>> Good evening.
>> We're going to call
to order a meeting of the
Planning Commission of July
14th, 2026. Madam Secretary,
roll call, please.
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> Thank you. Vice Chair
Zahner, would you lead us
in the pledge?
>> Fortino Dickson just
messaged. She's
on her way.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice
for all.
>> Thank you. Moving on
to item number 4, our
conflict-of-interest
declaration. Do any
commissioners have a conflict
with the agenda?
>> No.
>> Seeing none. Changes
to the agenda, Director
Schroeder, are there any
changes tonight?
>> We have no changes
to the director, Chair.
>> Thank you.
>> To the
>> I'm the director.
>> I still have a job. Moving
on to item number 6.1, our
presentation. On the general
plan land use and zoning
designation for 8955 Condie
Lane, Windsor Creek
Elementary. Director
Streeter, presentation,
please.
>> Thank you, Chair, members
of the Planning Commission.
So, the item right now is
on request of the Commission, a
brief discussion of the
Windsor Creek Elementary
School site, 8955 Condie
Lane. And how that would relate
to regulatory controls that are
on the property,
including the General Plan,
land use designation,
and the zoning. So, the purpose
of this presentation is
to talk about the General
Plan, what it is,
what the zoning code is,
and then how it applies
to this site. To talk about
what the planning process would
be for residential development
on the site.
to discuss other forms
of regulation that we have
for land uses, including the
California Environmental
Quality Act and state law. And
then outline opportunities for
community engagement should a
proposal be analyzed to change
what the designation is
for that site. And obviously
there is a proposed project
for the Windsor Creek
Elementary site. We will not be
discussing the project
specifically. We'll just be
talking
about residential development
on the site. Part of this is
because we just received the
application yesterday. So,
staff hasn't had any time to
review what's being proposed.
Additionally, any land use
development proposal that would
be considered
for that site would come
before the Planning
Commission. And
since that is not
on the agenda today,
it would be premature for the
Planning Commission to discuss
any specific project.
>> Okay.
>> So, as I mentioned,
the site is the location of the
former or the former location
of the Windsor Creek
Elementary School. The
buildings are still there, but
it no longer operates as a
school. It's approximately
11.5 acres,
and the parcel does include
Armando Renzulla Way, which
connects up to Condie Lane. It
is adjacent to Windsor Creek.
the actual waterway. And it's
within our station area. So
that's generally walking
distance
to the SMART train station.
There's additional planning
that has gone
into development as it relates
to transit-oriented development
and development that we'd like
to see in our downtown or
within proximity to transit.
The general plan
for the site is public,
quasi-public, which generally
means institutional uses or
public uses. Recreation and
parks are allowed uses
in those locations.
Obviously, schools would be
allowed and other type of civic
buildings or civic land uses.
Importantly, it's worth noting
that residential uses are not a
permitted use within that land
use designation. The way that
the zoning code and the
General Plan work together
General Plan is basically a
roadmap for how the town
envisions the development
occurring. And the zoning are
the rules that are in place
to realize that vision. So, the
zoning implements the General
Plan. It's public
institutional. And it, again,
allows the types of land uses
that I just described that we
envision for the site in the
General Plan. It does not allow
residential development.
Additionally, on the site there
are some environmental
constraints. There's a flood
hazard overlay. And as I
mentioned, the zoning kind
of sets the rules. So, what
types
of buildings are allowed, what
heights, the intensity,
the proximity
to the property line, things
like that, in addition
to the actual land use,
are all regulated by the zoning
code. I mentioned the property
is also within the Station
Area Plan. The plan is meant
to implement a special type
of development that we'd like
to see occurring close
to transit. This is in concert
with state guidance as well as
regional planning to try to
locate the highest densities
and intensities and diversity
of land uses
in areas that are easy
to access easy to access both
by car but also by transit and
pedestrian and bicycle and
other modes. And it's worth
noting that we are currently
in the process
of updating the Station Area
Plan. This is an entirely
grant-funded process,
and we're expecting it to take
about a year. As I mentioned,
it just kicked off. And it's
really to update the plan
to better align with best
practices that we've learned
for the areas around transit.
It's timely
since we're a little
over a year now with having
transit service coming
to downtown Windsor. And an
example I like to give is that
the previous station area plan
had a lot of our downtown
square footage dedicated
to office uses, which at the
time probably made sense, but
now that we realize the
dynamics of land use
in the current age, we need
to rethink some things. So,
that's one
of those things that's going
to be considered is the types
of land uses that we'd like
to see in our downtown.
>> Okay.
>> As I mentioned, the
Windsor Creek site is
within that downtown boundary.
So, part
of this process is considering,
is the current designation
appropriate? Would the town
like to see a different
designation there? What would
the town's vision be for the
Windsor Creek site? So, I'd
encourage everyone in the room
to participate
in this process. We do have a
meeting scheduled right for
in this room next Monday from
5 to 7. We will provide
refreshments. And
in addition, we have some,
very quick surveys
on the table over there, just
3-question surveys that we've
just been we call them
intercept surveys. So, I've
been asking people
on the train platform, walking
around the town green,
just a couple quick questions
about how people use the
downtown currently and how
they'd like
to see the downtown changed,
if at all. So, I encourage
everyone to just fill out those
quick surveys if you can and
drop them in the basket. It
helps our planning process.
But please
>> Thank you.
Be engaged and be a part
of this process. So, I did
mention we have received a
preliminary application
for development on the
Windsor Creek site.
At this time,
we have not completed any
review of whether it's a
complete application,
what's being proposed,
analysis of how it aligns
with or does not align
with the town's regulations.
So, it'd be premature
to discuss it at this time. But
I will acknowledge that an
application has been received.
It's a preliminary application,
so it's not a formal
application. There's no set
path to decision-making
at this point. This is purely
for staff
to review and comment on.
But it is publicly available.
It's public information. So,
at the end of the slideshow,
I do have information
for how members of the public
community can review that
project and comment
on it and be a part of the
process as it moves forward.
>> Okay.
>> So, as I said, there's no
public hearing scheduled.
There are no approvals set
to take place at this time.
We've just received that
preliminary application.
There's also been a lot
of talk about streamlining,
allowing development to move
around the town's general plan
and zoning. So, I did want
to bring up 2 relevant pieces
of legislation, AB 2295 and
1021, which are essentially
referred to as workforce
housing streamlining
for schools. And they do not
exempt school housing
school-based housing projects.
What they do is
for projects that are in line
with the state criteria, they
require a local jurisdiction
to find them consistent
with the zoning and consistent
with the general plan. So, I
mentioned earlier that there's
that residential is not an
allowed land use in the
General Plan for this area. A
project that met the standards
set forth through these pieces
of legislation would be
determined by the state
to be consistent with the
General Plan even though it's
not an allowed land use.
For the Windsor Creek
Residential Development
Project that was received,
looking
through that application, it
does include as requests a
general plan amendment,
and a rezoning. So,
at this time, there is no
indication that a residential
development on that site would
invoke the state law. All
indicators right now point
to it going through the
standard process that's
required for any time you
propose residential in an area
where residential is not
allowed. And I'll walk
through that process
in the coming slides. Any
development project is also
subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Most likely a project,
a residential project,
since that is not consistent
with the General Plan, would
trigger what we call an
EIR-level review. So
Environmental Impact Report,
that's the highest level
of CEQA. And that can take the
form of a focused EIR
for that project specific,
or an addendum to the town's
EIR that was adopted for the
General Plan. What some
development projects do is tier
off of the existing General
Plan EIR. A residential project
proposed for the Windsor Creek
site could not do that because
it's residential is not
consistent with the vision
for that site that was analyzed
in the EIR. So additional
review would have
to take place. The town,
importantly,
is the lead agency
for CEQA review. So, a
developer does not do their own
environmental review. The town
does the environmental review.
at the cost of the developer.
So, the town does have control
of who does the technical
studies, whether they're
acceptable, and then ultimately
the town's decision makers
decide whether that
environmental review document
is adequate. And so,
on this hypothetical of a
residential development
proposed for a public
institutional site, There's a
number of public touchpoints.
So, as I mentioned, right now
there's an application in. We
are reviewing it
for completeness. So, the town
has a list
of materials that we need
to see
to even begin our analysis
of a proposed project.
Anything that's not a draft
report is considered public
information. So, during this
completeness review, The public
is welcome to come
to town hall and request
to review the plans. That's
public information that's
available. We are also we have
a website dedicated to the
Windsor Creek site. That'll be
updated as the project moves
forward. So, it's another
source
of information available to the
public. I mentioned that
technical studies and referrals
take place. So once a project
is deemed complete,
referrals are sent out.
Internally, our Public Works
Department will review
projects. Planning will review
projects. We also send out
to outside agencies including
Sonoma County Fire, the
Police Department, Sonoma
County Resource Recovery. And
all these different agencies
weigh in on a project,
whether or not it's adequate
down to the turn radiuses
for specific site design.
But also, a project that would
be proposing residential
on public institutional,
we'd also be looking at that
General Plan land use change.
So, what are the impacts
of changing what was planned
for that site? So not just
on the site, but also how it
affects surrounding
neighborhoods,
how it affects transportation
routes, evacuation routes,
the ability
to provide public services,
those kind of things. It is
subject to CEQA. Typically, the
CEQA review takes place
concurrently
with the project review. We
cannot approve a project
without finding it to comply
with CEQA. So that's why those
2 typically align, and there
may be changes
to the project as a result
of the CEQA analysis. The CEQA
for an EIR requires public
scoping meetings,
so it's another opportunity
for the public to weigh in
on what potential impacts
of the project could be. As
well as when a draft CEQA
document is released. The
public is invited to comment
on that. It typically also
includes a public hearing
in front of the Planning
Commission where the commission
can review the draft document
as well as, again,
the public can have input.
That would result in a final
EIR or final CEQA document,
which again has
to be certified
before any approvals
for a project could take place.
