[0:23] >> Good evening.
[0:24] >> We're going to call
[0:25] to order a meeting of the
[0:27] Planning Commission of July
[0:28] 14th, 2026. Madam Secretary,
[0:29] roll call, please.
[0:31] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[0:39] >> Thank you. Vice Chair
[0:40] Zahner, would you lead us
[0:41] in the pledge?
[0:42] >> Fortino Dickson just
[0:43] messaged. She's
[0:44] on her way.
[0:45] >> Okay, thank you.
[0:48] >> I pledge allegiance to the
[0:50] Flag of the United States of
[0:51] America and to the Republic
[0:52] for which it stands,
[0:54] one nation under God,
[0:55] indivisible,
[0:56] with liberty and justice
[0:58] for all.
[1:02] >> Thank you. Moving on
[1:04] to item number 4, our
[1:06] conflict-of-interest
[1:07] declaration. Do any
[1:08] commissioners have a conflict
[1:10] with the agenda?
[1:12] >> No.
[1:13] >> Seeing none. Changes
[1:14] to the agenda, Director
[1:16] Schroeder, are there any
[1:17] changes tonight?
[1:19] >> We have no changes
[1:20] to the director, Chair.
[1:21] >> Thank you.
[1:22] >> To the
[1:23] >> I'm the director.
[1:24] >> I still have a job. Moving
[1:25] on to item number 6.1, our
[1:26] presentation. On the general
[1:27] plan land use and zoning
[1:28] designation for 8955 Condie
[1:32] Lane, Windsor Creek
[1:34] Elementary. Director
[1:35] Streeter, presentation,
[1:36] please.
[1:37] >> Thank you, Chair, members
[1:38] of the Planning Commission.
[1:39] So, the item right now is
[1:40] on request of the Commission, a
[1:42] brief discussion of the
[1:44] Windsor Creek Elementary
[1:45] School site, 8955 Condie
[1:47] Lane. And how that would relate
[1:49] to regulatory controls that are
[1:51] on the property,
[1:54] including the General Plan,
[1:55] land use designation,
[1:56] and the zoning. So, the purpose
[1:58] of this presentation is
[1:59] to talk about the General
[2:01] Plan, what it is,
[2:02] what the zoning code is,
[2:06] and then how it applies
[2:07] to this site. To talk about
[2:08] what the planning process would
[2:09] be for residential development
[2:13] on the site.
[2:14] to discuss other forms
[2:15] of regulation that we have
[2:16] for land uses, including the
[2:17] California Environmental
[2:21] Quality Act and state law. And
[2:23] then outline opportunities for
[2:25] community engagement should a
[2:26] proposal be analyzed to change
[2:27] what the designation is
[2:28] for that site. And obviously
[2:29] there is a proposed project
[2:30] for the Windsor Creek
[2:31] Elementary site. We will not be
[2:32] discussing the project
[2:44] specifically. We'll just be
[2:45] talking
[2:46] about residential development
[2:47] on the site. Part of this is
[2:50] because we just received the
[2:51] application yesterday. So,
[2:52] staff hasn't had any time to
[2:58] review what's being proposed.
[3:02] Additionally, any land use
[3:04] development proposal that would
[3:06] be considered
[3:08] for that site would come
[3:09] before the Planning
[3:11] Commission. And
[3:12] since that is not
[3:14] on the agenda today,
[3:15] it would be premature for the
[3:16] Planning Commission to discuss
[3:17] any specific project.
[3:21] >> Okay.
[3:22] >> So, as I mentioned,
[3:23] the site is the location of the
[3:24] former or the former location
[3:25] of the Windsor Creek
[3:26] Elementary School. The
[3:28] buildings are still there, but
[3:30] it no longer operates as a
[3:31] school. It's approximately
[3:32] 11.5 acres,
[3:33] and the parcel does include
[3:36] Armando Renzulla Way, which
[3:37] connects up to Condie Lane. It
[3:38] is adjacent to Windsor Creek.
[3:40] the actual waterway. And it's
[3:45] within our station area. So
[3:46] that's generally walking
[3:47] distance
[3:48] to the SMART train station.
[3:51] There's additional planning
[3:53] that has gone
[3:55] into development as it relates
[3:56] to transit-oriented development
[3:58] and development that we'd like
[3:59] to see in our downtown or
[4:00] within proximity to transit.
[4:01] The general plan
[4:02] for the site is public,
[4:03] quasi-public, which generally
[4:05] means institutional uses or
[4:11] public uses. Recreation and
[4:12] parks are allowed uses
[4:16] in those locations.
[4:17] Obviously, schools would be
[4:19] allowed and other type of civic
[4:20] buildings or civic land uses.
[4:25] Importantly, it's worth noting
[4:26] that residential uses are not a
[4:27] permitted use within that land
[4:28] use designation. The way that
[4:29] the zoning code and the
[4:33] General Plan work together
[4:34] General Plan is basically a
[4:35] roadmap for how the town
[4:38] envisions the development
[4:39] occurring. And the zoning are
[4:41] the rules that are in place
[4:42] to realize that vision. So, the
[4:45] zoning implements the General
[4:46] Plan. It's public
[4:48] institutional. And it, again,
[4:49] allows the types of land uses
[4:50] that I just described that we
[4:52] envision for the site in the
[4:54] General Plan. It does not allow
[4:57] residential development.
[4:58] Additionally, on the site there
[4:59] are some environmental
[5:01] constraints. There's a flood
[5:03] hazard overlay. And as I
[5:04] mentioned, the zoning kind
[5:09] of sets the rules. So, what
[5:11] types
[5:12] of buildings are allowed, what
[5:13] heights, the intensity,
[5:18] the proximity
[5:20] to the property line, things
[5:21] like that, in addition
[5:23] to the actual land use,
[5:24] are all regulated by the zoning
[5:25] code. I mentioned the property
[5:28] is also within the Station
[5:29] Area Plan. The plan is meant
[5:30] to implement a special type
[5:31] of development that we'd like
[5:32] to see occurring close
[5:35] to transit. This is in concert
[5:39] with state guidance as well as
[5:40] regional planning to try to
[5:42] locate the highest densities
[5:43] and intensities and diversity
[5:44] of land uses
[5:45] in areas that are easy
[5:47] to access easy to access both
[5:48] by car but also by transit and
[5:51] pedestrian and bicycle and
[5:53] other modes. And it's worth
[5:54] noting that we are currently
[5:57] in the process
[5:59] of updating the Station Area
[6:01] Plan. This is an entirely
[6:02] grant-funded process,
[6:04] and we're expecting it to take
[6:05] about a year. As I mentioned,
[6:12] it just kicked off. And it's
[6:14] really to update the plan
[6:15] to better align with best
[6:16] practices that we've learned
[6:17] for the areas around transit.
[6:19] It's timely
[6:20] since we're a little
[6:21] over a year now with having
[6:22] transit service coming
[6:24] to downtown Windsor. And an
[6:25] example I like to give is that
[6:26] the previous station area plan
[6:27] had a lot of our downtown
[6:28] square footage dedicated
[6:29] to office uses, which at the
[6:30] time probably made sense, but
[6:31] now that we realize the
[6:32] dynamics of land use
[6:33] in the current age, we need
[6:34] to rethink some things. So,
[6:36] that's one
[6:37] of those things that's going
[6:43] to be considered is the types
[6:44] of land uses that we'd like
[6:45] to see in our downtown.
[6:46] >> Okay.
[6:48] >> As I mentioned, the
[6:49] Windsor Creek site is
[6:50] within that downtown boundary.
[6:51] So, part
[6:52] of this process is considering,
[6:55] is the current designation
[6:58] appropriate? Would the town
[6:59] like to see a different
[7:01] designation there? What would
[7:02] the town's vision be for the
[7:03] Windsor Creek site? So, I'd
[7:04] encourage everyone in the room
[7:05] to participate
[7:12] in this process. We do have a
[7:20] meeting scheduled right for
[7:21] in this room next Monday from
[7:27] 5 to 7. We will provide
[7:28] refreshments. And
[7:29] in addition, we have some,
[7:30] very quick surveys
[7:31] on the table over there, just
[7:33] 3-question surveys that we've
[7:35] just been we call them
[7:36] intercept surveys. So, I've
[7:39] been asking people
[7:40] on the train platform, walking
[7:42] around the town green,
[7:43] just a couple quick questions
[7:45] about how people use the
[7:46] downtown currently and how
[7:48] they'd like
[7:49] to see the downtown changed,
[7:51] if at all. So, I encourage
[7:52] everyone to just fill out those
[7:54] quick surveys if you can and
[7:56] drop them in the basket. It
[7:57] helps our planning process.
[7:58] But please
[8:02] >> Thank you.
[8:03] Be engaged and be a part
[8:04] of this process. So, I did
[8:05] mention we have received a
[8:06] preliminary application
[8:07] for development on the
[8:08] Windsor Creek site.
[8:09] At this time,
[8:10] we have not completed any
[8:12] review of whether it's a
[8:15] complete application,
[8:16] what's being proposed,
[8:17] analysis of how it aligns
[8:18] with or does not align
[8:19] with the town's regulations.
[8:20] So, it'd be premature
[8:24] to discuss it at this time. But
[8:25] I will acknowledge that an
[8:27] application has been received.
[8:28] It's a preliminary application,
[8:29] so it's not a formal
[8:30] application. There's no set
[8:31] path to decision-making
[8:32] at this point. This is purely
[8:34] for staff
[8:35] to review and comment on.
[8:38] But it is publicly available.
[8:40] It's public information. So,
[8:41] at the end of the slideshow,
[8:44] I do have information
[8:45] for how members of the public
[8:46] community can review that
[8:47] project and comment
[8:48] on it and be a part of the
[8:50] process as it moves forward.
[8:54] >> Okay.
[8:55] >> So, as I said, there's no
[8:56] public hearing scheduled.
[8:57] There are no approvals set
[8:58] to take place at this time.
[9:02] We've just received that
[9:03] preliminary application.
[9:06] There's also been a lot
[9:08] of talk about streamlining,
[9:13] allowing development to move
[9:14] around the town's general plan
[9:15] and zoning. So, I did want
[9:17] to bring up 2 relevant pieces
[9:18] of legislation, AB 2295 and
[9:19] 1021, which are essentially
[9:20] referred to as workforce
[9:29] housing streamlining
[9:31] for schools. And they do not
[9:32] exempt school housing
[9:36] school-based housing projects.
[9:37] What they do is
[9:39] for projects that are in line
[9:40] with the state criteria, they
[9:42] require a local jurisdiction
[9:44] to find them consistent
[9:45] with the zoning and consistent
[9:47] with the general plan. So, I
[9:48] mentioned earlier that there's
[9:49] that residential is not an
[9:50] allowed land use in the
[9:51] General Plan for this area. A
[9:57] project that met the standards
[9:58] set forth through these pieces
[9:59] of legislation would be
[10:01] determined by the state
[10:02] to be consistent with the
[10:03] General Plan even though it's
[10:04] not an allowed land use.
[10:05] For the Windsor Creek
[10:10] Residential Development
[10:11] Project that was received,
[10:13] looking
[10:15] through that application, it
[10:17] does include as requests a
[10:18] general plan amendment,
[10:20] and a rezoning. So,
[10:21] at this time, there is no
[10:23] indication that a residential
[10:26] development on that site would
[10:28] invoke the state law. All
[10:29] indicators right now point
[10:31] to it going through the
[10:32] standard process that's
[10:33] required for any time you
[10:34] propose residential in an area
[10:35] where residential is not
[10:36] allowed. And I'll walk
[10:38] through that process
[10:39] in the coming slides. Any
[10:41] development project is also
[10:42] subject to the California
[10:44] Environmental Quality Act.
[10:45] Most likely a project,
[10:46] a residential project,
[10:53] since that is not consistent
[10:54] with the General Plan, would
[10:55] trigger what we call an
[10:56] EIR-level review. So
[10:57] Environmental Impact Report,
[10:59] that's the highest level
[11:00] of CEQA. And that can take the
[11:01] form of a focused EIR
[11:02] for that project specific,
[11:04] or an addendum to the town's
[11:05] EIR that was adopted for the
[11:06] General Plan. What some
[11:12] development projects do is tier
[11:13] off of the existing General
[11:14] Plan EIR. A residential project
[11:15] proposed for the Windsor Creek
[11:17] site could not do that because
[11:20] it's residential is not
[11:23] consistent with the vision
[11:24] for that site that was analyzed
[11:25] in the EIR. So additional
[11:26] review would have
[11:28] to take place. The town,
[11:29] importantly,
[11:31] is the lead agency
[11:32] for CEQA review. So, a
[11:34] developer does not do their own
[11:36] environmental review. The town
[11:37] does the environmental review.
[11:38] at the cost of the developer.
[11:39] So, the town does have control
[11:40] of who does the technical
[11:43] studies, whether they're
[11:49] acceptable, and then ultimately
[11:50] the town's decision makers
[11:52] decide whether that
[11:55] environmental review document
[11:56] is adequate. And so,
[12:02] on this hypothetical of a
[12:06] residential development
[12:07] proposed for a public
[12:08] institutional site, There's a
[12:09] number of public touchpoints.
[12:14] So, as I mentioned, right now
[12:15] there's an application in. We
[12:16] are reviewing it
[12:18] for completeness. So, the town
[12:19] has a list
[12:20] of materials that we need
[12:21] to see
[12:22] to even begin our analysis
[12:23] of a proposed project.
[12:25] Anything that's not a draft
[12:26] report is considered public
[12:27] information. So, during this
[12:28] completeness review, The public
[12:29] is welcome to come
[12:32] to town hall and request
[12:33] to review the plans. That's
[12:35] public information that's
[12:36] available. We are also we have
[12:42] a website dedicated to the
[12:43] Windsor Creek site. That'll be
[12:47] updated as the project moves
[12:49] forward. So, it's another
[12:50] source
[12:51] of information available to the
[12:54] public. I mentioned that
[12:55] technical studies and referrals
[12:56] take place. So once a project
[12:57] is deemed complete,
[12:58] referrals are sent out.
[13:00] Internally, our Public Works
[13:01] Department will review
[13:02] projects. Planning will review
[13:03] projects. We also send out
[13:05] to outside agencies including
[13:10] Sonoma County Fire, the
[13:13] Police Department, Sonoma
[13:15] County Resource Recovery. And
[13:18] all these different agencies
[13:19] weigh in on a project,
[13:21] whether or not it's adequate
[13:23] down to the turn radiuses
[13:24] for specific site design.
[13:25] But also, a project that would
[13:30] be proposing residential
[13:31] on public institutional,
[13:32] we'd also be looking at that
[13:35] General Plan land use change.
