attorney, do you have something? Uh, mr. Mayor? I would like to take a moment and clarify Some other some additional layers to the proposal the applicant's proposal of the 32 affordable ad us I do want to clarify Yes, the applicant can make that commitment that can become part of the project and would be enforceable by the city That being said, I'm not making a commitment as to whether those 32 ad you limited Affordable units would satisfy the requirements of the housing allocation plan In general the housing allocation plan does require that the units that are affordable be comparable to the other units In the project. They're generally rental units. There are provisions in the housing allocation plan for some flexibility and innovation so it's There's no commitment at this point as to whether those Would satisfy the requirements of the housing allocation plan the second point is as was mentioned earlier The general plan amendment does stand on its own and if approved There is no assurance that the project ever gets built. So It does stand alone and and and would survive Even if a different plan was put in place Thank you for the additional information council any other questions for staff mr. Davis I have a follow-up question on what you just said sue. Um, just as a point of clarification So what i'm reading into that is that they can voluntarily Deed restrict the units we can require it in the project description in order to be issued a building permit So there's that enforceability component still there Correct, but what we're i'm also hearing is that they would basically also have to pay the in-loop fee potentially They may or may not that would be an analysis that would be done by staff looking at does it meet the The standard requirements of the housing allocation plan Does it provide as an alternative some innovation? That might be acceptable Those analyses haven't been done because this proposal is very late in the process It's also part of the conditional use permit That's a That has not been as much of the focus as the general plan amendment the circulation plan Okay, thank you Any other questions Okay, could I ask someone to Provide the council once again, what are our options here before I asked mr. Sawyer to Take us to the next step um, so and it's also in our presentation, but um, the first option is to go with staff recommendation Which is to deny the appeal based on how it's presented and how the project has Been analyzed to date Another option is to uphold the appeal support that general plan amendment, which is the fundamental any even An option to go as far as approving or provide direction to approve the project which would We wouldn't be able to do that tonight, but we would take Direction staff would take direction and then Continue to process the project as proposed which will require staff analysis Um, and a complete environmental review and then bring it back To your attention We could also Continue the item So one option that is put forth through this discussion is that The fundamental issue with the proposed general plan amendment is the scope of review is so narrow It's neighborhood focused and what staff is asking for is is simply that it be a broader focus Which will allow for broader analysis, but also broader public communication about the impacts But in an informed way um That information could be brought back to the council, but as an alteration it could also be sent back Direct staff to work with the applicant to do that work that analysis that public conversation And you have the authority to send it back to planning commission if you'd like instead of coming straight back to council Uh, and then another option that's come up, but we all acknowledge It's not timely and and housing is urgent is the option to fold the general plan amendment into the general plan update process That's always an option, but as we acknowledge That's not staff's preference necessarily because it's longer term and we do need housing and the applicant's ready to produce housing Great, thank you for that option update. Mr. Sawyer, I believe you have this item to start our conversation I do mayor. Thank you and for conversation I will introduce the resolution of the council the city santa rosa Denying the appeal and upholding the planning commission's denial of a conditional use permit for dudden meadow subdivision Located at 2650 2666 2684 dudden meadow and 1112 and 1200 herna avidu file number c up 18 dash 101 Wait for the reading So we have a motion and a second We'll put it up for comments Mr. Tibbets I'm actually going to start with a question Following up on what you said miss harbin How long would The broader analysis take let's say we continue the item We run the broader analysis. What time impact is that going to have on the applicant? Ball parks are fine Yeah, I I uh, I may defer to my counterparts here because one of the Things that we would have to look at is what's the scope of environmental review that would be required Whether it's an environmental impact report because we project or anticipate through initial scoping that there would be a potential for a significant impact So if there is then that's a path and as you know, those could take you know, 12 months Even if it's focused Otherwise, if it's through initial scoping it even with the wider analysis that it would be a Potential impact that could be mitigated to less insignificant. We could make use of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration and that's greatly reduces the the time, but it's still probably a six month process That's so as a follow-up then you also mentioned that, you know, I recognize we're here tonight to change the road potentially But the project still has to go through the process at which time we can require the project description to lock in deed restrictions on the ad use We could potentially increase the number work with the applicant to increase the number of density. Am I correct in my assumption? But that's how and then it the project would be I mean approved at that point Well, the one thing that's not before you tonight is that the density specifically you can certainly Make a statement as a counsel of what your interests are in terms of future iterations of project revisions But there is a land use That does that is in place now that has been approved through that specific Plan process that has that reduced density. So that is current policy And the applicants have a right to build to that current policy There's a range and they're at the lower end of the range. So there's little room without changing the land use designation but that can