And for a residential project
proposed
on a public institutional site,
That would require a public
hearing in front of the
Planning Commission
for a recommendation
to amend the General Plan,
amend the Station Area Plan,
and amend the Zoning Code. And
then that recommendation would
go to the Town Council
for final approval of the CEQA
review process as well as those
entitlements, including any
site design or project-specific
proposal. So, the planning
aspect
of this is multifaceted. So,
in addition
to the environmental concerns,
planning is also looking
at what kind of fit a proposed
project would be
for the community. And so,
looking
at our guiding documents,
including any changes that are
proposed
to those guiding documents,
I mentioned previously
emergency access, evacuation,
circulation, how it ties
into the fabric
of the town.
>> Okay.
>> Infrastructure and services.
Any new development we would
have to provide municipal
services to. When the town's
general plan was adopted,
we assumed this would be used
for a school or some other
public use. So, if that's
changed to residential,
we have to analyze how that
affects the town's ability
to provide those services. And
I mentioned outside agencies.
Sonoma County Fire District is
a separate agency. They would
be involved
in this referral as well to
determine whether or not they'd
be able
to provide adequate services
to a land use change
like this. It does have
proximity to the creek, so
there'd be the biological
considerations as well as flood
constraint considerations,
things like that. And I
mentioned that this would not
be looked at in isolation
of the site itself, but
in the context of the community
that surrounds it. And it is
part of the downtown,
so we look at it
in that context as well.
There's also been discussion
about the regional housing
needs allocation and the town's
requirement
to provide housing. So, the
town is subject to RHNA, which
is that allocation that I
mentioned. The current cycle
has assigned 994 units
to the town. The assignment
essentially is that the town
has to plan for development
of these units. The town is not
responsible
for building those units. And
there's no penalties if that
number
of units are not constructed.
That development takes place
through private developers and
nonprofit developers. The town
just has to show where all
these housing units can go.
In addition to the number,
it's also broken down
into income levels. So, there's
very low income, low income,
moderate, and above moderate.
Above moderate is just market
rate housing. And again,
the town does not have
to provide those number
of units. We just have
to provide a plan for how they
could all be built. And the
town currently has a certified
housing element. It's been
accepted. And that housing
element did not include any
housing on the Windsor Creek
site because we had assumed
that that would be a school
site or other public use. So
residential development on
Windsor Creek is not needed to
meet the town's housing
assignment. And there has been
talk about the number of
housing units that have been
going in. We are still falling
short of most of our income
level assignments. So very low
and moderate, we're
at 3% and 15%.
of that target currently,
about halfway
through the cycle. Above
moderate is a little bit more
than halfway. In the area
of low income,
we have exceeded that target.
But as I mentioned,
there's no final report card at
the end that we get penalized
or anything like that
in the current housing cycle.
State law is fickle and can
always change. But currently
there's no requirement
for the town to actually have
these units be built. There is
the term builder's remedy,
which has been you may have
heard. In fact, we have a
project that we'll be
discussing builder's remedy
later on today's agenda.
Builder's remedy is applicable
when a town is out
of compliance
with that REINA assignment.
So, there was a period where
the town Did not have an
HCD-certified housing element.
That opened the town
for builder's remedy, which is
another streamlining path that
can be used by development.
In the case of any current
development proposals,
including the one for the
Windsor Creek site, the town
now has a certified housing
element, so builder's remedy is
not an option on the table.
So, the key takeaways
from this presentation. Right
now, the site is dedicated
for public uses. The state
doesn't have any mandate that
we rezone the property. So, I
wrote up here the town has
discretion. It's still a yes or
no vote from the town of
Windsor whether or not
to change that land use
to allow residential. Even
with affordable housing,
there's waivers for getting
around standards. Those don't
apply to land use. So,
including affordable housing in
a project does not allow a
project to not change the land
use or request a change
of land use. The California
Environmental Quality Act is
still applicable
to any development project.
And I mentioned we have
received a preliminary
application, but we have not
done any analysis on that. And
moving forward, there will be
several opportunities
for public input and
engagement. But we as staff
welcome engagement all
through the planning process.
So, don't feel hesitant
to give a call to staff or
to send an email. We welcome
all those communications. So,
I'm available if there are any
questions or if anyone wants
to reach out to me. I also
mentioned the town's website
has information on the
Windsor Creek School site as
well as the application that's
been received. And Kim Jordan
is our planner
for that project,
so she can be reached directly
at the information that's
on the screen. And that
concludes my presentation.
>> Great, thank you very much,
Patrick. Just remember
to the public, we are not
addressing a specific plan here
tonight, although one has been
submitted. And so, questions
from the Commission to staff,
if they have any
about this process, are going
to be in general, not specific
to any developments that may
have been proposed. We will
have a public comment time
after this as well. We'll go
over some rules for that.
Hopefully everybody can
maintain their decorum and keep
it civil. But we will not be
taking any action. We're just
receiving this presentation
tonight. There's no vote.
There's no decisions being made
on anything here. So, we'll
move forward. Do any members
of the Commission have
questions for staff
at this time?
>> Can I make a general
comment?
>> Sure.
>> Kind of further addressing
the public, I've seen a lot
of questions
about just the process
in general, how you make sure
there's traffic and movement
and emergency plans. So, I
encourage any members of the
public that were interested
in this topic to continue to
stay because we'll be covering
that for a different project.
So you'll get a good better
understanding of how the
process works and all the
different things that we take
into consideration that are
presented
through the staff reports. So a
lot of the things that Patrick
mentioned that are part
of the planning review,
we'll be discussing for a
different project later today.
>> Any other questions? Seeing
none. Okay,
at this time we are going
to open public comments.
Reminder, public comment is
limited to 3 minutes. Please
state your name and address
for the record. Direct your
comments to the Commission. We
probably won't be answering any
questions. We may provide some
clarification if it's needed.
We're really going
to be taking notes. and kind
of listening to the public
on this one. So, if anybody
would like to make a comment,
please approach the podium
in the front.
>> Hi there.
>> Hello.
>> My name is Cindy Bartell.
Thank you
for explaining that so well.
That is Mr. Streeter, is the
best I've ever heard it
explained. And so,
when we're talking
about housing for teachers,
since we are We have plenty
of low-income housing now. Is
there I don't know if there's
anything that's preventing
those teachers from applying
for housing at one
of those complexes.
But if there's enough,
there's enough. The
high-density housing at
Shiloh Road and Old Redwood
Highway has brought
in so much parking from more
cars than that place can fit,
that you can't even go
to the park that is there.
Also, the county complaining
about water so much,
and yet we're going
to build a lot more housing.
That doesn't make sense to me
at all. And at one time,
there was a rep
from the post office who came
to a meeting. He said they'd be
very interested in putting a
post office there. I don't
think that's the worst idea.
It's a very tiny little
facility they're
in and they're bursting
at the seams. So, and let's
see.
>> Oh.
>> And I'm wondering,
from the low-income housing,
I know you can't answer me, but
it's just a question I have.
Windsor,
from what I understand,
gains zero
from having more housing. But
it does say you have wear and
tear on our roads,
on our streets, fire, police
department, all cost money.
To bring
in that many more people,
it doesn't make sense
to me.
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening,
Commissioners. My name is
Jessie Valerie, and I live at
8920 Oakfield Lane. I'd like to
ask how the town evaluates
cumulative impacts and
determines what is considered
safe. We know that each project
undergoes environmental review
under the CEQA and traffic
analysis, but my question is
how safe is actually
determined? What data
assumptions and standards are
being used to conclude that the
cumulative impacts on traffic
infrastructure and emergency
evacuation are acceptable? Are
those analyses based on today's
conditions and the current
number of approved, proposed,
and under-construction
developments, or are projects
being evaluated largely
on an individual basis? Using a
conservative estimate of 2
vehicles per household, the
Armando Rizzullo development,
the Mill Creek project,
and existing Oakfield
neighborhood as well as
Windsor Mobile Country Club
represent roughly 860 homes.
>> This is approximate.
>> And approximately 1,700
vehicles. If the proposed
Gallagher project is approved,
that number grows
to approximately 1,200 homes
and nearly 2,500 vehicles
relying on essentially the same
road network.
>> Okay.
>> At what point does the town
determine that the cumulative
impact has reached a level that
requires reevaluation? Is there
a capacity threshold for roads
and evacuation routes? And if
so, are we approaching it? As
someone who lives
in this neighborhood,
I already see cracked
sidewalks, limited parking,
speeding traffic,
infrastructure that struggles
to serve today's residents.
So, my concern is simply
growth. It's about whether the
infrastructure and emergency
access are keeping the pace.
>> Thank you.
>> with the growth. Also,
with the parking issues, where
would everyone put their
garbage cans? Which I know is
not as important,
but it is a big deal. Growth is
important, but so is public
safety and thoughtful planning.
I respectfully ask the
commission to help residents
understand how these
conclusions are reached,
what evidence supports them,
and how the town ensures that
cumulative impacts are being
considered before additional
density is approved.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Name is Sam Salmon, 956
Milson Place. I just wanted
to indicate that the importance
to me as a resident is the
connectivity between the Mill
site, which is
across the creek, the Windsor
Creek site, which is
on the west side, Cora Creek,
and then the downtown. I think
that's a real opportunity
to connect up the high school
with the really the downtown
and actually connect it up
with the opposite side
of the freeway. And it's really
important. The proposal that
staff will be looking at,
it's not there. The proposal
of the approved mill site
There is a pedestrian bridge
in that project. The New Mill
site, probably not.
But I just wanted to bring that
up because I think it's really
important if we're going to
have a town that really values
pedestrian and bicycling
separate from the car. And we
have a wonderful opportunity.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Hi, good evening, Planning
Commission. My name is
Melanie Markarian. I live
in the Oakfield neighborhood.
Some of you may recognize me
from being active on Facebook
recently regarding the site.
I'm here tonight
representing myself and many of
my neighbors opposing the
rezoning. There are many
reasons why we oppose the
rezoning, but I'll focus on
what matters most density and
access. The Oakfield
neighborhood is small, very
small, with Condie Lane being
the only way in and out. A
360-plus unit development is
way too dense for this site,
especially stacked on top of
Cora Creek's 100-plus units
already in development.