[13:36] So, what are the impacts
[13:37] of changing what was planned
[13:38] for that site? So not just
[13:39] on the site, but also how it
[13:40] affects surrounding
[13:41] neighborhoods,
[13:45] how it affects transportation
[13:47] routes, evacuation routes,
[13:48] the ability
[13:49] to provide public services,
[13:53] those kind of things. It is
[13:55] subject to CEQA. Typically, the
[13:56] CEQA review takes place
[13:57] concurrently
[13:58] with the project review. We
[13:59] cannot approve a project
[14:00] without finding it to comply
[14:02] with CEQA. So that's why those
[14:03] 2 typically align, and there
[14:04] may be changes
[14:05] to the project as a result
[14:06] of the CEQA analysis. The CEQA
[14:07] for an EIR requires public
[14:08] scoping meetings,
[14:15] so it's another opportunity
[14:18] for the public to weigh in
[14:19] on what potential impacts
[14:20] of the project could be. As
[14:22] well as when a draft CEQA
[14:24] document is released. The
[14:25] public is invited to comment
[14:26] on that. It typically also
[14:27] includes a public hearing
[14:28] in front of the Planning
[14:30] Commission where the commission
[14:31] can review the draft document
[14:33] as well as, again,
[14:36] the public can have input.
[14:39] That would result in a final
[14:40] EIR or final CEQA document,
[14:41] which again has
[14:42] to be certified
[14:44] before any approvals
[14:45] for a project could take place.
[14:46] And for a residential project
[14:51] proposed
[14:52] on a public institutional site,
[14:53] That would require a public
[14:55] hearing in front of the
[14:56] Planning Commission
[14:57] for a recommendation
[14:58] to amend the General Plan,
[14:59] amend the Station Area Plan,
[15:01] and amend the Zoning Code. And
[15:02] then that recommendation would
[15:03] go to the Town Council
[15:05] for final approval of the CEQA
[15:10] review process as well as those
[15:11] entitlements, including any
[15:12] site design or project-specific
[15:14] proposal. So, the planning
[15:15] aspect
[15:16] of this is multifaceted. So,
[15:18] in addition
[15:19] to the environmental concerns,
[15:21] planning is also looking
[15:22] at what kind of fit a proposed
[15:24] project would be
[15:25] for the community. And so,
[15:29] looking
[15:31] at our guiding documents,
[15:35] including any changes that are
[15:39] proposed
[15:40] to those guiding documents,
[15:41] I mentioned previously
[15:42] emergency access, evacuation,
[15:43] circulation, how it ties
[15:44] into the fabric
[15:45] of the town.
[15:48] >> Okay.
[15:49] >> Infrastructure and services.
[15:50] Any new development we would
[15:51] have to provide municipal
[15:52] services to. When the town's
[15:55] general plan was adopted,
[15:56] we assumed this would be used
[15:57] for a school or some other
[15:58] public use. So, if that's
[15:59] changed to residential,
[16:00] we have to analyze how that
[16:01] affects the town's ability
[16:02] to provide those services. And
[16:03] I mentioned outside agencies.
[16:10] Sonoma County Fire District is
[16:12] a separate agency. They would
[16:13] be involved
[16:14] in this referral as well to
[16:15] determine whether or not they'd
[16:16] be able
[16:17] to provide adequate services
[16:18] to a land use change
[16:19] like this. It does have
[16:22] proximity to the creek, so
[16:23] there'd be the biological
[16:24] considerations as well as flood
[16:26] constraint considerations,
[16:28] things like that. And I
[16:30] mentioned that this would not
[16:32] be looked at in isolation
[16:33] of the site itself, but
[16:34] in the context of the community
[16:35] that surrounds it. And it is
[16:38] part of the downtown,
[16:40] so we look at it
[16:41] in that context as well.
[16:42] There's also been discussion
[16:46] about the regional housing
[16:47] needs allocation and the town's
[16:50] requirement
[16:51] to provide housing. So, the
[16:55] town is subject to RHNA, which
[17:00] is that allocation that I
[17:01] mentioned. The current cycle
[17:03] has assigned 994 units
[17:05] to the town. The assignment
[17:07] essentially is that the town
[17:08] has to plan for development
[17:09] of these units. The town is not
[17:10] responsible
[17:12] for building those units. And
[17:15] there's no penalties if that
[17:16] number
[17:18] of units are not constructed.
[17:19] That development takes place
[17:23] through private developers and
[17:26] nonprofit developers. The town
[17:31] just has to show where all
[17:32] these housing units can go.
[17:33] In addition to the number,
[17:34] it's also broken down
[17:35] into income levels. So, there's
[17:37] very low income, low income,
[17:38] moderate, and above moderate.
[17:39] Above moderate is just market
[17:41] rate housing. And again,
[17:42] the town does not have
[17:45] to provide those number
[17:46] of units. We just have
[17:47] to provide a plan for how they
[17:48] could all be built. And the
[17:52] town currently has a certified
[17:54] housing element. It's been
[17:55] accepted. And that housing
[18:02] element did not include any
[18:03] housing on the Windsor Creek
[18:04] site because we had assumed
[18:06] that that would be a school
[18:08] site or other public use. So
[18:09] residential development on
[18:10] Windsor Creek is not needed to
[18:14] meet the town's housing
[18:15] assignment. And there has been
[18:16] talk about the number of
[18:17] housing units that have been
[18:22] going in. We are still falling
[18:26] short of most of our income
[18:27] level assignments. So very low
[18:28] and moderate, we're
[18:29] at 3% and 15%.
[18:32] of that target currently,
[18:36] about halfway
[18:39] through the cycle. Above
[18:41] moderate is a little bit more
[18:43] than halfway. In the area
[18:44] of low income,
[18:45] we have exceeded that target.
[18:46] But as I mentioned,
[18:49] there's no final report card at
[18:50] the end that we get penalized
[18:52] or anything like that
[18:53] in the current housing cycle.
[18:55] State law is fickle and can
[18:56] always change. But currently
[18:58] there's no requirement
[18:59] for the town to actually have
[19:01] these units be built. There is
[19:07] the term builder's remedy,
[19:11] which has been you may have
[19:12] heard. In fact, we have a
[19:13] project that we'll be
[19:15] discussing builder's remedy
[19:16] later on today's agenda.
[19:18] Builder's remedy is applicable
[19:20] when a town is out
[19:23] of compliance
[19:25] with that REINA assignment.
[19:27] So, there was a period where
[19:28] the town Did not have an
[19:29] HCD-certified housing element.
[19:31] That opened the town
[19:36] for builder's remedy, which is
[19:38] another streamlining path that
[19:39] can be used by development.
[19:41] In the case of any current
[19:43] development proposals,
[19:45] including the one for the
[19:46] Windsor Creek site, the town
[19:47] now has a certified housing
[19:50] element, so builder's remedy is
[19:51] not an option on the table.
[19:56] So, the key takeaways
[19:57] from this presentation. Right
[19:59] now, the site is dedicated
[20:01] for public uses. The state
[20:02] doesn't have any mandate that
[20:06] we rezone the property. So, I
[20:07] wrote up here the town has
[20:08] discretion. It's still a yes or
[20:10] no vote from the town of
[20:11] Windsor whether or not
[20:12] to change that land use
[20:14] to allow residential. Even
[20:15] with affordable housing,
[20:20] there's waivers for getting
[20:22] around standards. Those don't
[20:23] apply to land use. So,
[20:24] including affordable housing in
[20:27] a project does not allow a
[20:29] project to not change the land
[20:34] use or request a change
[20:35] of land use. The California
[20:37] Environmental Quality Act is
[20:38] still applicable
[20:40] to any development project.
[20:41] And I mentioned we have
[20:42] received a preliminary
[20:43] application, but we have not
[20:45] done any analysis on that. And
[20:46] moving forward, there will be
[20:47] several opportunities
[20:50] for public input and
[20:51] engagement. But we as staff
[20:54] welcome engagement all
[20:55] through the planning process.
[20:58] So, don't feel hesitant
[21:01] to give a call to staff or
[21:02] to send an email. We welcome
[21:04] all those communications. So,
[21:05] I'm available if there are any
[21:07] questions or if anyone wants
[21:09] to reach out to me. I also
[21:10] mentioned the town's website
[21:11] has information on the
[21:13] Windsor Creek School site as
[21:15] well as the application that's
[21:17] been received. And Kim Jordan
[21:22] is our planner
[21:23] for that project,
[21:24] so she can be reached directly
[21:25] at the information that's
[21:26] on the screen. And that
[21:27] concludes my presentation.
[21:29] >> Great, thank you very much,
[21:31] Patrick. Just remember
[21:32] to the public, we are not
[21:34] addressing a specific plan here
[21:36] tonight, although one has been
[21:37] submitted. And so, questions
[21:38] from the Commission to staff,
[21:39] if they have any
[21:40] about this process, are going
[21:42] to be in general, not specific
[21:43] to any developments that may
[21:46] have been proposed. We will
[21:49] have a public comment time
[21:51] after this as well. We'll go
[21:52] over some rules for that.
[21:54] Hopefully everybody can
[21:56] maintain their decorum and keep
[21:57] it civil. But we will not be
[21:59] taking any action. We're just
[22:00] receiving this presentation
[22:01] tonight. There's no vote.
[22:02] There's no decisions being made
[22:03] on anything here. So, we'll
[22:04] move forward. Do any members
[22:05] of the Commission have
[22:06] questions for staff
[22:08] at this time?
[22:10] >> Can I make a general
[22:11] comment?
[22:12] >> Sure.
[22:13] >> Kind of further addressing
[22:14] the public, I've seen a lot
[22:15] of questions
[22:16] about just the process
[22:20] in general, how you make sure
[22:21] there's traffic and movement
[22:22] and emergency plans. So, I
[22:24] encourage any members of the
[22:27] public that were interested
[22:28] in this topic to continue to
[22:29] stay because we'll be covering
[22:30] that for a different project.
[22:33] So you'll get a good better
[22:34] understanding of how the
[22:35] process works and all the
[22:36] different things that we take
[22:37] into consideration that are
[22:38] presented
[22:40] through the staff reports. So a
[22:41] lot of the things that Patrick
[22:43] mentioned that are part
[22:44] of the planning review,
[22:45] we'll be discussing for a
[22:50] different project later today.
[22:51] >> Any other questions? Seeing
[22:53] none. Okay,
[22:54] at this time we are going
[22:55] to open public comments.
[22:56] Reminder, public comment is
[22:58] limited to 3 minutes. Please
[23:00] state your name and address
[23:01] for the record. Direct your
[23:03] comments to the Commission. We
[23:07] probably won't be answering any
[23:08] questions. We may provide some
[23:09] clarification if it's needed.
[23:13] We're really going
[23:14] to be taking notes. and kind
[23:15] of listening to the public
[23:16] on this one. So, if anybody
[23:23] would like to make a comment,
[23:24] please approach the podium
[23:25] in the front.
[23:26] >> Hi there.
[23:27] >> Hello.
[23:28] >> My name is Cindy Bartell.
[23:29] Thank you
[23:30] for explaining that so well.
[23:31] That is Mr. Streeter, is the
[23:32] best I've ever heard it
[23:33] explained. And so,
[23:34] when we're talking
[23:35] about housing for teachers,
[23:36] since we are We have plenty
[23:37] of low-income housing now. Is
[23:38] there I don't know if there's
[23:39] anything that's preventing
[23:40] those teachers from applying
[23:42] for housing at one
[23:45] of those complexes.
[23:49] But if there's enough,
[23:50] there's enough. The
[23:52] high-density housing at
[23:54] Shiloh Road and Old Redwood
[23:55] Highway has brought
[23:57] in so much parking from more
[23:58] cars than that place can fit,
[23:59] that you can't even go
[24:02] to the park that is there.
[24:03] Also, the county complaining
[24:04] about water so much,
[24:06] and yet we're going
[24:09] to build a lot more housing.
[24:13] That doesn't make sense to me
[24:14] at all. And at one time,
[24:15] there was a rep
[24:17] from the post office who came
[24:19] to a meeting. He said they'd be
[24:22] very interested in putting a
[24:27] post office there. I don't
[24:30] think that's the worst idea.
[24:31] It's a very tiny little
[24:32] facility they're
[24:33] in and they're bursting
[24:34] at the seams. So, and let's
[24:36] see.
[24:38] >> Oh.
[24:39] >> And I'm wondering,
[24:42] from the low-income housing,
[24:43] I know you can't answer me, but
[24:45] it's just a question I have.
[24:46] Windsor,
[24:47] from what I understand,
[24:48] gains zero
[24:52] from having more housing. But
[24:53] it does say you have wear and
[24:57] tear on our roads,
[24:58] on our streets, fire, police
[25:04] department, all cost money.
[25:05] To bring
[25:06] in that many more people,
[25:07] it doesn't make sense
[25:08] to me.
[25:10] >> Thank you.
[25:14] >> Good evening,
[25:19] Commissioners. My name is
[25:20] Jessie Valerie, and I live at
[25:21] 8920 Oakfield Lane. I'd like to
[25:25] ask how the town evaluates
[25:26] cumulative impacts and
[25:28] determines what is considered
[25:29] safe. We know that each project
[25:30] undergoes environmental review
[25:31] under the CEQA and traffic
[25:32] analysis, but my question is
[25:34] how safe is actually
[25:35] determined? What data
[25:37] assumptions and standards are
[25:38] being used to conclude that the
[25:45] cumulative impacts on traffic
[25:46] infrastructure and emergency
[25:47] evacuation are acceptable? Are
[25:49] those analyses based on today's
[25:51] conditions and the current
[25:52] number of approved, proposed,
[25:58] and under-construction
[25:59] developments, or are projects
[26:01] being evaluated largely
[26:03] on an individual basis? Using a
[26:08] conservative estimate of 2
[26:10] vehicles per household, the
[26:13] Armando Rizzullo development,
[26:14] the Mill Creek project,
[26:16] and existing Oakfield
[26:17] neighborhood as well as
[26:18] Windsor Mobile Country Club
[26:21] represent roughly 860 homes.
[26:23] >> This is approximate.
[26:25] >> And approximately 1,700
[26:27] vehicles. If the proposed
[26:28] Gallagher project is approved,
[26:31] that number grows
[26:33] to approximately 1,200 homes
[26:36] and nearly 2,500 vehicles
[26:37] relying on essentially the same
[26:39] road network.
[26:41] >> Okay.
[26:42] >> At what point does the town
[26:43] determine that the cumulative
[26:45] impact has reached a level that
[26:46] requires reevaluation? Is there
[26:47] a capacity threshold for roads
[26:48] and evacuation routes? And if
[26:52] so, are we approaching it? As
[26:54] someone who lives
[26:55] in this neighborhood,
[26:56] I already see cracked
[26:57] sidewalks, limited parking,
[26:58] speeding traffic,
[27:02] infrastructure that struggles
[27:03] to serve today's residents.
[27:04] So, my concern is simply
[27:05] growth. It's about whether the
[27:06] infrastructure and emergency
[27:08] access are keeping the pace.
[27:11] >> Thank you.