certainly be Forwarding comments by the applicant. Should they be asked to go back and revise their their approach? Thank you Any of the comments before no No, no now would be the time. Yeah, please You know this one for me. I actually when I had heard that we Potentially couldn't bind the ad use to affordability The project lost a lot of cachet for me, but now that it sounds like there's a pathway forward for that to occur Um, I'm looking at it more favorably But I recognize that we're here today to talk mostly about the road and the impact of the road And it's difficult because when we go through the specific planning process We have experts that we hire and we rely on to give us their best analysis What I haven't heard tonight and if staff wants to make comments on it after I comment That's fine. I welcome that but What we have here is a very difficult piece of land to work with, you know, it's rare that I actually Hear or meet developers who want to come in build in southwest santa rosa Which is a priority area for us that have the capacity and the time To do mitigation banking pay those credits and do mitigation banking I mean, I believe it can be a two to five year process with fishing game last time I heard um So my concern is that If the traffic if the acute traffic impacts in that area Are not significant And this developer then decides, you know, we're we're out of here. We're moving on It's going to be a long time before we find somebody else to take their place pay those mitigation credits and go through the process with fishing game and We're not going to have the specific plan roads in that amount of time not to mention the eminent domain hurdles that are potentially facing us I just if traffic is bad now I'm actually what I am reading into this and I'm no expert Is that we actually might be able to lessen traffic impacts with this Not as good roadway and a potential her and avenue interchange So that's kind of what i'm thinking at this time and that and that this this plan Um is good to move forward, but I see jason here who's probably going to correct some of my assumptions No, actually council member. I won't correct assumptions I just want to do some additional clarifications and and if you thought about if you if you look back to the image that That the appellant um put on the screen originally from their 2006 Proposal they adequately They adequately identified what north point parkway was which is a parkway Its intention was not to be a residential street with front on housing to be a 25 mile per hour street It was intended to move traffic through the quadrant of town And they they they found a way of putting a developable products that had back on to that parkway Like we've done with stony point road in most cases like we've done with uh fountainville parkway Other streets that were intended to be regionally Or are significant in that quadrant of town. That's what north point parkway was intended to be Not a residential street with 25 mile per hour speed limits and front on Front on housing. Um, and so um, it was just the reason I wanted to come up and make that statement was was I think there are um potential places where we could go as staff to work with a developer to talk about what those values are For that particular uh for that particular property But it really comes down to from what I've heard is it's it's a it's an identification of what that street was intended to be What the general plan intends it to be and how we should be utilizing it in the future Thank you director nut assistant city manager nut Just let me any comment you'd like to make Uh, I just want to um appreciate both true mark homes and our city staff for It sounds like a whole bunch of work that everybody's done trying to get to a place of agreement And I know that it's uh painful for everybody when we can't all have what we want at the same time I am um Reluctant to pass up the opportunity for additional housing, but I believe that the case for Dealing with our circulation issues can be adequately addressed during the The general plan amendment and um and our upcoming review in 2020. Um, so With that, I won't be uh, I'll be supporting staff recommendation and won't be supporting um our appellant tonight But I am hopeful that they are able to break ground eventually Mr. Alvarez Mr. Sawyer Well the the appellant was pretty clear with the planning commission as far as how they wanted to move forward Is the appellant, um, would they consider Continuing discussion analysis on this project So at at this point just just to to I assume I can ask whether or not a um a continuation Or to continue this item would be an appropriate path this evening And I think that given it's one of our three choices That it would be my my hope is that there we could continue the conversation Um because I have I do have concerns about traffic in the future and I don't want um The grandchildren of the future to look back and say what were they thinking when they created this What our experts are suggesting it could be a mess Um not just today and tomorrow but years down the road when we're built out Um that traffic patterns and the use and the flow um Will be much different than it is today And it's that and that is what i'm thinking about and there's a lot that has been a lot of time and energy put into designing Our roadways and circulation patterns to to accommodate and to address future future housing so um Given that there the the applicant is willing to um And assuming the council may be and I could change my my motion If I could just offer we have two more folks on the council make comments and then after you hear from all of us If you want to change your motion, you okay with that? Absolutely. Okay, mr. Vice mayor Thank you, mr. Mayor I think for me what this really hinges on is the decoupling of the general plan amendment from the project approval and I think that As we have already seen with this site You can have a project that gets approved and then it doesn't end up getting built and not understanding the full impact On how the realignment of the road is going to take place In the broader scheme of things It it feels difficult for me to make that change Knowing that this project might not end up being the the final product that comes before us I would agree with councilmember soyer About continuing the item my request would be to continue it back at the planning commission Because from looking at this project there is no way that this comes back to this council In a substantively similar form It still gets approval without this change without this general plan change of the of the road And our