Together, that's over 400 new
families funneling
through a single access point.
Wildfire evacuation. That
single road bottleneck is not a
hypothetical risk. Many
Sonoma County residents have
evacuated for wildfire
at least once. Many know what
it feels like to be stuck
in gridlock, fearing
for your life, unable
to move. This was my experience
living on the edge of Coffey
Park during the 2017 Tubbs
Fire. Adding hundreds more
households to a neighborhood
with only one way out isn't
just a planning problem,
it's a public safety problem.
Traffic and parking. We have a
really good example at Shiloh
Terrace. We don't have
to guess what it's going
to look like on our street. We
can just see it right now. The
housing math is not adding up
between Heritage Park,
Cascadia Burbank Housing, Cora
Creek, Shiloh Crossing.
There's already 346 units
proposed or
in development nearby. The
already constructed
developments, Shiloh Terrace
and Redwood Views, are both
currently struggling
to fill vacancies, and there's
been no surveys conducted
to demonstrate demand
for another 360+ units on top
of that. In addition, the
low-income housing quota has
already been met. Open space.
Windsor is already short
on parks, and the Oakfield
neighborhood does not have a
park. The field on this
property is the only green
space we have. Once it's paved,
it's gone permanently. My
partner and I built our home
in the Oakfield neighborhood
under the assumption that that
parcel was public use and it
that it would remain that way.
We felt like it was a safe and
community-oriented place,
and that's where we chose
to put roots down
with the intention
to start a family. With all
these points I've mentioned,
we're left wondering if we've
made a mistake. The bottom line
is we are urging the council
and the commission
to reject a rezoning
from public use to high-density
residential.
>> That's it.
>> Thank you. Hi there. This is
Jody Piscatello, neighbors
on the same street. One thing I
wanted to point out
from the presentation,
I love the slide
with the circle around
like the designated area. And I
think that that's probably
something that's
like cut and paste
for a mandate, right? It makes
a lot of sense, especially
for a city. It makes tons
of sense. And when you have,
like,
tall buildings going up next
to tall buildings going up,
then that falls in line.
Windsor is a town,
and we do have land. And I feel
like, other than, of course,
the SMART train, you know,
with the buses, it's easier to
move a bus route than it is
>> Right.
To fix lanes where we don't
have room to widen them, or
create parking where there's no
room, no visibility
around kind of a thing. So, I
love the picture that shows
this, and I also kind
of marry it up
with the survey that came out
that said how welcoming and
engaging is downtown. And it's
actually and I know I've told
you this before it's something
that I brag about because it is
really welcoming, and the fact
that people can walk to it.
So, you know,
with that respect,
all the housing going up,
people can walk,
that's fantastic.
But keeping it welcoming,
I'm concerned about any time we
do something high-rise,
high-density when you don't
have to, simply because
of the lack of resources
for the people living there.
We're finding, hearing that
they're, the crime,
has risen and calls
for our peace officers
to go where those exist. So,
where I want it
to be welcoming to visitors,
also anybody moving in,
they should have a home
like everyone else. Like, you
know what I mean?
Like high density,
and I don't mean to be rude,
but we're literally building
the projects, right,
that you hear about like
on TV.
>> Right.
>> Because you're basically
saying, you're othering people
by saying when you live
in a big block like this where
it looks pretty today, oh,
you're low income. And why
would we treat anybody that
way?
Like we're all neighbors,
we're all one community. So why
would we other them
by stacking them up, you know,
in an area where that's not
inviting
to our own community? So, I
know I'm speaking a lot of
random thoughts cause I wasn't
prepared, I just came and those
are the things that came up,
so.
>> Yeah.
>> But anyways, I hope that
with this circle and us being a
town that we can put thought
into it to where we can invite
people in, but also keep it
completely welcoming for all
of us who live there, you know,
and keep that downtown smooth
traffic, you know, all
of that, you know,
without so we don't check boxes
to destroy it. Anyways, that's
all. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Hi, Betsy Niles,
Springtree Circle. I think I
have a quick and easy question.
It said in the handout that
Windsor has an HCD-certified
housing element
for the current cycle. So, when
does the current cycle end?
Because it seems that
previously we were not
certified.
>> Okay.
>> And I'd like to know when
that was because the previous
the future project
on this agenda was under that
previous time when we were not
certified. So the builder
remedy would be applicable
then. So, I guess my question
is just on the timing as
to when Windsor has was
certified and how long it is
certified for. And then if for
some reason I thought it was
20 it was certified till,
but I may have just completely
made that up.
But what are you doing to
ensure that it stays certified
for the next cycle and
for however long that may be?
>> Thanks.
>> Good evening, Chair. I might
go just into the 4th minute,
if that's okay.
>> Thank you.
>> All right, good evening,
Commission. My name is Kevin
Scanlon, currently a 29-year
resident of the town of
Windsor, Windsor Creek
residential and elementary
school neighborhood. I've been
in the government realm for
over 40 years and educated
for 27 years. I was a volunteer
for 16 years at Windsor High
School. The state of
California has about 10,780
square miles of vacant property
they could have mandated
to be used
for the alleged housing issues,
but decided
to force the unabated issues to
the existing established towns,
cities, and county entities,
hence this horrific build-in
for our communities. The
State Board of Education and
state legislature almost 10
years ago concocted the legal
scheme of surplus land sales
and waste opportunities. Upon
which WSD is 100% all in on to
provide a supplemental review
stream, thanks to the
professionally corrupt district
management, some members of the
current school board. I and
others have been coming to you
since 2024 when we discovered
the Windsor Unified School
District, its school board,
and Gallagher's operations
wanted to get at the Windsor
Creek Elementary School site.
Prior to this, many thought
Windsor Unified School
District was a well-established
educational entity
within the community.
Luckily, the fight for the
Windsor Creek Elementary site
has uncovered many unsettling
items of interest
along the way
with the WUSD daily operations,
its staff, and school board
function, and not
in a positive way
for the health and welfare
of students or our community.
Windsor Unified School
District has 8th graders
graduating at a lack
of conversational level
Spanish from Cali Cameca
seniors graduating
from the high school. They're
not testing their overall
proficiency on exit. And now
someone discovered phonics
actually works at Mattie
Washburn, but that was
after it was resurrected into
the curriculum this past school
year. It is disgusting the
Windsor Unified School
District is crying
over their money issue, which
is a total farce that I've been
reporting on for the last 22
months. Windsor Unified
School District has been making
money via Santa Rosa City
School debacle, the PK and TK
program, their $100 million
budget, their flat-out lie
from November 2024 election
that they needed a $122 million
bond, now asking for $96
million this November.
Recently, the school board
decided to use more
of our tax dollars
to provide a 4-year contract to
the superintendent and his
business officer to the tune
of $314,000 a year and
$240,000 a year,
respectively. The state of
California dedicates roughly
40%
of its general fund revenues
for K through 12 schools and is
holding out billions of dollars
as a precautionary measure.
This year alone,
it will cost us $128 billion
statewide. The governor just
wiped out the state
superintendent position and
started and starting in
January 2027, there will be an
education commissioner who will
who directly reports
to the governor and no longer
to the public. Their
per-student cost also was
raised at an unsettling amount
of $27,000 a year
with no known reason or level
of success based upon our
costs. It has been said,
who you associate
with is an example
of your character. Well, the
Windsor Unified School
District and school board have
proved that their association
with Gallagher Builders says a
lot about the school district
and the school board character.
I want to thank the town
council and town manager and
town attorney for trying
to get the Windsor Creek
Elementary site, but
to our dismay, the Windsor
Unified School District doesn't
want to be part
of this community.
In closing, Superintendent
Decker has the power and
control to back out
of the ENA,
the exclusive negotiation
agreement,
with one signature. However, he
doesn't possess the fortitude
to do the right thing nor have
loyalty
to this town or the students.
In summation, the decisions
of the Windsor Unified School
District School Board will one
way or another affect our town
forever,
yet the educational level
of success remains
in a stifled state
of improvement. Thank you very
much.
>> Thank you, Kim. Anyone else
for public comment? Okay,
seeing none,
we will close this item
on the agenda. Thanks, staff,
for their presentation and the
community
for their participation.
Moving on to item number 7,
which is our public comment.
Members of the public wishing
to address the Commission on
any consent calendar item or
any item not listed
on the agenda may do so
Pursuant to the Brown Act, the
Commission is not allowed to
consider issues or take action
on any item not listed
on the agenda
during this period. Each public
comment is normally restricted
to 3 minutes
in length and must be spoken
into the microphone
from the podium. If you wish
to speak
on a consent calendar item,
please notify the chair
during public comment. Does
anyone wish
to make a public comment
at this time?
>> Let's see.
>> We've got one.
>> You ready?
>> Well, you can move a little
faster than that.
>> Damn. Okay, Sam Salmon, I
want to take this time to read
an email that I received,
with all due respect
to the sender. Okay. Hi Sam, my
name is and it's a name I've
been a Windsor resident since
1989. That's a year less than
me. Since you arrived,
On the town council ballot,
I voted for you every time.
Have lost count.
In the early days, you espoused
controlled growth and sensible
town planning to avoid Windsor
becoming another San Jose or
name your city. Now we are
witnessing a tipping point
where Windsor is out
of control. High-density
housing is being built
everywhere. It's becoming
ubiquitous. Out of concern
for our blessed town,
I'm writing
to ask what can be done. The
mention of Windsor Creek is
possibly developed by
for apartments on the council
agenda is just today's example
of negligent town stewardship
and respect for the land
around us. So, what can be done
to stop? And what's your
position on the matter? How
much sleep do you think I've
lost? How sober is that email?
>> Thank you. Any other public
comments at this time? Seeing
none, we will close public
comment and move on
to item number 8, our consent
calendar. Consent calendar
items are viewed as routine in
nature. will require little or
no further discussion by the
Commission, public, or
applicant,
and will be acted upon
through a single motion. There
is one item on the consent
calendar that is approval
of the regular meeting minutes
of June 23rd, 2026. Do we have
a motion for approval?
>> So, moved.
>> Seconded.
>> Motion and a second.
>> Thank you.