[27:12] >> with the growth. Also,
[27:13] with the parking issues, where
[27:14] would everyone put their
[27:15] garbage cans? Which I know is
[27:16] not as important,
[27:17] but it is a big deal. Growth is
[27:18] important, but so is public
[27:20] safety and thoughtful planning.
[27:22] I respectfully ask the
[27:24] commission to help residents
[27:26] understand how these
[27:27] conclusions are reached,
[27:29] what evidence supports them,
[27:32] and how the town ensures that
[27:33] cumulative impacts are being
[27:35] considered before additional
[27:36] density is approved.
[27:38] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[27:46] >> Name is Sam Salmon, 956
[27:48] Milson Place. I just wanted
[27:50] to indicate that the importance
[27:52] to me as a resident is the
[27:53] connectivity between the Mill
[27:56] site, which is
[28:00] across the creek, the Windsor
[28:02] Creek site, which is
[28:07] on the west side, Cora Creek,
[28:09] and then the downtown. I think
[28:14] that's a real opportunity
[28:16] to connect up the high school
[28:17] with the really the downtown
[28:18] and actually connect it up
[28:19] with the opposite side
[28:21] of the freeway. And it's really
[28:22] important. The proposal that
[28:23] staff will be looking at,
[28:24] it's not there. The proposal
[28:25] of the approved mill site
[28:27] There is a pedestrian bridge
[28:28] in that project. The New Mill
[28:31] site, probably not.
[28:33] But I just wanted to bring that
[28:37] up because I think it's really
[28:38] important if we're going to
[28:39] have a town that really values
[28:42] pedestrian and bicycling
[28:49] separate from the car. And we
[28:51] have a wonderful opportunity.
[28:54] Thank you.
[28:56] >> Thank you.
[28:59] >> Hi, good evening, Planning
[29:00] Commission. My name is
[29:02] Melanie Markarian. I live
[29:04] in the Oakfield neighborhood.
[29:05] Some of you may recognize me
[29:07] from being active on Facebook
[29:10] recently regarding the site.
[29:12] I'm here tonight
[29:14] representing myself and many of
[29:15] my neighbors opposing the
[29:18] rezoning. There are many
[29:20] reasons why we oppose the
[29:21] rezoning, but I'll focus on
[29:22] what matters most density and
[29:24] access. The Oakfield
[29:25] neighborhood is small, very
[29:27] small, with Condie Lane being
[29:31] the only way in and out. A
[29:33] 360-plus unit development is
[29:36] way too dense for this site,
[29:37] especially stacked on top of
[29:38] Cora Creek's 100-plus units
[29:39] already in development.
[29:40] Together, that's over 400 new
[29:41] families funneling
[29:42] through a single access point.
[29:43] Wildfire evacuation. That
[29:47] single road bottleneck is not a
[29:49] hypothetical risk. Many
[29:51] Sonoma County residents have
[29:54] evacuated for wildfire
[29:55] at least once. Many know what
[29:57] it feels like to be stuck
[29:58] in gridlock, fearing
[29:59] for your life, unable
[30:01] to move. This was my experience
[30:03] living on the edge of Coffey
[30:06] Park during the 2017 Tubbs
[30:07] Fire. Adding hundreds more
[30:08] households to a neighborhood
[30:09] with only one way out isn't
[30:10] just a planning problem,
[30:11] it's a public safety problem.
[30:13] Traffic and parking. We have a
[30:14] really good example at Shiloh
[30:16] Terrace. We don't have
[30:17] to guess what it's going
[30:18] to look like on our street. We
[30:19] can just see it right now. The
[30:22] housing math is not adding up
[30:24] between Heritage Park,
[30:26] Cascadia Burbank Housing, Cora
[30:28] Creek, Shiloh Crossing.
[30:30] There's already 346 units
[30:31] proposed or
[30:33] in development nearby. The
[30:34] already constructed
[30:37] developments, Shiloh Terrace
[30:38] and Redwood Views, are both
[30:39] currently struggling
[30:40] to fill vacancies, and there's
[30:42] been no surveys conducted
[30:43] to demonstrate demand
[30:44] for another 360+ units on top
[30:45] of that. In addition, the
[30:50] low-income housing quota has
[30:51] already been met. Open space.
[30:53] Windsor is already short
[30:56] on parks, and the Oakfield
[30:57] neighborhood does not have a
[30:58] park. The field on this
[31:00] property is the only green
[31:01] space we have. Once it's paved,
[31:02] it's gone permanently. My
[31:06] partner and I built our home
[31:10] in the Oakfield neighborhood
[31:11] under the assumption that that
[31:14] parcel was public use and it
[31:15] that it would remain that way.
[31:17] We felt like it was a safe and
[31:18] community-oriented place,
[31:19] and that's where we chose
[31:20] to put roots down
[31:21] with the intention
[31:22] to start a family. With all
[31:23] these points I've mentioned,
[31:24] we're left wondering if we've
[31:27] made a mistake. The bottom line
[31:28] is we are urging the council
[31:29] and the commission
[31:30] to reject a rezoning
[31:32] from public use to high-density
[31:33] residential.
[31:37] >> That's it.
[31:41] >> Thank you. Hi there. This is
[31:45] Jody Piscatello, neighbors
[31:48] on the same street. One thing I
[31:53] wanted to point out
[31:55] from the presentation,
[31:57] I love the slide
[31:58] with the circle around
[31:59] like the designated area. And I
[32:00] think that that's probably
[32:02] something that's
[32:03] like cut and paste
[32:04] for a mandate, right? It makes
[32:05] a lot of sense, especially
[32:06] for a city. It makes tons
[32:07] of sense. And when you have,
[32:09] like,
[32:10] tall buildings going up next
[32:12] to tall buildings going up,
[32:13] then that falls in line.
[32:15] Windsor is a town,
[32:16] and we do have land. And I feel
[32:18] like, other than, of course,
[32:22] the SMART train, you know,
[32:23] with the buses, it's easier to
[32:24] move a bus route than it is
[32:29] >> Right.
[32:30] To fix lanes where we don't
[32:34] have room to widen them, or
[32:35] create parking where there's no
[32:37] room, no visibility
[32:38] around kind of a thing. So, I
[32:39] love the picture that shows
[32:42] this, and I also kind
[32:43] of marry it up
[32:46] with the survey that came out
[32:47] that said how welcoming and
[32:48] engaging is downtown. And it's
[32:53] actually and I know I've told
[32:54] you this before it's something
[32:56] that I brag about because it is
[32:57] really welcoming, and the fact
[33:00] that people can walk to it.
[33:01] So, you know,
[33:03] with that respect,
[33:04] all the housing going up,
[33:05] people can walk,
[33:06] that's fantastic.
[33:08] But keeping it welcoming,
[33:09] I'm concerned about any time we
[33:10] do something high-rise,
[33:15] high-density when you don't
[33:19] have to, simply because
[33:20] of the lack of resources
[33:21] for the people living there.
[33:22] We're finding, hearing that
[33:26] they're, the crime,
[33:28] has risen and calls
[33:30] for our peace officers
[33:33] to go where those exist. So,
[33:34] where I want it
[33:35] to be welcoming to visitors,
[33:37] also anybody moving in,
[33:38] they should have a home
[33:39] like everyone else. Like, you
[33:45] know what I mean?
[33:46] Like high density,
[33:47] and I don't mean to be rude,
[33:48] but we're literally building
[33:49] the projects, right,
[33:50] that you hear about like
[33:53] on TV.
[33:55] >> Right.
[33:56] >> Because you're basically
[33:57] saying, you're othering people
[33:58] by saying when you live
[33:59] in a big block like this where
[34:01] it looks pretty today, oh,
[34:02] you're low income. And why
[34:04] would we treat anybody that
[34:06] way?
[34:08] Like we're all neighbors,
[34:09] we're all one community. So why
[34:10] would we other them
[34:11] by stacking them up, you know,
[34:12] in an area where that's not
[34:13] inviting
[34:14] to our own community? So, I
[34:15] know I'm speaking a lot of
[34:21] random thoughts cause I wasn't
[34:22] prepared, I just came and those
[34:23] are the things that came up,
[34:24] so.
[34:26] >> Yeah.
[34:27] >> But anyways, I hope that
[34:28] with this circle and us being a
[34:29] town that we can put thought
[34:30] into it to where we can invite
[34:31] people in, but also keep it
[34:32] completely welcoming for all
[34:35] of us who live there, you know,
[34:36] and keep that downtown smooth
[34:37] traffic, you know, all
[34:39] of that, you know,
[34:40] without so we don't check boxes
[34:43] to destroy it. Anyways, that's
[34:48] all. Thank you. Thank you.
[34:59] >> Hi, Betsy Niles,
[35:00] Springtree Circle. I think I
[35:01] have a quick and easy question.
[35:04] It said in the handout that
[35:06] Windsor has an HCD-certified
[35:08] housing element
[35:09] for the current cycle. So, when
[35:10] does the current cycle end?
[35:12] Because it seems that
[35:13] previously we were not
[35:17] certified.
[35:18] >> Okay.
[35:19] >> And I'd like to know when
[35:20] that was because the previous
[35:21] the future project
[35:23] on this agenda was under that
[35:24] previous time when we were not
[35:25] certified. So the builder
[35:26] remedy would be applicable
[35:27] then. So, I guess my question
[35:28] is just on the timing as
[35:30] to when Windsor has was
[35:31] certified and how long it is
[35:32] certified for. And then if for
[35:33] some reason I thought it was
[35:34] 20 it was certified till,
[35:36] but I may have just completely
[35:45] made that up.
[35:46] But what are you doing to
[35:47] ensure that it stays certified
[35:48] for the next cycle and
[35:49] for however long that may be?
[35:55] >> Thanks.
[36:06] >> Good evening, Chair. I might
[36:08] go just into the 4th minute,
[36:11] if that's okay.
[36:14] >> Thank you.
[36:17] >> All right, good evening,
[36:19] Commission. My name is Kevin
[36:20] Scanlon, currently a 29-year
[36:21] resident of the town of
[36:22] Windsor, Windsor Creek
[36:23] residential and elementary
[36:24] school neighborhood. I've been
[36:25] in the government realm for
[36:26] over 40 years and educated
[36:29] for 27 years. I was a volunteer
[36:30] for 16 years at Windsor High
[36:31] School. The state of
[36:33] California has about 10,780
[36:34] square miles of vacant property
[36:36] they could have mandated
[36:37] to be used
[36:38] for the alleged housing issues,
[36:39] but decided
[36:41] to force the unabated issues to
[36:42] the existing established towns,
[36:44] cities, and county entities,
[36:45] hence this horrific build-in
[36:46] for our communities. The
[36:47] State Board of Education and
[36:49] state legislature almost 10
[36:50] years ago concocted the legal
[36:51] scheme of surplus land sales
[36:52] and waste opportunities. Upon
[36:53] which WSD is 100% all in on to
[36:56] provide a supplemental review
[36:58] stream, thanks to the
[36:59] professionally corrupt district
[37:00] management, some members of the
[37:01] current school board. I and
[37:07] others have been coming to you
[37:08] since 2024 when we discovered
[37:09] the Windsor Unified School
[37:10] District, its school board,
[37:12] and Gallagher's operations
[37:13] wanted to get at the Windsor
[37:14] Creek Elementary School site.
[37:16] Prior to this, many thought
[37:17] Windsor Unified School
[37:18] District was a well-established
[37:30] educational entity
[37:33] within the community.
[37:34] Luckily, the fight for the
[37:35] Windsor Creek Elementary site
[37:37] has uncovered many unsettling
[37:38] items of interest
[37:43] along the way
[37:44] with the WUSD daily operations,
[37:45] its staff, and school board
[37:46] function, and not
[37:47] in a positive way
[37:48] for the health and welfare
[37:49] of students or our community.
[37:51] Windsor Unified School
[37:52] District has 8th graders
[37:53] graduating at a lack
[37:55] of conversational level
[37:56] Spanish from Cali Cameca
[37:57] seniors graduating
[37:59] from the high school. They're
[38:00] not testing their overall
[38:01] proficiency on exit. And now
[38:07] someone discovered phonics
[38:09] actually works at Mattie
[38:10] Washburn, but that was
[38:11] after it was resurrected into
[38:12] the curriculum this past school
[38:14] year. It is disgusting the
[38:15] Windsor Unified School
[38:16] District is crying
[38:17] over their money issue, which
[38:18] is a total farce that I've been
[38:20] reporting on for the last 22
[38:21] months. Windsor Unified
[38:22] School District has been making
[38:23] money via Santa Rosa City
[38:24] School debacle, the PK and TK
[38:25] program, their $100 million
[38:27] budget, their flat-out lie
[38:28] from November 2024 election
[38:29] that they needed a $122 million
[38:31] bond, now asking for $96
[38:32] million this November.
[38:34] Recently, the school board
[38:36] decided to use more
[38:37] of our tax dollars
[38:38] to provide a 4-year contract to
[38:39] the superintendent and his
[38:40] business officer to the tune
[38:41] of $314,000 a year and
[38:42] $240,000 a year,
[38:44] respectively. The state of
[38:45] California dedicates roughly
[38:47] 40%
[38:48] of its general fund revenues
[38:49] for K through 12 schools and is
[38:50] holding out billions of dollars
[38:53] as a precautionary measure.
[38:54] This year alone,
[38:55] it will cost us $128 billion
[38:56] statewide. The governor just
[39:16] wiped out the state
[39:17] superintendent position and
[39:18] started and starting in
[39:19] January 2027, there will be an
[39:23] education commissioner who will
[39:24] who directly reports
[39:25] to the governor and no longer
[39:28] to the public. Their
[39:29] per-student cost also was
[39:30] raised at an unsettling amount
[39:31] of $27,000 a year
[39:33] with no known reason or level
[39:34] of success based upon our
[39:35] costs. It has been said,
[39:38] who you associate
[39:39] with is an example
[39:40] of your character. Well, the
[39:41] Windsor Unified School
[39:44] District and school board have
[39:45] proved that their association
[39:46] with Gallagher Builders says a
[39:48] lot about the school district
[39:50] and the school board character.
[39:52] I want to thank the town
[39:55] council and town manager and
[39:56] town attorney for trying
[39:57] to get the Windsor Creek
[40:00] Elementary site, but
[40:02] to our dismay, the Windsor
[40:03] Unified School District doesn't
[40:05] want to be part
[40:07] of this community.
[40:08] In closing, Superintendent
[40:09] Decker has the power and
[40:10] control to back out
[40:12] of the ENA,
[40:13] the exclusive negotiation
[40:14] agreement,
[40:15] with one signature. However, he
[40:16] doesn't possess the fortitude
[40:18] to do the right thing nor have
[40:19] loyalty
[40:20] to this town or the students.
[40:21] In summation, the decisions
[40:22] of the Windsor Unified School
[40:24] District School Board will one
[40:25] way or another affect our town
[40:26] forever,
[40:27] yet the educational level
[40:29] of success remains
[40:31] in a stifled state
[40:32] of improvement. Thank you very
[40:33] much.