planning commissioners do provide a lot of value in terms of making projects better So that would be my request is that uh before it comes back to us and perhaps An agreement is struck and the planning commission is good with it And it doesn't end up needing to be appealed to us ultimately I'd ask that it goes back to the planning commission And I would like to echo the vice mayor's comments because this is one of the things that What can we all agree on? We need more housing. How do we get it done? Well this path if It sounds like we still have more work to do and what I heard from chair sisco and other planning commissioners Is that that that sounded something that they had an interest in let's do some more work on it Because that ultimate goal for all of us is more housing. This one does not work for me specific project based general plan amendments I really appreciate director nets or assistant city manager Nets comments about its original approach We can't look at the small little just this project. We have to look at the bigger issue So again, I would be very supportive of hopefully continuing this to let's find a way to get this done I appreciate that Mr. Sorer, thank you mayor and This council has has shown Definitely an appetite for building more housing and there's a lot to like about this project And it is hope that the moving it back to the planning commission Um And with their expertise and and help To guide this project and the staff and then we can come not back to us But can move directly into being built because we would only see it on appeal unless there was a A general plan which I would hope would not be requested. So in that case I'm so sorry to interrupt you, but I do want to make a point of clarification Should the commission can consider new information and approve the The project it would be Subject to the general plan amendment, which is a recommendation by the commission and actual action by the council So even if it's favorably received by the commission, the general plan amendment itself will be finalized at the council So you would see that okay So To simplify this this motion Move to continue this item I think you have to first If you would rescind your former Motion, yes withdraw your form yet withdraw your former motion and does the second have to be rescinded as well That needs to be clarified No, it's enough that the mover So I was the motion the form of motion and and move that we continue This item to allow for applicant to change project or provide additional information and analysis to send it back to the planning commission Is that adequate One clarification is the direction with your motion To send it back to the commission with a broader analysis for the general plan amendment Which includes the roadway realignment or is it to go back to the planning commission with a project redesign Under the current roadway alignment. So in that case there would be no need Potentially for a general plan amendment that was my intention was to Um Retain our staff's recommendation on the alignment I think the request should be both so that we have as many options to explore because again The analysis might lead us to support There, you know get we want to have options. We don't want to be restricted in the approach We just want a more thorough analysis. And so we would like both things under consideration So both the current Configuration I actually think as it's written up there is is is adequate is adequate So I don't have to I don't have to call out the general plan amendment. No Okay So everyone's comfortable with that I'm afraid to ask you to restate that As per written I've moved to continue the item to allow for applicant to change project or provide additional information And analysis and waive further reading and send it back to the planning commission And that's all the reading Second second We need cue cards out there. Are there any additional comments based on that new motion? Seeing none, I ask for your votes and that passes with six i's Thank you very much from both the applicants appellants and for staff and for you mr. Sawyer Um item 17 was written communication Any questions? Seeing none Any additional public comments? We do have one Agenda item 18 tony geraldie Thank you for sticking with us tony Wait a sec. All right you live Okay Good evening. May I show at home? Vice mayor roger's distinguished members of the city council. My name is tony geraldie proud 30-year resident 680 elsa drive Laptime resident snowman county Here before you as a representative supervisor james gore appointed who appointed me to the snowman county fair board of directors To extend an invitation to our upcoming 80 30 annual snowman county fair The fair takes place august 1st through august 11th The theme of this year's fair is really exciting Back to our roots and cowboy boots, which is Kind of a throwback to the days of Country western and that's it's a great theme and it's going to continue on with the hall of flowers I took a peek at the hall of flowers today. It's coming along really nice We're going to have one of the best hall of flowers in Many years. I know that's a favorite of fair goers and that's really really exciting I want to thank council and the city staff on the really exciting Cali drive that will take place on sunday morning Sunday the fourth at 10 a.m. Let's throw back to our sunday 5th snowman county fair eight years ago. Yeah, and so that's it's going to be really exciting. It's going to be a hoot so and Along with all the new stuff that I just discussed Where you've got nightly entertainment. We've got a lone star the average white band Bands every single night returning favorites Events during the fair we've got our norcal brew fest the junior livestock auction 4h and ffa kids proudly displaying their animals throughout the fair We've got great fair food We'll have the lobster corn dogs and the crispy cream cheeseburgers The great carnival rides The rodeo demolition derby. We've got three nights of monster trucks Santa Rosa Day is thursday august 8th and if We'd love to have you in the winter circle race three that is the santa rosa horse race Again, that's thursday august 8th come for lunch Enjoy the fair. I'll see you at the winter circle I know fair staff or i'm sorry city staff is most likely to receive materials to Help you thoroughly enjoy the fair And we look forward to having having everyone come out and look forward to seeing you at the fair. Thank you Thank you, tony. You're the first public commenter at this hour that actually generated hoots from the city council So congratulations tony and with that meeting adjourn