>> Madam Secretary, can we have
a roll call vote, please?
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> Motion carries. Moving on
to item number 9.1, File 23-11,
Los Amigos Cottages. This item
was continued from the
Planning Commission meeting
held on June 23rd, 2026. Uh, do
any commissioners have any ex
parte disclosures or
communications to report
at this time?
>> None.
>> Seeing none, Planner
Jordan, you have a presentation
for us.
>> Good evening, Chair Kubota
and Planning Commissioners. I'm
Kim Jordan. I'm one
of the planners in the
Community Development
Department, and this item is
the Los Amigos Cottages
Builders Remedy Project. And
this is the town's first
Builders Remedy Project, so
we'll be going over some
material that we haven't
discussed before so everyone
can understand the framework
within which we'll be making a
decision for this project.
So, it's a tentative
subdivision map, a affordable
housing waivers and reservation
of growth control allocations.
So,
for tonight's presentation,
we'll talk
about the background, what a
builder's remedy application
is, the project itself,
analysis of the project,
environmental review that was
done, and tonight's recommended
action. So, this is just the
location map. Let's see here.
So, this is the project site.
The Quail Acres project that's
been approved is located
to the east here. And then
Los Amigos Extension runs right
here. And then this is the
Rattling here. And then this is
the project site itself. And
this is New Song Church
immediately adjacent
to the west.
>> Okay.
>> So, a little bit
about the project timeline.
The application was submitted
April 2023. It's what we call a
preliminary SB 330 application.
That's provision
of what we call the Housing
Accountability Act. This is
specifically filed as a
builder's remedy application.
And then on August 10th,
2023, they resubmitted that
builder's remedy application.
That's because the town did not
have an adopted and certified
housing element. So August
16th, 2023, the town council
adopted the housing element,
and then August 31st, 2023, it
was certified by the Housing
and Community Development
Department. In December of
2023, the applicant filed the
formal application for the
builder the builder's remedy
application for this project.
And then on January 1st,
2025, Assembly Bill 1893 became
effective. That made
modifications to the builder's
remedy provisions that allowed
modifications
to the percentage of affordable
housing that was required and
made some other changes. And
then on November 10th, 10th,
2025, the applicant sent a
letter to the town informing
them that they were going
to use some
of the provisions included in
Assembly Bill 1893,
but all other aspects of the
project would remain the same.
So, to talk a little bit
about the Housing
Accountability Act and how that
relates to Builders Remedy
Project, there are 5 findings
for denial of a project when it
includes 13% affordable
housing. So that this does
apply to this project. This
project includes 15% affordable
housing. So, the first is that
the city or county hasn't
adopted an HCD-certified
housing element at the time the
application was submitted and
the city or county has met or
exceeded their RENA. So, at the
time this application was
submitted, the town did not
have a certified housing
element. does not apply
to this project. It cannot be
denied for that reason. And
then the housing development or
emergency shelter would have a
specific adverse impact
on health and safety,
and there is no way
to mitigate that impact without
making the development
unaffordable. So, staff also
you can't deny the project
based on that finding. And then
the denial or condition is
required
to meet state or federal law,
and there is no feasible method
to comply without making the
development unaffordable.
>> Okay.
>> Also, not aware of anything
that applies
for that finding. And then the
project is proposed
on land zoned for agricultural
or resource preservation. That
also does not apply
to this project. And then
lastly,
the project is inconsistent
with both the zoning ordinance
and the General Plan land use
designation. So that's where a
builder's remedy comes
into effect. So, we'll talk
about that
on the next slide.
>> Okay.
>> So, a builder's remedy
happens in this case if a
locality has not adopted a
housing element
in substantial compliance
with state law,
which the town had not. The
developer may propose an
eligible housing development
even though the project doesn't
comply with the general plan
land use designation of the
site and the zoning designation
of the site, which is the case
for this project. And the term
builder's remedy is used to
describe the situation where
the local agency may be
required to approve an eligible
housing development because it
can't make one of the other 4
findings. And that may be
in the situation Planning
Commission finds themselves
in this evening. So,
to talk a little bit
about the project, the formal
application is a 2.72-acre
undeveloped site. It's a 32-lot
small lot residential
subdivision. There's 27
market-rate homes and then 5
low-income affordable homes.
There is what we call Parcel A
with 16 parking spaces,
a trash enclosure, and
low-impact development feature.
17 on-street parking spaces
on low let me go through
Road, construction
of a segment of Los Amigos
Road to provide entry
into the site. It's using a
private narrow residential
street with a connection to
Arata Lane and Los Amigos
Road, private driveways,
affordable housing waivers,
and growth control allocations.
So, this is the tentative
subdivision map. We're seeing
Arata Lane, and then this is
the extension of Los Amigos and
then we'll see it better here
on the development plan. So,
we're changing the orientation
only to fit it
on the screen better. So, we
have Arata Lane, and then we
have a private narrow
residential street is what
they're using. We access here,
and then we can go
through the site here and exit
on Los Amigos Road. So, we kind
of have this loop, and then it
circles this way as well. This
is Parcel A, so we have 16
parking spaces here. And then
all of these lots here have
these are double-frontage lots,
so they have a front on Los
Amigos Road, front,
and then they also front
on the private street. And then
we have the same circumstance
for these lots here on Arata
Lane.
>> Okay.
>> So, this is just a summary
of the house plan. We have 3
different house plans. There's
2 different house plans
for the detached single-family.
So P1 detached, P2 detached.
This just goes
over what the general size
of the lots are. So, and then
the house sizes are,
and then we have the P3 lots,
which are the duet homes. So,
the P-1 detached, they're 3
bedrooms, there's 14 of them.
The P-2 lots, they're
4-bedroom, 2.5-bath, there's
12 of them. And then we have 6
duets. And the detached homes,
they all have attached 2-car
garages. And then the duet
homes,
they have an attached 1-car
garage, and then they have 1
driveway space in front
of the garage. And then this is
just a showing the elevation,
the top elevation
for the detached home,
those face the private street.
And then the ones that are not
colored, they include the porch
and they face the public
street, Arata Lane or Los
Amigos Road. So, when we were
working with the applicants,
some of those lots are
double-frontage lots, we had to
make a decision which elevation
is going
to face the private street.
So, a couple of things played
into that. We really can't have
a whole bunch
of driveway curb cuts
on streets like Arata Lane and
Los Amigos Road. And we really
did want the public-facing
porch facing the public street.
So those porches face Arata
Lane and Los Amigos Road, and
there is a walkway
from that porch,
which is adjacent
to a great room,
and that extends
to the sidewalk on Arata Lane
or Los Amigos Road, depending
on where the house is. And then
these are the Duet homes. And
then this is the parking plan.
So, this is the same as the
development plan. It's just
showing the location
of the parking. So as I was
saying, each
of the P-1 or P-2 lots They
have the 2 garage spaces.
There are a couple
of the lots that also have
space for 2 cars
in the driveway, lots 1, 32,
29, and 24. This is shared
common parking. There are 16
spaces here at Parcel A,
and then there are 17 spaces
that are available, public
spaces, on Los Amigos Road.
>> Okay.
>> And then you'll see here the
duet has the one attached and
one in the driveway,
and there's no on-street
parking on a rattle lane. And
so, what I was talking about,
the porch here,
and then you have a walkway
out to the sidewalk. For all
of these units here,
that's the orientation. And
then this is just showing the
landscape plan.
>> Okay.
>> Kim, I'm sorry
to interrupt real quick. Can
you go back one slide? When you
say the ones that are
on the lower part,
or I guess western part
of the property
>> Yeah, this is the west.
>> Are those backyards what's
going to be behind there if I'm
heading west? Is that the
church property there?
>> Yeah, that's New Song
Church.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Just to clarify
on this comment, you said
backyards,
but I didn't see backyards. Is
that right?
>> Well, that is their rear
yard. So, the rear yards are
very small.
>> It's really just the porch,
right?
>> Well, it's the porch, and
there is a it doesn't the porch
does not go
to the property line. So, this
is probably at least 5 feet.
>> Okay.
>> And then, so this is the
landscape plan,
and then there are 2 trees that
will be saved on the sites,
301 and 302. They're oak trees.
And then there's several
conditions of approval related
to the protection
of these trees. And so the
application includes a variety
of affordable housing waivers.
So, a reduction
in lot size and lot width,
reduction in lot depth,
which is
from the subdivision ordinance,
Reduction in the depth
of the building envelope,
which is also
from the subdivision ordinance.
Reduction
in the front setback,
an increase
in the front setback,
and a reduction
in the side setback,
including zero lot lines
for the duet homes. Reduction
in the street side setback,
the rear setback, reduction
in the setback
for the air conditioners,
increase in lot coverage,
modification
for street-facing facades,
reduction Yes.
In parking stall depth to 18
feet from 20. It's notable that
that reduction actually is
compliant
with our current zoning code.
This project is subject
to the zoning code in place at
the time the application was
determined to be complete. And
that zoning code,
the parking stall size was 20
feet. In the new code,
it was actually reduced to 18.
So, if we use the current code,
it would actually be compliant.
They're also asking
for a reduction
in backup distance. The current
code is 24 feet,
which is reduced from 27 feet.
So, if we were using the
current code,
they wouldn't need those 2
waivers. And then they're also
asking to use compact spaces
in a single-family project.
The previous code does not
speak to that. silent on
whether or not that's
allowable,
and so they requested a waiver
to be sure that that was
permissible. So, the requested
approvals and environmental
review, as I mentioned,
they're asking for approval
of a tentative subdivision map,
affordable housing waivers,
a request for reservation of
27 growth control allocations,
which are needed for the
market-rate housing because
affordable housing units are
exempt. They're using state
density bonus law parking
standards. And then the
environmental review was a
mitigated negative declaration.
And part of tonight's action
would be adoption
of a mitigated excuse me, the
mitigation monitoring and
reporting program. And then
to talk about a little bit
about the consistency analysis.