[40:38] >> Thank you, Kim. Anyone else
[40:42] for public comment? Okay,
[40:45] seeing none,
[40:47] we will close this item
[40:48] on the agenda. Thanks, staff,
[40:50] for their presentation and the
[40:51] community
[40:53] for their participation.
[40:54] Moving on to item number 7,
[40:55] which is our public comment.
[40:56] Members of the public wishing
[40:58] to address the Commission on
[40:59] any consent calendar item or
[41:00] any item not listed
[41:02] on the agenda may do so
[41:03] Pursuant to the Brown Act, the
[41:04] Commission is not allowed to
[41:05] consider issues or take action
[41:06] on any item not listed
[41:07] on the agenda
[41:09] during this period. Each public
[41:10] comment is normally restricted
[41:11] to 3 minutes
[41:12] in length and must be spoken
[41:13] into the microphone
[41:14] from the podium. If you wish
[41:15] to speak
[41:16] on a consent calendar item,
[41:18] please notify the chair
[41:19] during public comment. Does
[41:24] anyone wish
[41:25] to make a public comment
[41:26] at this time?
[41:27] >> Let's see.
[41:29] >> We've got one.
[41:30] >> You ready?
[41:31] >> Well, you can move a little
[41:32] faster than that.
[41:33] >> Damn. Okay, Sam Salmon, I
[41:34] want to take this time to read
[41:35] an email that I received,
[41:37] with all due respect
[41:38] to the sender. Okay. Hi Sam, my
[41:43] name is and it's a name I've
[41:45] been a Windsor resident since
[41:48] 1989. That's a year less than
[41:51] me. Since you arrived,
[41:53] On the town council ballot,
[41:55] I voted for you every time.
[41:57] Have lost count.
[41:59] In the early days, you espoused
[42:01] controlled growth and sensible
[42:02] town planning to avoid Windsor
[42:04] becoming another San Jose or
[42:07] name your city. Now we are
[42:10] witnessing a tipping point
[42:11] where Windsor is out
[42:14] of control. High-density
[42:16] housing is being built
[42:18] everywhere. It's becoming
[42:19] ubiquitous. Out of concern
[42:22] for our blessed town,
[42:25] I'm writing
[42:28] to ask what can be done. The
[42:29] mention of Windsor Creek is
[42:31] possibly developed by
[42:32] for apartments on the council
[42:36] agenda is just today's example
[42:39] of negligent town stewardship
[42:47] and respect for the land
[42:48] around us. So, what can be done
[42:50] to stop? And what's your
[42:53] position on the matter? How
[42:55] much sleep do you think I've
[42:57] lost? How sober is that email?
[43:05] >> Thank you. Any other public
[43:07] comments at this time? Seeing
[43:08] none, we will close public
[43:10] comment and move on
[43:11] to item number 8, our consent
[43:12] calendar. Consent calendar
[43:13] items are viewed as routine in
[43:14] nature. will require little or
[43:16] no further discussion by the
[43:17] Commission, public, or
[43:18] applicant,
[43:19] and will be acted upon
[43:20] through a single motion. There
[43:21] is one item on the consent
[43:22] calendar that is approval
[43:23] of the regular meeting minutes
[43:25] of June 23rd, 2026. Do we have
[43:26] a motion for approval?
[43:29] >> So, moved.
[43:30] >> Seconded.
[43:32] >> Motion and a second.
[43:33] >> Thank you.
[43:34] >> Madam Secretary, can we have
[43:35] a roll call vote, please?
[43:37] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[43:49] >> Motion carries. Moving on
[43:51] to item number 9.1, File 23-11,
[43:52] Los Amigos Cottages. This item
[43:53] was continued from the
[43:54] Planning Commission meeting
[43:55] held on June 23rd, 2026. Uh, do
[43:57] any commissioners have any ex
[43:58] parte disclosures or
[43:59] communications to report
[44:00] at this time?
[44:04] >> None.
[44:05] >> Seeing none, Planner
[44:06] Jordan, you have a presentation
[44:08] for us.
[44:09] >> Good evening, Chair Kubota
[44:10] and Planning Commissioners. I'm
[44:11] Kim Jordan. I'm one
[44:12] of the planners in the
[44:13] Community Development
[44:14] Department, and this item is
[44:15] the Los Amigos Cottages
[44:16] Builders Remedy Project. And
[44:19] this is the town's first
[44:20] Builders Remedy Project, so
[44:22] we'll be going over some
[44:23] material that we haven't
[44:24] discussed before so everyone
[44:26] can understand the framework
[44:28] within which we'll be making a
[44:30] decision for this project.
[44:33] So, it's a tentative
[44:34] subdivision map, a affordable
[44:35] housing waivers and reservation
[44:36] of growth control allocations.
[44:38] So,
[44:41] for tonight's presentation,
[44:42] we'll talk
[44:43] about the background, what a
[44:44] builder's remedy application
[44:45] is, the project itself,
[44:47] analysis of the project,
[44:49] environmental review that was
[44:50] done, and tonight's recommended
[44:54] action. So, this is just the
[44:56] location map. Let's see here.
[45:00] So, this is the project site.
[45:05] The Quail Acres project that's
[45:08] been approved is located
[45:09] to the east here. And then
[45:10] Los Amigos Extension runs right
[45:11] here. And then this is the
[45:17] Rattling here. And then this is
[45:18] the project site itself. And
[45:21] this is New Song Church
[45:23] immediately adjacent
[45:25] to the west.
[45:27] >> Okay.
[45:29] >> So, a little bit
[45:30] about the project timeline.
[45:31] The application was submitted
[45:33] April 2023. It's what we call a
[45:35] preliminary SB 330 application.
[45:39] That's provision
[45:40] of what we call the Housing
[45:43] Accountability Act. This is
[45:44] specifically filed as a
[45:45] builder's remedy application.
[45:47] And then on August 10th,
[45:51] 2023, they resubmitted that
[45:54] builder's remedy application.
[45:55] That's because the town did not
[45:56] have an adopted and certified
[45:58] housing element. So August
[46:02] 16th, 2023, the town council
[46:06] adopted the housing element,
[46:09] and then August 31st, 2023, it
[46:11] was certified by the Housing
[46:14] and Community Development
[46:17] Department. In December of
[46:18] 2023, the applicant filed the
[46:19] formal application for the
[46:22] builder the builder's remedy
[46:23] application for this project.
[46:24] And then on January 1st,
[46:27] 2025, Assembly Bill 1893 became
[46:28] effective. That made
[46:32] modifications to the builder's
[46:33] remedy provisions that allowed
[46:34] modifications
[46:40] to the percentage of affordable
[46:41] housing that was required and
[46:42] made some other changes. And
[46:43] then on November 10th, 10th,
[46:46] 2025, the applicant sent a
[46:48] letter to the town informing
[46:50] them that they were going
[46:51] to use some
[46:52] of the provisions included in
[46:55] Assembly Bill 1893,
[46:56] but all other aspects of the
[46:58] project would remain the same.
[46:59] So, to talk a little bit
[47:00] about the Housing
[47:06] Accountability Act and how that
[47:07] relates to Builders Remedy
[47:08] Project, there are 5 findings
[47:09] for denial of a project when it
[47:10] includes 13% affordable
[47:15] housing. So that this does
[47:17] apply to this project. This
[47:18] project includes 15% affordable
[47:20] housing. So, the first is that
[47:21] the city or county hasn't
[47:26] adopted an HCD-certified
[47:27] housing element at the time the
[47:29] application was submitted and
[47:31] the city or county has met or
[47:33] exceeded their RENA. So, at the
[47:37] time this application was
[47:39] submitted, the town did not
[47:40] have a certified housing
[47:41] element. does not apply
[47:42] to this project. It cannot be
[47:44] denied for that reason. And
[47:45] then the housing development or
[47:47] emergency shelter would have a
[47:48] specific adverse impact
[47:51] on health and safety,
[47:52] and there is no way
[47:53] to mitigate that impact without
[47:54] making the development
[47:55] unaffordable. So, staff also
[47:56] you can't deny the project
[47:57] based on that finding. And then
[47:59] the denial or condition is
[48:00] required
[48:01] to meet state or federal law,
[48:02] and there is no feasible method
[48:04] to comply without making the
[48:05] development unaffordable.
[48:13] >> Okay.
[48:14] >> Also, not aware of anything
[48:15] that applies
[48:16] for that finding. And then the
[48:18] project is proposed
[48:19] on land zoned for agricultural
[48:20] or resource preservation. That
[48:21] also does not apply
[48:22] to this project. And then
[48:24] lastly,
[48:25] the project is inconsistent
[48:27] with both the zoning ordinance
[48:28] and the General Plan land use
[48:30] designation. So that's where a
[48:31] builder's remedy comes
[48:33] into effect. So, we'll talk
[48:34] about that
[48:35] on the next slide.
[48:40] >> Okay.
[48:41] >> So, a builder's remedy
[48:42] happens in this case if a
[48:43] locality has not adopted a
[48:44] housing element
[48:46] in substantial compliance
[48:47] with state law,
[48:48] which the town had not. The
[48:50] developer may propose an
[48:52] eligible housing development
[48:53] even though the project doesn't
[48:55] comply with the general plan
[48:59] land use designation of the
[49:01] site and the zoning designation
[49:02] of the site, which is the case
[49:06] for this project. And the term
[49:07] builder's remedy is used to
[49:09] describe the situation where
[49:10] the local agency may be
[49:11] required to approve an eligible
[49:14] housing development because it
[49:15] can't make one of the other 4
[49:18] findings. And that may be
[49:19] in the situation Planning
[49:22] Commission finds themselves
[49:23] in this evening. So,
[49:26] to talk a little bit
[49:28] about the project, the formal
[49:30] application is a 2.72-acre
[49:33] undeveloped site. It's a 32-lot
[49:36] small lot residential
[49:38] subdivision. There's 27
[49:41] market-rate homes and then 5
[49:42] low-income affordable homes.
[49:44] There is what we call Parcel A
[49:47] with 16 parking spaces,
[49:48] a trash enclosure, and
[49:50] low-impact development feature.
[49:52] 17 on-street parking spaces
[49:55] on low let me go through
[49:56] Road, construction
[49:57] of a segment of Los Amigos
[50:00] Road to provide entry
[50:03] into the site. It's using a
[50:04] private narrow residential
[50:06] street with a connection to
[50:07] Arata Lane and Los Amigos
[50:09] Road, private driveways,
[50:10] affordable housing waivers,
[50:12] and growth control allocations.
[50:17] So, this is the tentative
[50:19] subdivision map. We're seeing
[50:20] Arata Lane, and then this is
[50:22] the extension of Los Amigos and
[50:24] then we'll see it better here
[50:25] on the development plan. So,
[50:29] we're changing the orientation
[50:30] only to fit it
[50:32] on the screen better. So, we
[50:34] have Arata Lane, and then we
[50:36] have a private narrow
[50:38] residential street is what
[50:40] they're using. We access here,
[50:41] and then we can go
[50:42] through the site here and exit
[50:47] on Los Amigos Road. So, we kind
[50:50] of have this loop, and then it
[50:51] circles this way as well. This
[50:52] is Parcel A, so we have 16
[50:56] parking spaces here. And then
[50:58] all of these lots here have
[50:59] these are double-frontage lots,
[51:03] so they have a front on Los
[51:07] Amigos Road, front,
[51:09] and then they also front
[51:10] on the private street. And then
[51:11] we have the same circumstance
[51:13] for these lots here on Arata
[51:14] Lane.
[51:15] >> Okay.
[51:17] >> So, this is just a summary
[51:19] of the house plan. We have 3
[51:20] different house plans. There's
[51:21] 2 different house plans
[51:23] for the detached single-family.
[51:24] So P1 detached, P2 detached.
[51:27] This just goes
[51:29] over what the general size
[51:30] of the lots are. So, and then
[51:32] the house sizes are,
[51:34] and then we have the P3 lots,
[51:36] which are the duet homes. So,
[51:38] the P-1 detached, they're 3
[51:43] bedrooms, there's 14 of them.
[51:44] The P-2 lots, they're
[51:46] 4-bedroom, 2.5-bath, there's
[51:49] 12 of them. And then we have 6
[51:50] duets. And the detached homes,
[51:55] they all have attached 2-car
[51:56] garages. And then the duet
[51:57] homes,
[51:59] they have an attached 1-car
[52:01] garage, and then they have 1
[52:02] driveway space in front
[52:03] of the garage. And then this is
[52:07] just a showing the elevation,
[52:08] the top elevation
[52:10] for the detached home,
[52:12] those face the private street.
[52:14] And then the ones that are not
[52:19] colored, they include the porch
[52:20] and they face the public
[52:22] street, Arata Lane or Los
[52:24] Amigos Road. So, when we were
[52:30] working with the applicants,
[52:31] some of those lots are
[52:34] double-frontage lots, we had to
[52:36] make a decision which elevation
[52:37] is going
[52:39] to face the private street.
[52:41] So, a couple of things played
[52:42] into that. We really can't have
[52:44] a whole bunch
[52:45] of driveway curb cuts
[52:47] on streets like Arata Lane and
[52:49] Los Amigos Road. And we really
[52:50] did want the public-facing
[52:51] porch facing the public street.
[52:54] So those porches face Arata
[52:58] Lane and Los Amigos Road, and
[52:59] there is a walkway
[53:01] from that porch,
[53:04] which is adjacent
[53:05] to a great room,
[53:07] and that extends
[53:08] to the sidewalk on Arata Lane
[53:09] or Los Amigos Road, depending
[53:10] on where the house is. And then
[53:12] these are the Duet homes. And
[53:17] then this is the parking plan.
[53:22] So, this is the same as the
[53:24] development plan. It's just
[53:25] showing the location
[53:26] of the parking. So as I was
[53:27] saying, each
[53:28] of the P-1 or P-2 lots They
[53:32] have the 2 garage spaces.
[53:33] There are a couple
[53:36] of the lots that also have
[53:37] space for 2 cars
[53:39] in the driveway, lots 1, 32,
[53:40] 29, and 24. This is shared
[53:45] common parking. There are 16
[53:48] spaces here at Parcel A,
[53:49] and then there are 17 spaces
[53:50] that are available, public
[53:57] spaces, on Los Amigos Road.
[53:58] >> Okay.
[53:59] >> And then you'll see here the
[54:00] duet has the one attached and
[54:02] one in the driveway,
[54:03] and there's no on-street
[54:05] parking on a rattle lane. And
[54:07] so, what I was talking about,
[54:09] the porch here,
[54:12] and then you have a walkway
[54:13] out to the sidewalk. For all
[54:14] of these units here,
[54:16] that's the orientation. And
[54:17] then this is just showing the
[54:23] landscape plan.
[54:24] >> Okay.