This is the General Plan land
use map for the North of Arata
area where the This site is
located. So, this is the
project site. It's designated
general business. And then this
is the approved Foyle Acres
project. So, the project
density is 11.6 units
to the acre, and it's
considered a small lot
subdivision. And so,
the town is required
to analyze the project based on
what is the land use
designation that best
represents that project, and
that's medium-density
residential. So, this the north
of Arata area already does
include medium-density
residential in the north of
Arata area. That's this color
here, also just north of
Arata Road Lane, and this tiny
bit here. This allows 8 to 16
units per acre.
>> Okay.
>> And allows small lot
residential. And then also
here, this is neighborhood
center mixed use. This is part
of the Coyle Acres project.
This also allows 8 to 16 units
to acre, which is in the same
density range as the proposed
project. So, land use and
density, as I mentioned,
general business is the actual
designation. It does not allow
residential use because of the
builder's remedy application.
they are allowed
to propose this project
on this site. Medium density
residential allows 8 to 16
units per acre. It allows small
lot single-family, townhomes,
small apartment complexes,
and mobile home parks. And the
project density is 11.76 units
per acre. For land use element
the land use element,
the north of Arata Community
place area policy. They have a
policy that talks about
efficient development patterns,
and the project is consistent
with that. Community design
transition is consistent
with the transitions in scale
policy and residential
development
to provide diversity
of housing types.
For the housing element,
same thing encourage a range
of housing types,
and it's also consistent with
our inclusion inclusionary
housing standards. For
transportation and mobility,
it's consistent
with the town circulation map
for Los Amigos Road excuse me
and Arata Lane bicycle and ped
connectivity,
street connections
with new development. And then
it's also consistent with
environmental resources
policies and public health and
safety policies, including
emergency vehicle access and
reviewing projects
for proposals
in fire hazard areas. So, as I
mentioned, affordable housing
waivers, the project qualifies
for a density bonus,
but it was not requested due to
the affordable housing included
in the project. And the project
is eligible
for unlimited waivers
for development standards. And
we already reviewed the waivers
that are being requested
for the project. So, talk about
the zoning standards. I noted
before, this is not we're not
using the current zoning code.
We're using the previous zoning
code. So allowable uses and
density in the medium-density
zoning district, small lot
single-family residential is
allowed along with row homes,
townhomes,
and small apartment complexes
at 8 to 12 units per acre.
So, the project is consistent
with that at 11.76 units an
acre as a small lot
single-family subdivision. The
town's inclusionary housing
ordinance requires 10%
of total units
to be affordable. This is
at 15.6%. The units have
to be built concurrently
with the affordable have
to be built concurrent
with market rate. This is a
single-phase project. And then
the bedroom count needs
to be comparable. So, the Duet
units are the affordable units.
They have 4 bedrooms, as do the
excuse me, the P-2 units. So,
they are comparable. And then
for lot size,
the minimum lot size in
medium-density residential is
5,000 square feet. The lot
width is 50. They've asked
for waivers for this in order
to find the project consistent.
Setbacks, as I mentioned,
they've asked for waivers.
Front minimum, maximum, side,
rear, and street side is 50.
Well as for the AC units.
There are some lots that are
consistent and there are some
lots where they've asked
for a waiver. These are
described in Exhibit F,
which is the waiver table.
They've asked for a waiver
from the lot coverage. The
maximum is 50%. Some lots are
consistent.
For the other lots,
they've requested a waiver.
Parking the parking standard is
2 covered, so all of the
detached single-family are
compliant. They all comply to
parking spaces that are covered
in the garage. The duets
provide the required number,
but they are not covered. So,
they're using state density
bonus law to allow the second
parking space to be a tandem
space that is uncovered. And
then the parking space
dimensions, they're asking
for a waiver for that.
But as I mentioned,
that's consistent
with the size allowed
under our current code. And
then compact spaces,
they're asking for the waiver
for that and the reduction
of backup space, a waiver So
in order to deny a waiver,
state law requires one of the
following findings be made and
substantially supported
by substantial evidence, and
that substantial evidence has
to be provided by the town. So
the first is that the waiver
would have a specific adverse
impact
on public health or safety,
and there is no feasible method
to mitigate or avoid that
adverse impact. Impact, or the
waiver would have a specific
adverse impact
on any real property listed
in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or the
waiver would be contrary
to state or federal law. And
staff is not aware
of being able to make any
of these 3 findings for denial
of any of the waivers. So for
the growth control ordinance,
um, the project does require
27 for the market rate The
purpose of the growth control
ordinance is to accommodate the
growth anticipated
under the general plan and to
manage new development so that
it occurs concurrently
with necessary public services,
facilities,
and infrastructure. We're
currently in the last year
of our 5-year cycle, and our
growth control allocations are
based
on a 1.5% annual growth rate,
and that's set out in our
in the town's general plan. We
have what we call Reserve A
allocations, and Reserve B
allocations. Reserve A
allocations are specifically
for mixed-use projects or
projects that are have a
density of 12 units or greater.
And as I mentioned, affordable
units do not require growth
control allocations.
Since this project is less than
12 units per acre and not
mixed-use, it requires Reserve
B allocations. So, this is just
our current table that shows
where the town is for how many
growth control allocations are
currently available. And we
have a total of 464 growth
control allocations
for the rest
of this 5-year cycle. In
Reserve B alone, there's 351
allocations, so there are more
than enough allocations to
serve this particular project's
request for 27. And with that
27, there would be a granted,
if they were granted,
then there would There's 437
total allocations remaining
for the 2026 calendar year.
>> Okay.
>> Calendar year. So,
for the subdivision ordinance,
in order
to approve a subdivision,
there are findings required
for approval that it has
to be consistent
with the general plan, zoning
ordinance, design standards,
municipal code, and growth
management ordinance. As we
discussed, this specific
project can't be denied because
it's inconsistent with the
zoning code or general plan.
And then we just reviewed that
there are growth control
allocations available
for the project. There are a
couple
of development standards in the
subdivision ordinance that
apply to this project. One is
the lot depth of 85 feet and
the building envelope depth
of 45 feet. The project's
either compliant with it or a
waiver has been requested. And
the there's the waiver table
in Exhibit F where they call
out the specific lots that
require the waiver and which
ones are consistent.
>> There are also
for subdivisions, there are
specific findings that are
needed in order
to deny a subdivision. So, the
first is that there are
insufficient growth control
allocations available,
which is not the case. The
second is that design or
improvement of the subdivision
is not consistent with the
General Plan's zoning,
applicable specific plan,
or provision of the code; that
the site is not specific is not
physically suitable
for the type of development;
the site is not physically
suitable for the proposed
density; the design of the
subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat; the
design of the subdivision or
the proposed improvements are
likely to cause serious public
health problems; The design
of the subdivision or type
of improvements will conflict
with easements acquired
by the public at large
for access through use
of the property
within the subdivision,
or it's subject to a
Williamson Act contract. Staff
is not able to make any
of the findings
for denial as described
in the staff report and in the
draft resolution presented
to the Planning Commission
for consideration this evening.
And so,
for environmental review,
Rincon Consultants prepared
what we call a draft initial
study. And there were several
technical studies prepared
for that, included biological
resources, cultural resources,
a transportation impact study,
an arborist report to look
at tree resources,
a wildfire impact analysis,
and of Phase 1 environmental
site assessment. And there were
a variety of mitigation
measures that were applied
to the project. And
with the application
of those mitigation measures,
it was found that there would
be no significant impact
of the project
on the environment. So, there
were mitigation measures
for biological resources,
cultural resources,
paleontological transportation,
tribal cultural resources,
and wildfire. And a mitigation
monitoring and reporting
program was prepared for the
project that includes all
of the mitigation measures.
The project applicant has
agreed to all
of the mitigation measures, and
they've been included as
conditions of approval as part
of the draft resolution.
Rankin Consultants is available
this evening
for any questions that you may
have about the environmental
documents. And tonight's
recommended action is that you
hold the public hearing and
adopt a resolution to adopt the
mitigated negative declaration
and then adopt a resolution
approving the Los Amigos
Cottages project. And then we
have the resolution titles
in the event that Planning
Commission does want to act
on the project this evening.
The project applicant is here.
They also have a PowerPoint
presentation. And then I'm
available if you have
questions.
>> Great.
>> Thank you very much.
At this time, Commissioners, do
we have any questions for
staff?
>> I was just wondering,
because I was reviewing like
the traffic and the evacuation
and the parking or the backup
turn radius or all those, and
I'm not quite sure if the I
couldn't read the size,
but it looked
like the streets were 24 feet
wide. And I was wondering if
these intended to be one-way,
or is that expected where is
there street parking or just no
street parking and it's a
two-way road? I couldn't tell
from the materials.
>> Yeah, there are no on-street
parking for a narrow
residential street, and it's
Okay.
>> Not bad.
>> Thank you.
>> That was very complete,
as always. Los Amigos Road,
just refresh my memory because
I know it's part
of another project. The
extension will go up, curve
around, and eventually meet the
next the current other Los
Amigos Road?
>> That is true.
>> And it's going to cut
through is it going to cut
through Quail Acres or
whatever, North Verrada?
>> It will.
>> Quail Acres will be building
all of it from Arata Lane. If
Quail Acres goes first,
they would be building all
of it from the Arata Lane/Los
Amigos Road intersection
to connect to the other Los
Amigos Road, as you're saying.
If this project goes first,
it will build that section
That you saw in the
presentation that they need
to provide access
into their
>> Like a spur, and then it'll
>> Right.
>> We'll get one of those signs
that it'll connect.
>> Right.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> I have about actual corner
lots and the wraparound
porches. So, because this would
be applicable to 2023, it's
more
of the encouraged as opposed
to.
>> It's not an objective
standard, so it doesn't apply
to the project.
>> I do have one question.
>> So, this is the first time
I've seen one of the dual
frontage designs.
>> So, when you have a dual
frontage project, does that
affect setbacks differently?
Are there 2 fronts
to the house,
so front setbacks are
considered for both?
>> Yes, so normally the
director has to decide which
will be the front and then
figure out if You know, the
director would determine which
is the front and then the front
setback would apply there.