[54:25] >> Kim, I'm sorry
[54:26] to interrupt real quick. Can
[54:28] you go back one slide? When you
[54:29] say the ones that are
[54:30] on the lower part,
[54:31] or I guess western part
[54:32] of the property
[54:34] >> Yeah, this is the west.
[54:35] >> Are those backyards what's
[54:37] going to be behind there if I'm
[54:40] heading west? Is that the
[54:41] church property there?
[54:42] >> Yeah, that's New Song
[54:43] Church.
[54:47] >> Okay, thank you.
[54:48] >> Just to clarify
[54:50] on this comment, you said
[54:51] backyards,
[54:52] but I didn't see backyards. Is
[54:53] that right?
[54:55] >> Well, that is their rear
[54:57] yard. So, the rear yards are
[54:58] very small.
[54:59] >> It's really just the porch,
[55:00] right?
[55:01] >> Well, it's the porch, and
[55:02] there is a it doesn't the porch
[55:03] does not go
[55:04] to the property line. So, this
[55:06] is probably at least 5 feet.
[55:07] >> Okay.
[55:12] >> And then, so this is the
[55:13] landscape plan,
[55:15] and then there are 2 trees that
[55:16] will be saved on the sites,
[55:17] 301 and 302. They're oak trees.
[55:19] And then there's several
[55:21] conditions of approval related
[55:22] to the protection
[55:24] of these trees. And so the
[55:25] application includes a variety
[55:27] of affordable housing waivers.
[55:35] So, a reduction
[55:36] in lot size and lot width,
[55:38] reduction in lot depth,
[55:39] which is
[55:40] from the subdivision ordinance,
[55:42] Reduction in the depth
[55:43] of the building envelope,
[55:44] which is also
[55:45] from the subdivision ordinance.
[55:47] Reduction
[55:48] in the front setback,
[55:49] an increase
[55:50] in the front setback,
[55:51] and a reduction
[55:52] in the side setback,
[55:53] including zero lot lines
[55:55] for the duet homes. Reduction
[55:56] in the street side setback,
[55:57] the rear setback, reduction
[55:58] in the setback
[55:59] for the air conditioners,
[56:00] increase in lot coverage,
[56:01] modification
[56:04] for street-facing facades,
[56:06] reduction Yes.
[56:07] In parking stall depth to 18
[56:09] feet from 20. It's notable that
[56:11] that reduction actually is
[56:12] compliant
[56:16] with our current zoning code.
[56:17] This project is subject
[56:20] to the zoning code in place at
[56:21] the time the application was
[56:22] determined to be complete. And
[56:24] that zoning code,
[56:28] the parking stall size was 20
[56:29] feet. In the new code,
[56:30] it was actually reduced to 18.
[56:32] So, if we use the current code,
[56:33] it would actually be compliant.
[56:34] They're also asking
[56:35] for a reduction
[56:37] in backup distance. The current
[56:38] code is 24 feet,
[56:45] which is reduced from 27 feet.
[56:47] So, if we were using the
[56:48] current code,
[56:49] they wouldn't need those 2
[56:50] waivers. And then they're also
[56:51] asking to use compact spaces
[56:53] in a single-family project.
[56:54] The previous code does not
[56:55] speak to that. silent on
[56:59] whether or not that's
[57:00] allowable,
[57:01] and so they requested a waiver
[57:03] to be sure that that was
[57:04] permissible. So, the requested
[57:05] approvals and environmental
[57:07] review, as I mentioned,
[57:08] they're asking for approval
[57:09] of a tentative subdivision map,
[57:10] affordable housing waivers,
[57:13] a request for reservation of
[57:15] 27 growth control allocations,
[57:17] which are needed for the
[57:18] market-rate housing because
[57:20] affordable housing units are
[57:21] exempt. They're using state
[57:23] density bonus law parking
[57:25] standards. And then the
[57:26] environmental review was a
[57:28] mitigated negative declaration.
[57:29] And part of tonight's action
[57:30] would be adoption
[57:31] of a mitigated excuse me, the
[57:33] mitigation monitoring and
[57:34] reporting program. And then
[57:35] to talk about a little bit
[57:36] about the consistency analysis.
[57:37] This is the General Plan land
[57:38] use map for the North of Arata
[57:43] area where the This site is
[57:45] located. So, this is the
[57:46] project site. It's designated
[57:47] general business. And then this
[57:48] is the approved Foyle Acres
[57:50] project. So, the project
[57:56] density is 11.6 units
[57:57] to the acre, and it's
[57:59] considered a small lot
[58:06] subdivision. And so,
[58:09] the town is required
[58:10] to analyze the project based on
[58:15] what is the land use
[58:16] designation that best
[58:17] represents that project, and
[58:19] that's medium-density
[58:23] residential. So, this the north
[58:24] of Arata area already does
[58:26] include medium-density
[58:29] residential in the north of
[58:30] Arata area. That's this color
[58:31] here, also just north of
[58:33] Arata Road Lane, and this tiny
[58:35] bit here. This allows 8 to 16
[58:37] units per acre.
[58:42] >> Okay.
[58:43] >> And allows small lot
[58:45] residential. And then also
[58:47] here, this is neighborhood
[58:48] center mixed use. This is part
[58:50] of the Coyle Acres project.
[58:53] This also allows 8 to 16 units
[58:54] to acre, which is in the same
[58:55] density range as the proposed
[58:56] project. So, land use and
[59:01] density, as I mentioned,
[59:02] general business is the actual
[59:04] designation. It does not allow
[59:05] residential use because of the
[59:07] builder's remedy application.
[59:08] they are allowed
[59:09] to propose this project
[59:10] on this site. Medium density
[59:13] residential allows 8 to 16
[59:14] units per acre. It allows small
[59:17] lot single-family, townhomes,
[59:18] small apartment complexes,
[59:22] and mobile home parks. And the
[59:23] project density is 11.76 units
[59:25] per acre. For land use element
[59:32] the land use element,
[59:34] the north of Arata Community
[59:35] place area policy. They have a
[59:36] policy that talks about
[59:38] efficient development patterns,
[59:39] and the project is consistent
[59:40] with that. Community design
[59:41] transition is consistent
[59:46] with the transitions in scale
[59:49] policy and residential
[59:50] development
[59:51] to provide diversity
[59:52] of housing types.
[59:54] For the housing element,
[59:56] same thing encourage a range
[59:58] of housing types,
[59:59] and it's also consistent with
[1:00:00] our inclusion inclusionary
[1:00:01] housing standards. For
[1:00:03] transportation and mobility,
[1:00:04] it's consistent
[1:00:06] with the town circulation map
[1:00:08] for Los Amigos Road excuse me
[1:00:09] and Arata Lane bicycle and ped
[1:00:10] connectivity,
[1:00:12] street connections
[1:00:13] with new development. And then
[1:00:16] it's also consistent with
[1:00:18] environmental resources
[1:00:19] policies and public health and
[1:00:21] safety policies, including
[1:00:22] emergency vehicle access and
[1:00:23] reviewing projects
[1:00:24] for proposals
[1:00:25] in fire hazard areas. So, as I
[1:00:29] mentioned, affordable housing
[1:00:33] waivers, the project qualifies
[1:00:34] for a density bonus,
[1:00:36] but it was not requested due to
[1:00:37] the affordable housing included
[1:00:38] in the project. And the project
[1:00:40] is eligible
[1:00:41] for unlimited waivers
[1:00:43] for development standards. And
[1:00:44] we already reviewed the waivers
[1:00:45] that are being requested
[1:00:47] for the project. So, talk about
[1:00:52] the zoning standards. I noted
[1:00:53] before, this is not we're not
[1:00:54] using the current zoning code.
[1:00:55] We're using the previous zoning
[1:00:56] code. So allowable uses and
[1:00:59] density in the medium-density
[1:01:01] zoning district, small lot
[1:01:03] single-family residential is
[1:01:09] allowed along with row homes,
[1:01:11] townhomes,
[1:01:12] and small apartment complexes
[1:01:13] at 8 to 12 units per acre.
[1:01:16] So, the project is consistent
[1:01:17] with that at 11.76 units an
[1:01:18] acre as a small lot
[1:01:22] single-family subdivision. The
[1:01:23] town's inclusionary housing
[1:01:25] ordinance requires 10%
[1:01:27] of total units
[1:01:28] to be affordable. This is
[1:01:29] at 15.6%. The units have
[1:01:36] to be built concurrently
[1:01:37] with the affordable have
[1:01:38] to be built concurrent
[1:01:40] with market rate. This is a
[1:01:41] single-phase project. And then
[1:01:42] the bedroom count needs
[1:01:44] to be comparable. So, the Duet
[1:01:47] units are the affordable units.
[1:01:49] They have 4 bedrooms, as do the
[1:01:51] excuse me, the P-2 units. So,
[1:01:52] they are comparable. And then
[1:01:54] for lot size,
[1:01:57] the minimum lot size in
[1:01:59] medium-density residential is
[1:02:00] 5,000 square feet. The lot
[1:02:02] width is 50. They've asked
[1:02:04] for waivers for this in order
[1:02:06] to find the project consistent.
[1:02:08] Setbacks, as I mentioned,
[1:02:13] they've asked for waivers.
[1:02:15] Front minimum, maximum, side,
[1:02:17] rear, and street side is 50.
[1:02:19] Well as for the AC units.
[1:02:22] There are some lots that are
[1:02:23] consistent and there are some
[1:02:25] lots where they've asked
[1:02:27] for a waiver. These are
[1:02:28] described in Exhibit F,
[1:02:34] which is the waiver table.
[1:02:38] They've asked for a waiver
[1:02:40] from the lot coverage. The
[1:02:41] maximum is 50%. Some lots are
[1:02:42] consistent.
[1:02:44] For the other lots,
[1:02:45] they've requested a waiver.
[1:02:46] Parking the parking standard is
[1:02:47] 2 covered, so all of the
[1:02:48] detached single-family are
[1:02:50] compliant. They all comply to
[1:02:51] parking spaces that are covered
[1:02:52] in the garage. The duets
[1:02:53] provide the required number,
[1:02:56] but they are not covered. So,
[1:02:57] they're using state density
[1:02:59] bonus law to allow the second
[1:03:00] parking space to be a tandem
[1:03:02] space that is uncovered. And
[1:03:03] then the parking space
[1:03:05] dimensions, they're asking
[1:03:07] for a waiver for that.
[1:03:10] But as I mentioned,
[1:03:11] that's consistent
[1:03:12] with the size allowed
[1:03:13] under our current code. And
[1:03:15] then compact spaces,
[1:03:16] they're asking for the waiver
[1:03:17] for that and the reduction
[1:03:19] of backup space, a waiver So
[1:03:23] in order to deny a waiver,
[1:03:26] state law requires one of the
[1:03:29] following findings be made and
[1:03:30] substantially supported
[1:03:31] by substantial evidence, and
[1:03:33] that substantial evidence has
[1:03:34] to be provided by the town. So
[1:03:36] the first is that the waiver
[1:03:38] would have a specific adverse
[1:03:39] impact
[1:03:41] on public health or safety,
[1:03:42] and there is no feasible method
[1:03:43] to mitigate or avoid that
[1:03:45] adverse impact. Impact, or the
[1:03:46] waiver would have a specific
[1:03:47] adverse impact
[1:03:48] on any real property listed
[1:03:52] in the California Register of
[1:03:53] Historical Resources, or the
[1:03:54] waiver would be contrary
[1:03:55] to state or federal law. And
[1:03:56] staff is not aware
[1:04:00] of being able to make any
[1:04:01] of these 3 findings for denial
[1:04:02] of any of the waivers. So for
[1:04:10] the growth control ordinance,
[1:04:11] um, the project does require
[1:04:12] 27 for the market rate The
[1:04:14] purpose of the growth control
[1:04:17] ordinance is to accommodate the
[1:04:18] growth anticipated
[1:04:20] under the general plan and to
[1:04:21] manage new development so that
[1:04:24] it occurs concurrently
[1:04:25] with necessary public services,
[1:04:27] facilities,
[1:04:28] and infrastructure. We're
[1:04:30] currently in the last year
[1:04:31] of our 5-year cycle, and our
[1:04:34] growth control allocations are
[1:04:36] based
[1:04:37] on a 1.5% annual growth rate,
[1:04:39] and that's set out in our
[1:04:40] in the town's general plan. We
[1:04:44] have what we call Reserve A
[1:04:45] allocations, and Reserve B
[1:04:47] allocations. Reserve A
[1:04:50] allocations are specifically
[1:04:51] for mixed-use projects or
[1:04:52] projects that are have a
[1:04:53] density of 12 units or greater.
[1:04:55] And as I mentioned, affordable
[1:04:57] units do not require growth
[1:04:58] control allocations.
[1:04:59] Since this project is less than
[1:05:00] 12 units per acre and not
[1:05:03] mixed-use, it requires Reserve
[1:05:04] B allocations. So, this is just
[1:05:05] our current table that shows
[1:05:06] where the town is for how many
[1:05:07] growth control allocations are
[1:05:08] currently available. And we
[1:05:19] have a total of 464 growth
[1:05:20] control allocations
[1:05:23] for the rest
[1:05:25] of this 5-year cycle. In
[1:05:27] Reserve B alone, there's 351
[1:05:28] allocations, so there are more
[1:05:30] than enough allocations to
[1:05:31] serve this particular project's
[1:05:34] request for 27. And with that
[1:05:35] 27, there would be a granted,
[1:05:38] if they were granted,
[1:05:39] then there would There's 437
[1:05:41] total allocations remaining
[1:05:45] for the 2026 calendar year.
[1:05:51] >> Okay.
[1:05:52] >> Calendar year. So,
[1:05:53] for the subdivision ordinance,
[1:05:54] in order
[1:05:56] to approve a subdivision,
[1:05:57] there are findings required
[1:05:58] for approval that it has
[1:05:59] to be consistent
[1:06:00] with the general plan, zoning
[1:06:01] ordinance, design standards,
[1:06:02] municipal code, and growth
[1:06:03] management ordinance. As we
[1:06:04] discussed, this specific
[1:06:06] project can't be denied because
[1:06:07] it's inconsistent with the
[1:06:08] zoning code or general plan.
[1:06:10] And then we just reviewed that
[1:06:11] there are growth control
[1:06:12] allocations available
[1:06:13] for the project. There are a
[1:06:15] couple
[1:06:18] of development standards in the
[1:06:19] subdivision ordinance that
[1:06:25] apply to this project. One is
[1:06:26] the lot depth of 85 feet and
[1:06:27] the building envelope depth
[1:06:29] of 45 feet. The project's
[1:06:31] either compliant with it or a
[1:06:33] waiver has been requested. And
[1:06:34] the there's the waiver table
[1:06:35] in Exhibit F where they call
[1:06:39] out the specific lots that
[1:06:40] require the waiver and which
[1:06:41] ones are consistent.