In this case, it's kind of a
moot point because they're
asking for a waiver. So, then
we just apply whatever setback
they're asking for because
of the waiver. As I was saying
in my presentation,
when we were working
with the applicant, we really
asked that they have a front
porch orientation
to the public street, Los
Amigos Road, and a rattling
Which doesn't really answer
your question, but...
>> It's a waiver,
so it doesn't matter, right?
But on like the western-facing
ones that Commissioner Zahner
was talking about,
so the porch is actually
on the back of those?
>> That is true,
because the garage has
to face the street.
>> Got it.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> That's all I have.
>> It sounds like the applicant
has a presentation.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, I have to put on my
glasses so I can find it.
>> All right, well, while
Kim's bringing up my
presentation,
let me introduce myself. Ken
McNabb, KMAC Advising,
representing the developer,
Rodda Properties, LLC.
With me this evening is Ben
Van Zylfen, the developer.
And Dennis Dalby of Civil
Design, the project engineer.
So first, I'd just like
to thank staff, Patrick, Kim,
and Kat Harvey,
for what has been a thorough
but great collaboration
over the last 3 years to bring
the best project forward that's
before you tonight. We really
appreciate the guidance we've
been given and the hard work
of staff.
>> Thank you.
>> So, thank you. As always,
Kim's report is very thorough.
We just have a couple
of things to cover,
and then we'll be available
for any questions the
Commission may have. So first,
the Los Amigos Cottages project
is a missing middle development
project that's going to provide
homeownership opportunities
for first-time homebuyers. And
will provide 5 lower low-income
households the opportunity
for homeownership. The project
consists of 26 detached
single-family homes and 6 duet
homes, which Kim described
to you. 5 of those 6 duet homes
will be deed restricted
to be affordable
to families earning 50% to 80%
of the area median income.
>> Okay.
>> Oops, sorry. Let me go back.
The lot sizes this is a small
lot development. Lot sizes
range from 1,664 square feet
to 4,680 excuse me,
did I get that backwards?
4,860. The average lot size is
2,564 square feet. And just
to kind of Give you an idea of
a comparable project that is
currently under construction,
the Old Redwood Highway
Villages project. And here's
the lot size range
for that project. The lot sizes
actually go a little lower, and
their average size is a little
bit lower than Los Amigos
Cottages, but it's essentially
the same size lots and a very,
very close number
of units.
>> Okay.
>> So, they're very comparable,
if that helps you visualize
what this project's going
to look like. There are a
number of things that Kim
covered in her report that we
just want to, you know,
underscore. Each of the homes
along Los Amigos Road and
Arata Lane will be oriented
to the street. There is a nice
porch. There is a direct
connection from the sidewalk
to the porch and entry
into the home. Each of the
homes will have off-street
parking. The detached homes
have 2-car garages. Some of
them have 2-car garages and
2-car driveways. The duet units
have 2 off-street spaces, one
in a garage and one
in the driveway.
>> Okay.
>> This project will also
include a guest parking area
for visitors, both
in the site and along Los
Amigos Road. The project will
also advance some of the town's
circulation interests
by constructing a portion
of the Los Amigos Road, whose
the plan is for that road
to be realigned to allow
for future construction
of a northbound 101 on-ramp.
The project will also offer the
town an irrevocable offer
of dedication along Arata Lane
so that if and whenever needed,
Arata Lane can be widened
to a 5-lane road consistent
with the general plan
circulation plan. Kim went over
the parking. I don't know if I
need to cover this again
necessarily. Other than to say
there will be CC&Rs that
require the garage spaces be
used for parking of vehicles,
not for storage. And there will
be a homeowners association
to enforce those CC&Rs. These
are the elevations. Of the
detached small lot homes,
there's 26 of them. There'll be
2 different architectural
styles and multiple variations
available to homebuyers
for materials and colors. As
Kim mentioned, the Plan 1
bungalow units are 1,573 square
feet, 3-bedroom, 2-bath. We
have a larger detached home.
This is the traditional
elevation shown here.
>> Okay.
>> It's 1,797 square feet, 4
bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms. This
is the elevation of the Duet
units. There's 2 architectural
styles for this unit, also
with multiple variations
for color and materials. And
this slide shows the project
in relationship
to the recently approved,
or a year ago approved now,
Quail Acres project. So, you
can see the relationship or the
proximity of this development
to planned and approved
improvements as part
of that project. It is going
to be within walking distance
of a community park. It will be
across the street from a future
neighborhood commercial area.
And there's not shown
on this slide,
there is an existing transit
Yes. In front of the New Song
Church property right next
door. The site's
about a half mile away
from the Brooks Elementary
School and the Michael A. Hall
hopefully I got that right
Park to the southeast,
and also about a half mile,
maybe a little
over a half mile, to a small
community shopping center
on the other side
of the highway on Old Redwood
Highway near Starr. These are
some visualizations that show
the project's best side,
in my opinion. So this one is a
view from Arata Lane. You can
see, compared to the elevations
I was just showing you, the
porch area is a little more
substantial in size. There's
not Facade that's dominated
by a garage door. There's lots
of visibility from the living
area onto the street and a good
mix of different architectural
styles and colors and
materials. This is a view
from the Coelho Acres project
across Los Amigos Road where
the proposed private Street is
in the Los Amigos Cottages
project. Again, you can see the
clear orientation of these
units towards the street,
towards the public realm,
with lots
of windows and ability
to view the street from
within the home. So, we'd just
like to again thank staff
for their work
on this project. We believe
this is a project that's going
to be helpful for Windsor in
not only meeting its housing
needs but providing
homeownership opportunities
for Windsor residents and the
Windsor workforce. I know a lot
of the housing being built is
rental. This is not rental
housing. This is for-sale
housing. We believe that's an
important opportunity, and we
but we hope that you will agree
with us and we hope that you
will support staff's
recommendation and approve this
project. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Do we have any
questions for the applicant?
>> I do.
>> Start down there.
>> I like the idea
of providing some of that
missing middle housing. I was
concerned when you mentioned
the HOA and will that price
out the missing middle? And
what are your thoughts
about what kind
of price point are we going
to be having
on this HOA?
>> I will defer
to the developer to talk
about the price point. Yes, an
HOA can potentially add
to the monthly housing costs.
However, in collaborating and
discussing this project
with staff,
we were strongly encouraged to
have an HOA because town staff
does not want to enforce
potential parking issues and
other residential issues. And
Ben, I don't know if you have
any sense on that.
>> Hi, I'm Ben. We haven't done
the reserve study and the
budget for it, but it's mainly
like a policing thing,
like a neighborhood police.
>> There's not a lot
of stuff that's going
to be maintained
by the association, so the cost
shouldn't be huge.
>> So, the idea will still be
to focus on that missing middle
demographic in terms
of the discrete market.
>> This is housing that you can
like a new house that you can
actually afford as a first-time
buyer, you know, which isn't
really available.
>> And yeah, but the
association dues will be
nominal because there's not a
lot of stuff to take care of.
It's mainly establishing a
police force for the city.
>> For CC&R enforcement
program.
>> Yeah, so you guys don't have
to deal with this stuff then.
The association deals
with it.
>> Before you go, I'm going
to drill down.
>> Oh yeah.
>> You said nominal and then
you said not that much.
>> What is like,
give me a range.
>> You know, I would say so I
haven't done the study now,
so I don't want to say a number
because I'd just be throwing
something out. But
in similar projects,
I've had cost centers of like
$36 to $78, you know, under
in the $100 range, you know.
But I haven't
with similar projects that are
like this,
but I haven't done this one, so
I don't know exactly what it
is.
>> We won't hold you to it.
>> Yeah, okay.
>> But a range is helpful.
>> Thank you. Yep.
>> And are the parking spaces
along Los Amigos, are those
enforced by the CC&Rs or are
those public?
>> No, those are
on public streets,
so those would be enforced
by the town,
would be my expectation. The
street internal to the project
is a private street,
so that's part
of the maintenance obligation
of the owners and the HOA.
>> Wow.
>> Oh, go ahead. Can I show my
picture? It looks like a little
open space maybe?
>> Yeah, it's a drainage
detention facility. So, the
town requires that surface
water runoff be captured and
treated before discharge.
>> It's not a great place
to have your kids play.
>> It's not designed for kids
to play, right.
>> But we're close enough to
the proposed community park
that it doesn't really warrant
in this and then
in this little part
of the drawing the drawing,
these are architectural plans,
but it's a drawing to me.
>> What is this?
>> Are you talking
about the?
>> There's the little square
over in the corner of the
>> Yeah, that's a waste
collection facility. So, half
of the project will be served
by a common waste collection
facility and the other half
will be served by Toad or
Service.
>> Okay.
>> Dumpster.
>> Dumpster, yeah.
>> Not cheese curds.
>> I'm trying to use the terms
your waste hauler would use.
>> Anything else, sir?
>> No, not yet.
>> For the parking on Los
Amigos and the bike route,
is it going
to be protected parking? Where
the bike will be on the inside
in between the parking and the
sidewalk?
>> I believe that will be the
configuration,
yes. I did forget to mention,
for what it's worth,
I know it's kind
of a random thought now, this
project I believe is the first
project subject to the town's
recently adopted greenhouse gas
emissions checklist process.
And we are meeting that
checklist. checklist. So,
for what it's worth, we're
advancing that interest as
well.
>> A couple questions real
quick, okay? My first question
is, I couldn't tell, I'm sorry,
from the drawings here,
how big are the porches? How
deep are they and how wide are
they?
>> Do you know off the top
of your head?
>> Oh, right.
>> She did all the work.
>> Okay. So, Plan 1 the,
the rear porch 13 by 6, 78
square feet. And then the
covered entry, which is not a
porch, is 6 by 14, 84 square
feet. And then P2 6 by 15 is
the covered porch, so 90 square
feet. And then they have a
differently oriented covered
entry where you probably could
put a little chair out there,
which is 3.5 by 9.
>> Okay.
>> So, it's 31.5 square feet.
And then the duet porch is 6
by 13 feet 8 inches, so 81
square feet. So, they are all
usable porches.
>> As long as you don't have
to walk around the chair.
>> I find them quite usable.
I was actually very impressed
with the size of the porch.
>> Are you looking at the
plan? I'm just finding which
document you're looking at.
>> I'm looking at the
architectural plans.
>> Okay, and those are
in this,
the same thing that's
in our packet here? The same
ones?
>> Yeah, I'm looking
at those.
>> Okay, so I'm gonna look
here.
>> I printed them out so that
I could...
>> Advantage you,
because yeah.
>> Exactly.
>> Here's my
worry for the applicant. You
mentioned Old Redwood
High Villages, whatever it
was called. Yeah, Quail
Villages, Oaks, Windsor, you
know,
we need them all the same.
Those are tiny porches,
right? The ones right there
on Old River Highway, they're
unusable. And now we've put
up these funny little fences
there. Yeah,
it's not awesome. And I don't
know if you guys are the
builders or not. It sounds
like you were. No?
>> No, we're not.
Just to clarify,
the comparison to Old
Redwood Highway Villages was
lot size, not product type.
>> So just to Kim's point,
these are usable. You can
actually put chairs
out there and we can wave at
these people and build
connection there is our
feeling there. And Kim, you
feel that way?
>> Yeah, that's what staff
asked for.
They had the pleasure
of working with us on Quail
Acres. So when they...
>> What an honor.
>> It was.
>> So, they knew when they
designed this project what
the expectation was
for porches.
>> Good.
>> And the orientation
to the street.
>> Okay.
>> So, I expect that that's
why we're seeing porches
with these dimensions.
>> Good.
>> And that's just me being
frank with you about it. The
other thing that this project
has in common with Old
Redwood Highway Villages is
some of the lots also have
this side yard, the usable
side yard where it's shared.
So that's 6 feet wide. So
they'll have the porch,
and then some also have
the side yard shared where
it's, I don't know, up to
8, 10 feet wide. It shows on
the development plan. I might
be able
to show you that as well.
>> Okay.
>> So they might have 2
spaces, plus if they have a
large enough rear yard space
as well.
>> Okay, so thank you
on that one,
and that was good.
Thank you. Did we mention,
like, this goes back to the
back porch thing that's
facing the church lot. Is
there plans for a fence
along that property line? So
there'll be a back porch that
looks at a fence?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah, there is a small
porch. There will be a fence
and there'll be, you know,
depending on which lot,
they vary in depth, but the
smaller lots will have, you
know, I believe about 5 feet
between the back of the porch
and the fence.
>> Okay.
>> And the usable yard area
that Kim was referring to,
there'll be exclusive use
easements
on an adjoining side yard.
So the 2 side yard areas of
2 houses will be combined
into one yard area
for the exclusive use of one
of the homes.
>> So no fence there
between it? That's what I was
trying to figure out.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Because we talked
about the 3-foot setbacks
on each side of some
of these lots, right?
>> But some
of them are small. What most
of them are,
I would say some
of them are not that,
but they're being combined.
You can see
in this slide here,
it says exclusive yard area.
So, like, between lots 6 and
7, one lot has the setback
itself,
and then it's combined with
the side yard setback
adjacent to it. With an
easement so that one lot that
is their private side yard,
and then there will be a
fence so that they have the
exclusive use of that area,
which is the same setup as
Old Redwood Highway
Villages. So this project in
some respects actually has
more outdoor space than Old
Redwood Highway Villages
because some lots will have
their porch,
they'll have their yard,
their front yard, and then
they will have an exclusive
side yard area as well.
>> Okay.
>> So they might actually
have more usable outdoor
space than Old Redwood Highway
Villages.
>> Interesting. And I'm fine.
I've lived in houses that are
closer than 3 feet together
in my past.
>> Sometimes it's just
helpful to have a context of
a real project we've seen.
>> And I appreciate that.
Our next question, and
Commissioner Rennie kind
of brought this up, the
private road you said has
12-foot travel lanes,
so it's 24 feet curb
to curb.
But there's no parking
along there, right?
>> Correct.
>> Is there any fear?
Because normally, you know,
10 foot should be your max
for a travel lane because our
fine firefighters can drive a
truck easily through that.
Why are we going wide
on our road here? Which I
know city guys are like,
this is, you know, heresy.
It should be 13 feet lanes.
We could narrow it
down and slow people down and
make this a shared space so
people aren't traveling fast
there. My worry is that this
is pretty wide at 12 feet,
but Kim is raising her hand,
so I will flip it over
to the smartest kid in the
class.
>> I believe the town
standard is 24 feet for a
private or a narrow
residential street.
>> Oh, really?
>> Kim.
>> So yes,
that is the town standard for
a narrow residential street,
and this is what our fire
trucks and our garbage trucks
need to maneuver
through this site. So if we
want our emergency access
vehicles to be able to get
through the site, that is the
travel lane width we need.
And if we would
like garbage service,
we also need that travel
width,
travel lane width.
>> Yes, I have opinions,
but there we go.
But I appreciate the input.
Thank you. And that's my
questions for now.
>> Great.
Any other questions
for the applicant?
No.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> At this time,
we will bring it back... I'm
sorry,
we're open public comment.
Reminder, public comment is
held in person only.
Commenters, please state your
name and address for the
record and limit your
comments 3 minutes
in duration. Looks
like we've got one.
>> Jody Piscatello, again,
Oakfield Lane. First
of all, I want to commend you
guys because this is what I
was talking
about when it came
to providing homes for, you
know, anyone regardless of
income level and letting and
having them live amongst the
community. This is it. One
thing I wanted to point
out just to take
into consideration. Living
in an area, on my street,
we have the, like your duets
where they have the tandem.
And sometimes there's some
that don't have driveways.
That's how our street is
right now. And when we came
on board or, you know, moved
in, we knew that.
That's the way it was going
to be. But we had a street
that we could park on, and
now that's being compromised.
Well, it could be
compromised. One
of the houses
in my little unit, we have
like 4 houses, 2 face
each other, shared driveway,
one of them had to be moved
up and they have the tandem
garage but no driveway. So
that's what really spurred me
when you were describing this
as no street parking and some
don't even have a driveway is
that I love the size where
you've got like between 2 and
4 bedrooms, but some would
suggest that that's
for a single parent or like,
I think
about myself. I've lived here
for 26 years. Mom, dad, 2
cars. We had 2 kids,
and then they grew up
to have 2 cars and mom
gets the driveway, right?
That's how it works. But my
kids had a space near the
house that they could park.
So when I think
about you've got 16
for guest parking,
my kids are not guests. And
when they're working at a
fast food place or something
at night, I don't want them
coming home and not parking
near the house. So that was
the one thing that concerned
me about the setup is that
there's the larger roads and
coming home at night, and I'm
always gonna have single
parents or, you know,
kids or whatever coming late.
Where is their opportunity
to park? How far
from their home will they
have to walk? So it's just
something
from my own experience in my
neighborhood that I just
wanted to point out. But as
far as the different levels
that you have, that is
brilliant. Like, I'm very
excited to see that. And the
fact that it's for like new
home buyers and stuff, this
is what I wish we saw more
of in the developments that
we have. So that's all.
>> Sam Salmon. I'd ask you
to consider the dedication
for the roundabout space to
the town rather than the
ability
to have a right-of-way
to purchase?
Thank you.
>> Ken, you were shaking your
head. Did you want
to make a comment
on that?
>> So we do remember
Councilmember Salmon's
interest
in a roundabout expressed
during the Quail Acres
review. And so this project
has been designed to allow
for a right-of-way dedication
for a roundabout. And it
would be, you know,
just north of Lot 14, or
just... Excuse me, east of Lot
14 near the intersection,
of course. So if the town
decides to proceed
with the roundabout there,
we have made accommodations
for that. And then we are
also, you know, still
providing the irrevocable
offer
for additional right-of-way
to go to 5 lanes if the town
decides that would ever be
needed. So we have addressed
the roundabout issue.
>> Great, thank you.
>> Okay, my name is Kay
Sherlock, and we own the
property right
across the street from them
on Arata Lane. There's only
5 houses that are facing
Arata Lane, is that my
understanding? Okay, only 5
houses, and then there is A
private road that comes off
of a Arata Lane that goes
back in,
but you're also going
to do part of the Los
Amigos. I thought this whole
project was part of Quail,
the Quail one. I didn't
realize it was a brand new
one. The only thing that I
would like
to ask you all is,
seeing that you are doing
part of Los Amigos, if the
Quail one does not proceed
before you, can you advance
it and get an on-ramp onto
the freeway so that we can
get the hell out
of there when we need to get
out of there? If you're both
doing it, to me, instead
of just connecting with the
Old north of Los Amigos. You
do the on-ramp that we were
promised how many years ago.
That's all I'm asking. That
would be very nice.
Otherwise, I do like your
project. I just would
like a way of getting out
of there if we needed to get
out of there. That's all.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Okay, seeing no more
public comment
at this time,
we'll bring it back
to the commission
for discussion.
Do we want
to address that?
We certainly can.
>> Adding an on-ramp?
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I explained.
So these developers
wouldn't be responsible for
building an on-ramp that
involves Caltrans, but
these are the steps being
taken
to make that connection, you
know, eventually.
Anybody have thoughts on
this project?
>> I'll just go real quick,
if I may. Good
to see you guys again. I do
like addressing the public
comment earlier about finding
housing that is the smaller,
hopefully more affordable
style housing
and up there. So that's a
big issue. My quick worries
and thoughts are I think I
looked at your Willow Glen
homes in Rohnert Park, and
you guys had really nice
large front porches and nice
curb bulb-outs and
walkability. This is small,
so it's not like as big as
that other project,
but I want to make sure there
is walkability, especially
in some of this, the city.
But if you build Los
Amigos, kids are going
to be crossing Los Amigos
to go to the park. We've got
to make sure that Los
Amigos, even though it's
going to eventually have an
on-ramp,
doesn't become a speedway.
That's why I hammer the lane
widths, right? Because it
should slow people down
to be in a neighborhood,
because this is going to
become a residential
neighborhood. So making sure
we build this in such a way
that it's walkable, rollable
for people in wheelchairs and
scooters and things
like that. I don't see a lot
of that here. I know some of
that's because it's an
internal private
driveways, but I want
to make sure...