[1:06:46] >> There are also
[1:06:47] for subdivisions, there are
[1:06:48] specific findings that are
[1:06:49] needed in order
[1:06:50] to deny a subdivision. So, the
[1:06:52] first is that there are
[1:06:53] insufficient growth control
[1:06:56] allocations available,
[1:06:57] which is not the case. The
[1:06:59] second is that design or
[1:07:00] improvement of the subdivision
[1:07:03] is not consistent with the
[1:07:04] General Plan's zoning,
[1:07:07] applicable specific plan,
[1:07:08] or provision of the code; that
[1:07:09] the site is not specific is not
[1:07:10] physically suitable
[1:07:11] for the type of development;
[1:07:12] the site is not physically
[1:07:14] suitable for the proposed
[1:07:15] density; the design of the
[1:07:16] subdivision or the proposed
[1:07:17] improvements are likely to
[1:07:19] cause substantial environmental
[1:07:20] damage or substantially and
[1:07:21] unavoidably injure fish or
[1:07:25] wildlife or their habitat; the
[1:07:29] design of the subdivision or
[1:07:33] the proposed improvements are
[1:07:34] likely to cause serious public
[1:07:35] health problems; The design
[1:07:39] of the subdivision or type
[1:07:40] of improvements will conflict
[1:07:43] with easements acquired
[1:07:44] by the public at large
[1:07:45] for access through use
[1:07:46] of the property
[1:07:47] within the subdivision,
[1:07:52] or it's subject to a
[1:07:53] Williamson Act contract. Staff
[1:07:54] is not able to make any
[1:07:55] of the findings
[1:07:56] for denial as described
[1:07:57] in the staff report and in the
[1:07:58] draft resolution presented
[1:08:00] to the Planning Commission
[1:08:03] for consideration this evening.
[1:08:05] And so,
[1:08:06] for environmental review,
[1:08:07] Rincon Consultants prepared
[1:08:08] what we call a draft initial
[1:08:10] study. And there were several
[1:08:11] technical studies prepared
[1:08:12] for that, included biological
[1:08:15] resources, cultural resources,
[1:08:19] a transportation impact study,
[1:08:20] an arborist report to look
[1:08:21] at tree resources,
[1:08:22] a wildfire impact analysis,
[1:08:24] and of Phase 1 environmental
[1:08:26] site assessment. And there were
[1:08:28] a variety of mitigation
[1:08:29] measures that were applied
[1:08:36] to the project. And
[1:08:37] with the application
[1:08:39] of those mitigation measures,
[1:08:40] it was found that there would
[1:08:41] be no significant impact
[1:08:42] of the project
[1:08:44] on the environment. So, there
[1:08:45] were mitigation measures
[1:08:46] for biological resources,
[1:08:47] cultural resources,
[1:08:50] paleontological transportation,
[1:08:51] tribal cultural resources,
[1:08:53] and wildfire. And a mitigation
[1:08:57] monitoring and reporting
[1:08:58] program was prepared for the
[1:09:00] project that includes all
[1:09:01] of the mitigation measures.
[1:09:03] The project applicant has
[1:09:04] agreed to all
[1:09:06] of the mitigation measures, and
[1:09:07] they've been included as
[1:09:08] conditions of approval as part
[1:09:10] of the draft resolution.
[1:09:12] Rankin Consultants is available
[1:09:13] this evening
[1:09:15] for any questions that you may
[1:09:16] have about the environmental
[1:09:17] documents. And tonight's
[1:09:20] recommended action is that you
[1:09:21] hold the public hearing and
[1:09:22] adopt a resolution to adopt the
[1:09:23] mitigated negative declaration
[1:09:25] and then adopt a resolution
[1:09:26] approving the Los Amigos
[1:09:27] Cottages project. And then we
[1:09:30] have the resolution titles
[1:09:31] in the event that Planning
[1:09:32] Commission does want to act
[1:09:35] on the project this evening.
[1:09:36] The project applicant is here.
[1:09:37] They also have a PowerPoint
[1:09:39] presentation. And then I'm
[1:09:40] available if you have
[1:09:42] questions.
[1:09:51] >> Great.
[1:09:52] >> Thank you very much.
[1:09:53] At this time, Commissioners, do
[1:09:54] we have any questions for
[1:09:55] staff?
[1:10:00] >> I was just wondering,
[1:10:01] because I was reviewing like
[1:10:02] the traffic and the evacuation
[1:10:03] and the parking or the backup
[1:10:05] turn radius or all those, and
[1:10:07] I'm not quite sure if the I
[1:10:08] couldn't read the size,
[1:10:10] but it looked
[1:10:11] like the streets were 24 feet
[1:10:14] wide. And I was wondering if
[1:10:17] these intended to be one-way,
[1:10:18] or is that expected where is
[1:10:21] there street parking or just no
[1:10:22] street parking and it's a
[1:10:24] two-way road? I couldn't tell
[1:10:25] from the materials.
[1:10:31] >> Yeah, there are no on-street
[1:10:32] parking for a narrow
[1:10:33] residential street, and it's
[1:10:35] Okay.
[1:10:36] >> Not bad.
[1:10:39] >> Thank you.
[1:10:45] >> That was very complete,
[1:10:49] as always. Los Amigos Road,
[1:10:52] just refresh my memory because
[1:10:54] I know it's part
[1:10:55] of another project. The
[1:10:57] extension will go up, curve
[1:10:59] around, and eventually meet the
[1:11:01] next the current other Los
[1:11:02] Amigos Road?
[1:11:03] >> That is true.
[1:11:04] >> And it's going to cut
[1:11:05] through is it going to cut
[1:11:06] through Quail Acres or
[1:11:07] whatever, North Verrada?
[1:11:08] >> It will.
[1:11:09] >> Quail Acres will be building
[1:11:10] all of it from Arata Lane. If
[1:11:11] Quail Acres goes first,
[1:11:15] they would be building all
[1:11:16] of it from the Arata Lane/Los
[1:11:18] Amigos Road intersection
[1:11:20] to connect to the other Los
[1:11:22] Amigos Road, as you're saying.
[1:11:23] If this project goes first,
[1:11:24] it will build that section
[1:11:25] That you saw in the
[1:11:26] presentation that they need
[1:11:29] to provide access
[1:11:30] into their
[1:11:32] >> Like a spur, and then it'll
[1:11:33] >> Right.
[1:11:34] >> We'll get one of those signs
[1:11:35] that it'll connect.
[1:11:36] >> Right.
[1:11:37] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:11:42] >> I have about actual corner
[1:11:43] lots and the wraparound
[1:11:45] porches. So, because this would
[1:11:47] be applicable to 2023, it's
[1:11:48] more
[1:11:49] of the encouraged as opposed
[1:11:50] to.
[1:11:54] >> It's not an objective
[1:11:55] standard, so it doesn't apply
[1:11:56] to the project.
[1:11:58] >> I do have one question.
[1:12:00] >> So, this is the first time
[1:12:02] I've seen one of the dual
[1:12:04] frontage designs.
[1:12:05] >> So, when you have a dual
[1:12:06] frontage project, does that
[1:12:07] affect setbacks differently?
[1:12:08] Are there 2 fronts
[1:12:10] to the house,
[1:12:11] so front setbacks are
[1:12:12] considered for both?
[1:12:16] >> Yes, so normally the
[1:12:18] director has to decide which
[1:12:19] will be the front and then
[1:12:20] figure out if You know, the
[1:12:21] director would determine which
[1:12:23] is the front and then the front
[1:12:24] setback would apply there.
[1:12:26] In this case, it's kind of a
[1:12:28] moot point because they're
[1:12:29] asking for a waiver. So, then
[1:12:30] we just apply whatever setback
[1:12:31] they're asking for because
[1:12:33] of the waiver. As I was saying
[1:12:36] in my presentation,
[1:12:37] when we were working
[1:12:38] with the applicant, we really
[1:12:39] asked that they have a front
[1:12:40] porch orientation
[1:12:42] to the public street, Los
[1:12:43] Amigos Road, and a rattling
[1:12:44] Which doesn't really answer
[1:12:45] your question, but...
[1:12:48] >> It's a waiver,
[1:12:51] so it doesn't matter, right?
[1:12:52] But on like the western-facing
[1:12:53] ones that Commissioner Zahner
[1:12:55] was talking about,
[1:12:56] so the porch is actually
[1:12:58] on the back of those?
[1:13:00] >> That is true,
[1:13:01] because the garage has
[1:13:02] to face the street.
[1:13:03] >> Got it.
[1:13:04] >> Yeah.
[1:13:05] >> Okay.
[1:13:06] >> Thank you.
[1:13:07] >> That's all I have.
[1:13:08] >> It sounds like the applicant
[1:13:09] has a presentation.
[1:13:10] >> Yeah.
[1:13:20] >> Okay, I have to put on my
[1:13:21] glasses so I can find it.
[1:13:23] >> All right, well, while
[1:13:24] Kim's bringing up my
[1:13:25] presentation,
[1:13:26] let me introduce myself. Ken
[1:13:27] McNabb, KMAC Advising,
[1:13:28] representing the developer,
[1:13:29] Rodda Properties, LLC.
[1:13:31] With me this evening is Ben
[1:13:34] Van Zylfen, the developer.
[1:13:37] And Dennis Dalby of Civil
[1:13:40] Design, the project engineer.
[1:13:43] So first, I'd just like
[1:13:44] to thank staff, Patrick, Kim,
[1:13:47] and Kat Harvey,
[1:13:49] for what has been a thorough
[1:13:50] but great collaboration
[1:13:52] over the last 3 years to bring
[1:13:57] the best project forward that's
[1:13:58] before you tonight. We really
[1:13:59] appreciate the guidance we've
[1:14:01] been given and the hard work
[1:14:02] of staff.
[1:14:03] >> Thank you.
[1:14:04] >> So, thank you. As always,
[1:14:06] Kim's report is very thorough.
[1:14:07] We just have a couple
[1:14:09] of things to cover,
[1:14:10] and then we'll be available
[1:14:11] for any questions the
[1:14:13] Commission may have. So first,
[1:14:17] the Los Amigos Cottages project
[1:14:20] is a missing middle development
[1:14:21] project that's going to provide
[1:14:22] homeownership opportunities
[1:14:23] for first-time homebuyers. And
[1:14:24] will provide 5 lower low-income
[1:14:27] households the opportunity
[1:14:28] for homeownership. The project
[1:14:32] consists of 26 detached
[1:14:36] single-family homes and 6 duet
[1:14:43] homes, which Kim described
[1:14:46] to you. 5 of those 6 duet homes
[1:14:47] will be deed restricted
[1:14:49] to be affordable
[1:14:50] to families earning 50% to 80%
[1:14:53] of the area median income.
[1:14:59] >> Okay.
[1:15:00] >> Oops, sorry. Let me go back.
[1:15:01] The lot sizes this is a small
[1:15:02] lot development. Lot sizes
[1:15:03] range from 1,664 square feet
[1:15:07] to 4,680 excuse me,
[1:15:09] did I get that backwards?
[1:15:10] 4,860. The average lot size is
[1:15:15] 2,564 square feet. And just
[1:15:16] to kind of Give you an idea of
[1:15:19] a comparable project that is
[1:15:24] currently under construction,
[1:15:26] the Old Redwood Highway
[1:15:27] Villages project. And here's
[1:15:28] the lot size range
[1:15:31] for that project. The lot sizes
[1:15:32] actually go a little lower, and
[1:15:35] their average size is a little
[1:15:37] bit lower than Los Amigos
[1:15:39] Cottages, but it's essentially
[1:15:41] the same size lots and a very,
[1:15:42] very close number
[1:15:43] of units.
[1:15:48] >> Okay.
[1:15:49] >> So, they're very comparable,
[1:15:50] if that helps you visualize
[1:15:51] what this project's going
[1:15:52] to look like. There are a
[1:15:53] number of things that Kim
[1:15:56] covered in her report that we
[1:15:57] just want to, you know,
[1:15:58] underscore. Each of the homes
[1:16:00] along Los Amigos Road and
[1:16:05] Arata Lane will be oriented
[1:16:06] to the street. There is a nice
[1:16:09] porch. There is a direct
[1:16:10] connection from the sidewalk
[1:16:12] to the porch and entry
[1:16:15] into the home. Each of the
[1:16:16] homes will have off-street
[1:16:18] parking. The detached homes
[1:16:22] have 2-car garages. Some of
[1:16:23] them have 2-car garages and
[1:16:25] 2-car driveways. The duet units
[1:16:26] have 2 off-street spaces, one
[1:16:27] in a garage and one
[1:16:30] in the driveway.
[1:16:32] >> Okay.
[1:16:33] >> This project will also
[1:16:34] include a guest parking area
[1:16:35] for visitors, both
[1:16:43] in the site and along Los
[1:16:49] Amigos Road. The project will
[1:16:50] also advance some of the town's
[1:16:51] circulation interests
[1:16:52] by constructing a portion
[1:16:54] of the Los Amigos Road, whose
[1:16:55] the plan is for that road
[1:16:57] to be realigned to allow
[1:16:58] for future construction
[1:17:01] of a northbound 101 on-ramp.
[1:17:03] The project will also offer the
[1:17:06] town an irrevocable offer
[1:17:08] of dedication along Arata Lane
[1:17:11] so that if and whenever needed,
[1:17:13] Arata Lane can be widened
[1:17:14] to a 5-lane road consistent
[1:17:15] with the general plan
[1:17:17] circulation plan. Kim went over
[1:17:18] the parking. I don't know if I
[1:17:28] need to cover this again
[1:17:29] necessarily. Other than to say
[1:17:30] there will be CC&Rs that
[1:17:37] require the garage spaces be
[1:17:39] used for parking of vehicles,
[1:17:40] not for storage. And there will
[1:17:41] be a homeowners association
[1:17:44] to enforce those CC&Rs. These
[1:17:48] are the elevations. Of the
[1:17:58] detached small lot homes,
[1:17:59] there's 26 of them. There'll be
[1:18:01] 2 different architectural
[1:18:02] styles and multiple variations
[1:18:03] available to homebuyers
[1:18:06] for materials and colors. As
[1:18:09] Kim mentioned, the Plan 1
[1:18:15] bungalow units are 1,573 square
[1:18:17] feet, 3-bedroom, 2-bath. We
[1:18:18] have a larger detached home.
[1:18:25] This is the traditional
[1:18:26] elevation shown here.
[1:18:29] >> Okay.
[1:18:30] >> It's 1,797 square feet, 4
[1:18:31] bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms. This
[1:18:32] is the elevation of the Duet
[1:18:33] units. There's 2 architectural
[1:18:35] styles for this unit, also
[1:18:36] with multiple variations
[1:18:37] for color and materials. And
[1:18:38] this slide shows the project
[1:18:39] in relationship
[1:18:40] to the recently approved,
[1:18:41] or a year ago approved now,
[1:18:42] Quail Acres project. So, you
[1:18:44] can see the relationship or the
[1:19:00] proximity of this development
[1:19:01] to planned and approved
[1:19:03] improvements as part
[1:19:04] of that project. It is going
[1:19:06] to be within walking distance
[1:19:07] of a community park. It will be
[1:19:09] across the street from a future
[1:19:10] neighborhood commercial area.
[1:19:14] And there's not shown
[1:19:15] on this slide,
[1:19:18] there is an existing transit
[1:19:19] Yes. In front of the New Song
[1:19:21] Church property right next
[1:19:23] door. The site's
[1:19:24] about a half mile away
[1:19:26] from the Brooks Elementary
[1:19:32] School and the Michael A. Hall
[1:19:33] hopefully I got that right
[1:19:34] Park to the southeast,
[1:19:36] and also about a half mile,
[1:19:37] maybe a little
[1:19:38] over a half mile, to a small
[1:19:41] community shopping center
[1:19:42] on the other side
[1:19:44] of the highway on Old Redwood
[1:19:45] Highway near Starr. These are
[1:19:47] some visualizations that show
[1:19:48] the project's best side,
[1:19:56] in my opinion. So this one is a
[1:19:59] view from Arata Lane. You can
[1:20:00] see, compared to the elevations
[1:20:03] I was just showing you, the
[1:20:04] porch area is a little more
[1:20:05] substantial in size. There's
[1:20:06] not Facade that's dominated
[1:20:08] by a garage door. There's lots
[1:20:09] of visibility from the living
[1:20:13] area onto the street and a good
[1:20:14] mix of different architectural
[1:20:15] styles and colors and
[1:20:16] materials. This is a view
[1:20:17] from the Coelho Acres project
[1:20:19] across Los Amigos Road where
[1:20:23] the proposed private Street is
[1:20:25] in the Los Amigos Cottages
[1:20:26] project. Again, you can see the
[1:20:27] clear orientation of these
[1:20:28] units towards the street,
[1:20:46] towards the public realm,
[1:20:48] with lots
[1:20:49] of windows and ability
[1:20:50] to view the street from
[1:20:54] within the home. So, we'd just
[1:21:00] like to again thank staff
[1:21:01] for their work
[1:21:02] on this project. We believe
[1:21:03] this is a project that's going
[1:21:06] to be helpful for Windsor in
[1:21:09] not only meeting its housing
[1:21:13] needs but providing
[1:21:14] homeownership opportunities
[1:21:15] for Windsor residents and the
[1:21:17] Windsor workforce. I know a lot
[1:21:18] of the housing being built is
[1:21:19] rental. This is not rental
[1:21:20] housing. This is for-sale
[1:21:22] housing. We believe that's an
[1:21:24] important opportunity, and we
[1:21:25] but we hope that you will agree
[1:21:28] with us and we hope that you
[1:21:31] will support staff's
[1:21:34] recommendation and approve this
[1:21:36] project. Thank you.
[1:21:39] >> Thank you. Do we have any
[1:21:40] questions for the applicant?
[1:21:41] >> I do.
[1:21:43] >> Start down there.
[1:21:44] >> I like the idea
[1:21:49] of providing some of that
[1:21:50] missing middle housing. I was
[1:21:51] concerned when you mentioned
[1:21:53] the HOA and will that price
[1:21:55] out the missing middle? And
[1:21:59] what are your thoughts
[1:22:00] about what kind
[1:22:02] of price point are we going
[1:22:03] to be having
[1:22:04] on this HOA?
[1:22:05] >> I will defer
[1:22:06] to the developer to talk
[1:22:07] about the price point. Yes, an
[1:22:09] HOA can potentially add
[1:22:10] to the monthly housing costs.
[1:22:14] However, in collaborating and
[1:22:15] discussing this project
[1:22:19] with staff,
[1:22:20] we were strongly encouraged to
[1:22:21] have an HOA because town staff
[1:22:22] does not want to enforce
[1:22:26] potential parking issues and
[1:22:27] other residential issues. And
[1:22:28] Ben, I don't know if you have
[1:22:32] any sense on that.
[1:22:37] >> Hi, I'm Ben. We haven't done
[1:22:38] the reserve study and the
[1:22:39] budget for it, but it's mainly
[1:22:40] like a policing thing,
[1:22:41] like a neighborhood police.
[1:22:44] >> There's not a lot
[1:22:45] of stuff that's going
[1:22:46] to be maintained
[1:22:47] by the association, so the cost
[1:22:53] shouldn't be huge.
[1:22:55] >> So, the idea will still be
[1:22:56] to focus on that missing middle
[1:22:57] demographic in terms
[1:22:58] of the discrete market.
[1:23:00] >> This is housing that you can
[1:23:01] like a new house that you can
[1:23:02] actually afford as a first-time
[1:23:03] buyer, you know, which isn't
[1:23:04] really available.
[1:23:07] >> And yeah, but the
[1:23:08] association dues will be
[1:23:09] nominal because there's not a
[1:23:10] lot of stuff to take care of.
[1:23:11] It's mainly establishing a
[1:23:12] police force for the city.
[1:23:15] >> For CC&R enforcement
[1:23:16] program.
[1:23:17] >> Yeah, so you guys don't have
[1:23:18] to deal with this stuff then.
[1:23:19] The association deals
[1:23:20] with it.
[1:23:21] >> Before you go, I'm going
[1:23:22] to drill down.
[1:23:24] >> Oh yeah.
[1:23:27] >> You said nominal and then
[1:23:28] you said not that much.
[1:23:29] >> What is like,
[1:23:30] give me a range.
[1:23:31] >> You know, I would say so I
[1:23:33] haven't done the study now,
[1:23:35] so I don't want to say a number
[1:23:37] because I'd just be throwing
[1:23:39] something out. But
[1:23:40] in similar projects,
[1:23:41] I've had cost centers of like
[1:23:42] $36 to $78, you know, under
[1:23:43] in the $100 range, you know.
[1:23:45] But I haven't
[1:23:50] with similar projects that are
[1:23:52] like this,
[1:23:53] but I haven't done this one, so
[1:23:56] I don't know exactly what it
[1:23:57] is.
[1:23:58] >> We won't hold you to it.
[1:23:59] >> Yeah, okay.
[1:24:00] >> But a range is helpful.
[1:24:01] >> Thank you. Yep.
[1:24:05] >> And are the parking spaces
[1:24:06] along Los Amigos, are those
[1:24:08] enforced by the CC&Rs or are
[1:24:09] those public?
[1:24:10] >> No, those are
[1:24:11] on public streets,
[1:24:12] so those would be enforced
[1:24:13] by the town,
[1:24:14] would be my expectation. The
[1:24:15] street internal to the project
[1:24:16] is a private street,
[1:24:18] so that's part
[1:24:20] of the maintenance obligation
[1:24:21] of the owners and the HOA.
[1:24:23] >> Wow.
[1:24:27] >> Oh, go ahead. Can I show my
[1:24:28] picture? It looks like a little
[1:24:29] open space maybe?
[1:24:30] >> Yeah, it's a drainage
[1:24:32] detention facility. So, the
[1:24:34] town requires that surface
[1:24:37] water runoff be captured and
[1:24:38] treated before discharge.
[1:24:42] >> It's not a great place
[1:24:43] to have your kids play.
[1:24:45] >> It's not designed for kids
[1:24:46] to play, right.
[1:24:47] >> But we're close enough to
[1:24:51] the proposed community park
[1:24:52] that it doesn't really warrant
[1:24:55] in this and then
[1:24:57] in this little part
[1:24:59] of the drawing the drawing,
[1:25:00] these are architectural plans,
[1:25:02] but it's a drawing to me.
[1:25:03] >> What is this?
[1:25:07] >> Are you talking
[1:25:09] about the?
[1:25:10] >> There's the little square
[1:25:12] over in the corner of the
[1:25:13] >> Yeah, that's a waste
[1:25:14] collection facility. So, half
[1:25:18] of the project will be served
[1:25:19] by a common waste collection
[1:25:20] facility and the other half
[1:25:21] will be served by Toad or
[1:25:23] Service.
[1:25:25] >> Okay.
[1:25:26] >> Dumpster.
[1:25:27] >> Dumpster, yeah.
[1:25:29] >> Not cheese curds.
[1:25:32] >> I'm trying to use the terms
[1:25:33] your waste hauler would use.
[1:25:34] >> Anything else, sir?
[1:25:38] >> No, not yet.
[1:25:39] >> For the parking on Los
[1:25:40] Amigos and the bike route,
[1:25:42] is it going
[1:25:44] to be protected parking? Where
[1:25:46] the bike will be on the inside
[1:25:48] in between the parking and the
[1:25:50] sidewalk?
[1:25:54] >> I believe that will be the
[1:25:55] configuration,
[1:25:56] yes. I did forget to mention,
[1:25:58] for what it's worth,
[1:25:59] I know it's kind
[1:26:01] of a random thought now, this
[1:26:02] project I believe is the first
[1:26:03] project subject to the town's
[1:26:04] recently adopted greenhouse gas
[1:26:07] emissions checklist process.
[1:26:08] And we are meeting that
[1:26:11] checklist. checklist. So,
[1:26:12] for what it's worth, we're
[1:26:14] advancing that interest as
[1:26:19] well.
[1:26:23] >> A couple questions real
[1:26:24] quick, okay? My first question
[1:26:26] is, I couldn't tell, I'm sorry,
[1:26:28] from the drawings here,
[1:26:29] how big are the porches? How
[1:26:31] deep are they and how wide are
[1:26:32] they?
[1:26:33] >> Do you know off the top
[1:26:34] of your head?
[1:26:35] >> Oh, right.
[1:26:36] >> She did all the work.
[1:26:40] >> Okay. So, Plan 1 the,
[1:26:45] the rear porch 13 by 6, 78
[1:26:51] square feet. And then the
[1:26:54] covered entry, which is not a
[1:26:56] porch, is 6 by 14, 84 square
[1:26:59] feet. And then P2 6 by 15 is
[1:27:04] the covered porch, so 90 square
[1:27:06] feet. And then they have a
[1:27:09] differently oriented covered
[1:27:11] entry where you probably could
[1:27:12] put a little chair out there,
[1:27:15] which is 3.5 by 9.
[1:27:20] >> Okay.
[1:27:21] >> So, it's 31.5 square feet.
[1:27:22] And then the duet porch is 6
[1:27:24] by 13 feet 8 inches, so 81
[1:27:28] square feet. So, they are all
[1:27:29] usable porches.
[1:27:33] >> As long as you don't have
[1:27:34] to walk around the chair.
[1:27:38] >> I find them quite usable.
[1:27:39] I was actually very impressed
[1:27:40] with the size of the porch.
[1:27:42] >> Are you looking at the
[1:27:43] plan? I'm just finding which
[1:27:44] document you're looking at.
[1:27:45] >> I'm looking at the
[1:27:46] architectural plans.
[1:27:48] >> Okay, and those are
[1:27:49] in this,
[1:27:50] the same thing that's
[1:27:51] in our packet here? The same
[1:27:52] ones?
[1:27:53] >> Yeah, I'm looking
[1:27:54] at those.
[1:27:55] >> Okay, so I'm gonna look
[1:27:56] here.
[1:27:57] >> I printed them out so that
[1:27:58] I could...
[1:27:59] >> Advantage you,
[1:28:00] because yeah.
[1:28:01] >> Exactly.
[1:28:02] >> Here's my
[1:28:03] worry for the applicant. You
[1:28:04] mentioned Old Redwood
[1:28:06] High Villages, whatever it
[1:28:08] was called. Yeah, Quail
[1:28:10] Villages, Oaks, Windsor, you
[1:28:11] know,
[1:28:12] we need them all the same.
[1:28:13] Those are tiny porches,
[1:28:14] right? The ones right there
[1:28:15] on Old River Highway, they're
[1:28:17] unusable. And now we've put
[1:28:18] up these funny little fences
[1:28:19] there. Yeah,
[1:28:20] it's not awesome. And I don't
[1:28:24] know if you guys are the
[1:28:25] builders or not. It sounds
[1:28:26] like you were. No?
[1:28:28] >> No, we're not.
[1:28:29] Just to clarify,
[1:28:30] the comparison to Old
[1:28:32] Redwood Highway Villages was
[1:28:33] lot size, not product type.
[1:28:39] >> So just to Kim's point,
[1:28:40] these are usable. You can
[1:28:41] actually put chairs
[1:28:42] out there and we can wave at
[1:28:45] these people and build
[1:28:47] connection there is our
[1:28:48] feeling there. And Kim, you
[1:28:50] feel that way?
[1:28:51] >> Yeah, that's what staff
[1:28:53] asked for.
[1:28:55] They had the pleasure
[1:28:57] of working with us on Quail
[1:28:58] Acres. So when they...
[1:29:01] >> What an honor.
[1:29:02] >> It was.
[1:29:03] >> So, they knew when they
[1:29:05] designed this project what
[1:29:06] the expectation was
[1:29:07] for porches.
[1:29:09] >> Good.
[1:29:10] >> And the orientation
[1:29:11] to the street.
[1:29:12] >> Okay.
[1:29:13] >> So, I expect that that's
[1:29:14] why we're seeing porches
[1:29:15] with these dimensions.
[1:29:16] >> Good.
[1:29:17] >> And that's just me being
[1:29:18] frank with you about it. The
[1:29:19] other thing that this project
[1:29:20] has in common with Old
[1:29:21] Redwood Highway Villages is
[1:29:24] some of the lots also have
[1:29:25] this side yard, the usable
[1:29:27] side yard where it's shared.
[1:29:31] So that's 6 feet wide. So
[1:29:32] they'll have the porch,
[1:29:34] and then some also have
[1:29:35] the side yard shared where
[1:29:36] it's, I don't know, up to
[1:29:38] 8, 10 feet wide. It shows on
[1:29:40] the development plan. I might
[1:29:42] be able
[1:29:43] to show you that as well.
[1:29:44] >> Okay.
[1:29:45] >> So they might have 2
[1:29:46] spaces, plus if they have a
[1:29:47] large enough rear yard space
[1:29:48] as well.
[1:29:49] >> Okay, so thank you
[1:29:51] on that one,
[1:29:52] and that was good.
[1:29:55] Thank you. Did we mention,
[1:29:56] like, this goes back to the
[1:29:58] back porch thing that's
[1:29:59] facing the church lot. Is
[1:30:03] there plans for a fence
[1:30:04] along that property line? So
[1:30:07] there'll be a back porch that
[1:30:08] looks at a fence?
[1:30:09] >> Yes.
[1:30:10] >> Yeah, there is a small
[1:30:11] porch. There will be a fence
[1:30:12] and there'll be, you know,
[1:30:15] depending on which lot,
[1:30:17] they vary in depth, but the
[1:30:19] smaller lots will have, you
[1:30:20] know, I believe about 5 feet
[1:30:22] between the back of the porch
[1:30:23] and the fence.
[1:30:26] >> Okay.