>> Does it have sidewalks
on that?
>> It has sidewalks
on the outside, but like,
look at the rounded curve
on Los Amigos and Arata
Lane. And I don't know if
there's a traffic engineer
sitting here in the audience
and they're like, yeah,
that's so fast because it
goes zipping
around that corner.
But what we actually want is
like people to slow
down because there's going
to be a kid crossing Los
Amigos with Grandma
in a wheelchair to go
to the park and they're going
to get hit. And that's
because we're going
to build that like a freeway
on-ramp rather than a town
street before we get there.
So that's where I do see some
worries, and I think that's
not directly tied
to this part yet,
but that is something I want
to bring up and plant the
seed. I did like what I saw
at the Willow Glen project
in Rohnert Park
on that route. So those are
my thoughts.
>> Adding on to that, I don't
know if you can partner
with the Qauil Acres project
and do that in conjunction
where you actually have the
bulb-outs
with the flashing lights. So
then that way you can have
that safety measure,
and it is more
like that bottleneck slowing
down traffic.
>> Through the chair, if I could
just provide some clarifying
comments
on the planned on-ramp for
101. The extension of Los
Amigos would accommodate
for that on-ramp, but it
wouldn't actually be coming
from Los Amigos. The on-ramp
would be oriented over where
the existing off-ramp is
on the opposite side of the
101 freeway. So where the
northern Los Amigos spur
currently goes down to
Arata, that's where the
on-ramp would be. This would
be a local road that would
connect up towards
Healdsburg.
>> Echoing some
of the comments we've heard,
I think that it's absolutely,
it's imperative that we start
filling
in the missing middle. This
project is doing that,
and it allows
for affordability to own
at multiple levels of
affordability as far as
deed-restricted low-income
and also units
at market rate that allow
for a step
into ownership basis as well.
It's fantastic that you're
taking a... It's infill, not
really because the other one
is,
but if it is infill in
the sense that once it's all
built out, there won't be
that blank empty piece of
land that's unutilized and
doesn't make sense. So I
appreciate the architecture.
Sounds
like you worked very well
with the town, provided what
you knew we would ask
for as best you could,
and so I appreciate that
in this project.
>> And I'll kind
of echo the same, you know,
the comparison to the old
Redwood Highway Villages
makes sense. They are
overparked though. They have
a ton of parking and they're
a block away
from a giant actual park,
not a planned park. So
there is, you know, some
concern there that you're
building a bunch of houses
with no recreational
resources nearby. But I know
that is the plan. I believe
some of you are
on that other project. So,
hopefully that comes
to fruition.
But the designs layout,
it's a good use
of the property. And again,
does provide some great
housing compared
to some
of the projects we see. This
one, this one looks pretty
good.
>> I want a quick follow-up.
I heard a 5-lane Arata
Lane project? Am I
hallucinating?
>> So the town's general plan
circulation map identifies
the section of Arata Lane as
5 lanes
from really this project to
Highway 101. It's a very
small section. So in the
event that one day that is
needed, the project includes
an irrevocable offer of
dedication because it's
required to be consistent
with the general plan. That
is not the plan,
it is not necessary. There's
no indication that it's
needed. So until that time,
the lots that include that
irrevocable offer
of dedication along Arata
Lane, they just use that
property however they want
to use that property for
landscaping and enjoy that
property. If one day the town
needs it, the town has it.
That's why it's there. Thank
you. No, there's no plan
for that currently.
>> Okay, good.
>> So we have 2 resolutions.
One is for the negative
declaration and one is for
the resolution approving the
builder's remedy application.
Do we have a motion? I guess
we need to read the titles
on both. We can do resolution
number 1 first if we have a
motion to approve.
>> Anybody want to do it?
I move to approve
resolution number 1 and
resolution number 2. A
resolution of the Town of
Windsor Planning Commission
adopting a mitigation...
>> Hold on one second.
>> We do need to do them
one at a time.
>> Okay.
>> Well, I think actually we
could accept the motion and
then just vote separately if
you want to do that.
>> Okay, whatever works
for you.
Moving to approve a
resolution of the Town of
Windsor Planning Commission
adopting a mitigated negative
declaration and a mitigation
monitoring and reporting
program for the Los Amigos
Cottages Builders Remedy
Project at 263 Arata Lane.
Additionally, I move
to approve the resolution
of the Planning Commission
of the Town of Windsor
approving a builder's remedy
application for a 32-lot
tentative subdivision map,
affordable housing waivers,
and reservation
of growth control allocations
for the same Los Amigos
Cottages project.
>> Do we have a second for
resolution number 1?
>> I'm going to interrupt.
Let's just focus
on resolution number 1. So we
have a motion for that. Now
we're asking for a second,
and then we'll move on
to resolution number 2.
>> I second the first
resolution as read.
>> We have a roll call vote,
please.
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> Moving on
to resolution number 2 as
read by Commissioner
Fortino-Dickson. Do we have a
second?
>> You can second.
>> I'll second.
>> May we have a roll call
vote, please?
>> [ CALLING ROLL ]
>> Thank you. At this time,
we will look at item number
10, our regular calendar. We
have no items
on the regular calendar
at this time. Item number
11, our written
communication. I will
acknowledge we received a
number
of written communications
about the Windsor Creek
presentation and a couple
questions of staff that I
think they've handled.
Moving on to item number
12. 12.1, individual
commissioner reports and
comments, including reports
on meetings, conferences,
and activities
of miscellaneous agendas.
Agency? None there?
>> I don't want to steal
Director Streeter's thunder
if he's going to do this,
but I was asked to propagate
the message that there will
be a Sonoma County Transit
bus workshop coming up. Is
that in your presentation,
Patrick?
>> It wasn't, so go
for it.
>> Well, I should have had
the date ready.
But they're doing them all
around the town, one, and
there's one in Windsor.
It's coming up. I'll have to
go quickly look it up when
you're reporting.
But if people do want
to weigh in on the Windsor
shuttle bus or any service,
because they are changing how
the buses work with SMART.
And I will look up the date
and time. Apologies, and I'll
find it.
>> Anything, Richard? Okay.
Do we have any requests
for future agenda items?
Seeing none,
we will close item number
12. Move on to item number
13, our community development
director's report. Director
Streeter.
>> Thank you, Chair. I did
want to quickly address
the question came up
during the
opening presentation about
the builder's remedy and the
certified housing element,
how that all works. So
to give a little history,
as Ms. Jordan pointed out,
we last had our housing
element, our current housing
element was certified in
2023 by HCD. The way that the
RHNA works is that the
State Department of Housing
and Community Development
assigns a housing number
to each of the different COGs
or council of governments
within California. So ours is
MTC-ABAG. So ABAG was
assigned a certain number of,
you know, a couple hundred
thousand units that they had
to develop. Then the local
COG, MTC-ABAG, divides that
amongst the different
jurisdictions,
so cities and counties
within it. That's where the
994 were assigned to
Windsor. So the process of
developing your housing
element can't actually begin
until you receive that
assignment. And every city,
I'm pretty sure every city
and county appealed their
assignments. So,
those appeals had
to be heard by MTC-ABAG. And
then they granted one or two
of the appeals
on technicalities,
but everyone then had
to move forward
with their assignments. This
all occurred
through the years 2019 to
2022 during COVID. So it made
it even more challenging. So
there were significant delays
in just about every city in
California getting started on
developing their housing
elements. HCD reassured
everyone that although the
deadline was January of
2023. There'd be a grace
period because of all the
delays that everyone had
faced. And then when January
of 2023 came around, HCD
mentioned, actually,
there's a grace period,
but you're still open
to build as remedy. If you
don't have a certified
housing element, so Windsor
is not alone in being kind
of exposed
to that that window of
of builders' remedies. So we
received a couple of
builders' remedy
applications, including the
one that was just approved
tonight. But most other
cities also experienced the
same thing. So there was a
gap between when the
certified housing element was
due and when it was actually
certified by HCD. We have no
intention
of letting that happen again
for the next housing element,
which is required
to be certified by HCD in
January of 2031.
But we also have no control
over when those assignments
and allocations are made and
when they're divided up by
MTC-ABAG and what the
assignment would be and when
we could actually begin the
process of adopting the
housing element.
But learning lessons
from the past,
we'll try to have everything
lined up and ready to go as
soon as we are able to. And
then just discussing upcoming
agendas. So for Planning
Commission,
this is not a Planning
Commission meeting,
but commissioners
are welcome to attend. We
have the community meeting on
the station area plan
scheduled for next Monday the
20th. And then on August
11th, we do have a joint
Town Council Planning
Commission meeting. Again, to
discuss the station area plan
update. This will be the
first of 2 joint meetings
that we'd like to hold. And
on August 25th,
we have a public hearing
for the Clearwater Project.
As part of their development
agreement,
they must come back
before the review authority
to give an update
on progress of that
development agreement. This
one may also include
potential modifications to
that development agreement.
And looking
at council calendars, on
July 15th, so tomorrow,
we do have introduction of
the ordinance that would have
the updates
to the zoning ordinance,
including updates for ADU and
JADU code that was
recommended for approval
by the commission
at our last meeting. And on
August 5th, we have the
council requested that
planning staff come
forward with an item
to receive direction
on potential modifications
to the gas station ban. So
we're putting together a
package to bring
to the council
for their consideration
on providing further
direction to staff or just
saying let the issue go away.
And I think with that, that
will conclude my report
tonight.
>> Great, thank you very
much.
>> Just real quick, I found
the dates and I thank you.
So it could be a twofer.
After you do the station area
plan,
you can come back the next
night, July 21st, at the
Windsor Chamber/Depot
from 5:30 to 7:00 to talk
about the transit changes.
So show up
to that if you want.
>> Great.
At this time, we will
adjourn the meeting. The next
regular meeting of the
Planning Commission is
scheduled for Tuesday, July
28, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.,
and will be held in the
Council Chambers located at
9291 Old Redwood Highway,
Building 400, Windsor. Thank
you.