[1:30:27] >> And the usable yard area
[1:30:28] that Kim was referring to,
[1:30:30] there'll be exclusive use
[1:30:31] easements
[1:30:32] on an adjoining side yard.
[1:30:34] So the 2 side yard areas of
[1:30:35] 2 houses will be combined
[1:30:36] into one yard area
[1:30:37] for the exclusive use of one
[1:30:41] of the homes.
[1:30:42] >> So no fence there
[1:30:44] between it? That's what I was
[1:30:45] trying to figure out.
[1:30:46] >> Yeah.
[1:30:49] >> Okay. Because we talked
[1:30:51] about the 3-foot setbacks
[1:30:52] on each side of some
[1:30:54] of these lots, right?
[1:30:55] >> But some
[1:30:57] of them are small. What most
[1:30:59] of them are,
[1:31:00] I would say some
[1:31:01] of them are not that,
[1:31:02] but they're being combined.
[1:31:03] You can see
[1:31:04] in this slide here,
[1:31:05] it says exclusive yard area.
[1:31:08] So, like, between lots 6 and
[1:31:09] 7, one lot has the setback
[1:31:12] itself,
[1:31:13] and then it's combined with
[1:31:14] the side yard setback
[1:31:15] adjacent to it. With an
[1:31:18] easement so that one lot that
[1:31:20] is their private side yard,
[1:31:22] and then there will be a
[1:31:23] fence so that they have the
[1:31:25] exclusive use of that area,
[1:31:26] which is the same setup as
[1:31:28] Old Redwood Highway
[1:31:30] Villages. So this project in
[1:31:32] some respects actually has
[1:31:33] more outdoor space than Old
[1:31:34] Redwood Highway Villages
[1:31:36] because some lots will have
[1:31:37] their porch,
[1:31:39] they'll have their yard,
[1:31:40] their front yard, and then
[1:31:41] they will have an exclusive
[1:31:43] side yard area as well.
[1:31:45] >> Okay.
[1:31:46] >> So they might actually
[1:31:47] have more usable outdoor
[1:31:48] space than Old Redwood Highway
[1:31:50] Villages.
[1:31:51] >> Interesting. And I'm fine.
[1:31:53] I've lived in houses that are
[1:31:54] closer than 3 feet together
[1:31:55] in my past.
[1:31:57] >> Sometimes it's just
[1:31:58] helpful to have a context of
[1:31:59] a real project we've seen.
[1:32:01] >> And I appreciate that.
[1:32:02] Our next question, and
[1:32:03] Commissioner Rennie kind
[1:32:04] of brought this up, the
[1:32:05] private road you said has
[1:32:07] 12-foot travel lanes,
[1:32:08] so it's 24 feet curb
[1:32:09] to curb.
[1:32:12] But there's no parking
[1:32:13] along there, right?
[1:32:14] >> Correct.
[1:32:15] >> Is there any fear?
[1:32:16] Because normally, you know,
[1:32:18] 10 foot should be your max
[1:32:19] for a travel lane because our
[1:32:20] fine firefighters can drive a
[1:32:22] truck easily through that.
[1:32:23] Why are we going wide
[1:32:26] on our road here? Which I
[1:32:27] know city guys are like,
[1:32:28] this is, you know, heresy.
[1:32:30] It should be 13 feet lanes.
[1:32:31] We could narrow it
[1:32:33] down and slow people down and
[1:32:35] make this a shared space so
[1:32:38] people aren't traveling fast
[1:32:40] there. My worry is that this
[1:32:41] is pretty wide at 12 feet,
[1:32:43] but Kim is raising her hand,
[1:32:46] so I will flip it over
[1:32:47] to the smartest kid in the
[1:32:48] class.
[1:32:49] >> I believe the town
[1:32:50] standard is 24 feet for a
[1:32:51] private or a narrow
[1:32:53] residential street.
[1:32:54] >> Oh, really?
[1:32:55] >> Kim.
[1:32:57] >> So yes,
[1:32:58] that is the town standard for
[1:32:59] a narrow residential street,
[1:33:01] and this is what our fire
[1:33:02] trucks and our garbage trucks
[1:33:03] need to maneuver
[1:33:05] through this site. So if we
[1:33:06] want our emergency access
[1:33:08] vehicles to be able to get
[1:33:09] through the site, that is the
[1:33:11] travel lane width we need.
[1:33:12] And if we would
[1:33:13] like garbage service,
[1:33:15] we also need that travel
[1:33:16] width,
[1:33:17] travel lane width.
[1:33:18] >> Yes, I have opinions,
[1:33:19] but there we go.
[1:33:20] But I appreciate the input.
[1:33:22] Thank you. And that's my
[1:33:24] questions for now.
[1:33:25] >> Great.
[1:33:26] Any other questions
[1:33:27] for the applicant?
[1:33:29] No.
[1:33:30] Thank you.
[1:33:31] >> Thank you.
[1:33:32] >> At this time,
[1:33:33] we will bring it back... I'm
[1:33:34] sorry,
[1:33:35] we're open public comment.
[1:33:36] Reminder, public comment is
[1:33:37] held in person only.
[1:33:38] Commenters, please state your
[1:33:39] name and address for the
[1:33:40] record and limit your
[1:33:41] comments 3 minutes
[1:33:42] in duration. Looks
[1:33:43] like we've got one.
[1:33:49] >> Jody Piscatello, again,
[1:33:51] Oakfield Lane. First
[1:33:54] of all, I want to commend you
[1:33:55] guys because this is what I
[1:33:57] was talking
[1:33:59] about when it came
[1:34:01] to providing homes for, you
[1:34:04] know, anyone regardless of
[1:34:06] income level and letting and
[1:34:08] having them live amongst the
[1:34:10] community. This is it. One
[1:34:15] thing I wanted to point
[1:34:16] out just to take
[1:34:17] into consideration. Living
[1:34:19] in an area, on my street,
[1:34:20] we have the, like your duets
[1:34:24] where they have the tandem.
[1:34:29] And sometimes there's some
[1:34:31] that don't have driveways.
[1:34:34] That's how our street is
[1:34:35] right now. And when we came
[1:34:36] on board or, you know, moved
[1:34:38] in, we knew that.
[1:34:40] That's the way it was going
[1:34:42] to be. But we had a street
[1:34:43] that we could park on, and
[1:34:45] now that's being compromised.
[1:34:46] Well, it could be
[1:34:48] compromised. One
[1:34:49] of the houses
[1:34:51] in my little unit, we have
[1:34:52] like 4 houses, 2 face
[1:34:54] each other, shared driveway,
[1:34:55] one of them had to be moved
[1:34:57] up and they have the tandem
[1:34:58] garage but no driveway. So
[1:35:00] that's what really spurred me
[1:35:01] when you were describing this
[1:35:02] as no street parking and some
[1:35:05] don't even have a driveway is
[1:35:07] that I love the size where
[1:35:10] you've got like between 2 and
[1:35:12] 4 bedrooms, but some would
[1:35:14] suggest that that's
[1:35:18] for a single parent or like,
[1:35:19] I think
[1:35:21] about myself. I've lived here
[1:35:22] for 26 years. Mom, dad, 2
[1:35:25] cars. We had 2 kids,
[1:35:27] and then they grew up
[1:35:29] to have 2 cars and mom
[1:35:30] gets the driveway, right?
[1:35:33] That's how it works. But my
[1:35:37] kids had a space near the
[1:35:39] house that they could park.
[1:35:42] So when I think
[1:35:43] about you've got 16
[1:35:44] for guest parking,
[1:35:45] my kids are not guests. And
[1:35:47] when they're working at a
[1:35:48] fast food place or something
[1:35:50] at night, I don't want them
[1:35:51] coming home and not parking
[1:35:53] near the house. So that was
[1:35:56] the one thing that concerned
[1:35:58] me about the setup is that
[1:35:59] there's the larger roads and
[1:36:04] coming home at night, and I'm
[1:36:05] always gonna have single
[1:36:09] parents or, you know,
[1:36:12] kids or whatever coming late.
[1:36:13] Where is their opportunity
[1:36:16] to park? How far
[1:36:17] from their home will they
[1:36:19] have to walk? So it's just
[1:36:20] something
[1:36:22] from my own experience in my
[1:36:23] neighborhood that I just
[1:36:24] wanted to point out. But as
[1:36:27] far as the different levels
[1:36:29] that you have, that is
[1:36:31] brilliant. Like, I'm very
[1:36:32] excited to see that. And the
[1:36:34] fact that it's for like new
[1:36:35] home buyers and stuff, this
[1:36:39] is what I wish we saw more
[1:36:40] of in the developments that
[1:36:44] we have. So that's all.
[1:36:54] >> Sam Salmon. I'd ask you
[1:36:57] to consider the dedication
[1:37:00] for the roundabout space to
[1:37:02] the town rather than the
[1:37:04] ability
[1:37:05] to have a right-of-way
[1:37:07] to purchase?
[1:37:10] Thank you.
[1:37:14] >> Ken, you were shaking your
[1:37:15] head. Did you want
[1:37:16] to make a comment
[1:37:17] on that?
[1:37:22] >> So we do remember
[1:37:23] Councilmember Salmon's
[1:37:24] interest
[1:37:25] in a roundabout expressed
[1:37:27] during the Quail Acres
[1:37:28] review. And so this project
[1:37:29] has been designed to allow
[1:37:31] for a right-of-way dedication
[1:37:33] for a roundabout. And it
[1:37:35] would be, you know,
[1:37:38] just north of Lot 14, or
[1:37:41] just... Excuse me, east of Lot
[1:37:42] 14 near the intersection,
[1:37:44] of course. So if the town
[1:37:46] decides to proceed
[1:37:48] with the roundabout there,
[1:37:49] we have made accommodations
[1:37:51] for that. And then we are
[1:37:53] also, you know, still
[1:37:54] providing the irrevocable
[1:37:55] offer
[1:37:57] for additional right-of-way
[1:37:58] to go to 5 lanes if the town
[1:38:00] decides that would ever be
[1:38:02] needed. So we have addressed
[1:38:04] the roundabout issue.
[1:38:06] >> Great, thank you.
[1:38:15] >> Okay, my name is Kay
[1:38:16] Sherlock, and we own the
[1:38:17] property right
[1:38:19] across the street from them
[1:38:21] on Arata Lane. There's only
[1:38:24] 5 houses that are facing
[1:38:27] Arata Lane, is that my
[1:38:28] understanding? Okay, only 5
[1:38:30] houses, and then there is A
[1:38:31] private road that comes off
[1:38:34] of a Arata Lane that goes
[1:38:36] back in,
[1:38:37] but you're also going
[1:38:38] to do part of the Los
[1:38:41] Amigos. I thought this whole
[1:38:43] project was part of Quail,
[1:38:45] the Quail one. I didn't
[1:38:46] realize it was a brand new
[1:38:47] one. The only thing that I
[1:38:49] would like
[1:38:50] to ask you all is,
[1:38:53] seeing that you are doing
[1:38:55] part of Los Amigos, if the
[1:38:57] Quail one does not proceed
[1:39:00] before you, can you advance
[1:39:03] it and get an on-ramp onto
[1:39:07] the freeway so that we can
[1:39:09] get the hell out
[1:39:11] of there when we need to get
[1:39:12] out of there? If you're both
[1:39:17] doing it, to me, instead
[1:39:19] of just connecting with the
[1:39:22] Old north of Los Amigos. You
[1:39:27] do the on-ramp that we were
[1:39:30] promised how many years ago.
[1:39:33] That's all I'm asking. That
[1:39:35] would be very nice.
[1:39:36] Otherwise, I do like your
[1:39:38] project. I just would
[1:39:40] like a way of getting out
[1:39:42] of there if we needed to get
[1:39:44] out of there. That's all.
[1:39:46] Thank you.
[1:39:47] >> Thank you.
[1:39:50] Okay, seeing no more
[1:39:51] public comment
[1:39:52] at this time,
[1:39:53] we'll bring it back
[1:39:54] to the commission
[1:39:55] for discussion.
[1:39:57] Do we want
[1:39:58] to address that?
[1:39:59] We certainly can.
[1:40:00] >> Adding an on-ramp?
[1:40:01] >> Yeah.
[1:40:03] >> Well, I explained.
[1:40:04] So these developers
[1:40:05] wouldn't be responsible for
[1:40:06] building an on-ramp that
[1:40:07] involves Caltrans, but
[1:40:08] these are the steps being
[1:40:09] taken
[1:40:10] to make that connection, you
[1:40:11] know, eventually.
[1:40:17] Anybody have thoughts on
[1:40:19] this project?
[1:40:22] >> I'll just go real quick,
[1:40:23] if I may. Good
[1:40:25] to see you guys again. I do
[1:40:28] like addressing the public
[1:40:29] comment earlier about finding
[1:40:31] housing that is the smaller,
[1:40:33] hopefully more affordable
[1:40:35] style housing
[1:40:36] and up there. So that's a
[1:40:38] big issue. My quick worries
[1:40:42] and thoughts are I think I
[1:40:46] looked at your Willow Glen
[1:40:48] homes in Rohnert Park, and
[1:40:49] you guys had really nice
[1:40:50] large front porches and nice
[1:40:52] curb bulb-outs and
[1:40:55] walkability. This is small,
[1:40:58] so it's not like as big as
[1:40:59] that other project,
[1:41:01] but I want to make sure there
[1:41:02] is walkability, especially
[1:41:04] in some of this, the city.
[1:41:06] But if you build Los
[1:41:08] Amigos, kids are going
[1:41:09] to be crossing Los Amigos
[1:41:10] to go to the park. We've got
[1:41:11] to make sure that Los
[1:41:12] Amigos, even though it's
[1:41:14] going to eventually have an
[1:41:15] on-ramp,
[1:41:16] doesn't become a speedway.
[1:41:18] That's why I hammer the lane
[1:41:19] widths, right? Because it
[1:41:20] should slow people down
[1:41:22] to be in a neighborhood,
[1:41:23] because this is going to
[1:41:24] become a residential
[1:41:25] neighborhood. So making sure
[1:41:26] we build this in such a way
[1:41:27] that it's walkable, rollable
[1:41:29] for people in wheelchairs and
[1:41:30] scooters and things
[1:41:31] like that. I don't see a lot
[1:41:33] of that here. I know some of
[1:41:35] that's because it's an
[1:41:36] internal private
[1:41:39] driveways, but I want
[1:41:40] to make sure...
[1:41:41] >> Does it have sidewalks
[1:41:42] on that?
[1:41:43] >> It has sidewalks
[1:41:44] on the outside, but like,
[1:41:45] look at the rounded curve
[1:41:46] on Los Amigos and Arata
[1:41:47] Lane. And I don't know if
[1:41:48] there's a traffic engineer
[1:41:49] sitting here in the audience
[1:41:50] and they're like, yeah,
[1:41:51] that's so fast because it
[1:41:52] goes zipping
[1:41:53] around that corner.
[1:41:54] But what we actually want is
[1:41:55] like people to slow
[1:41:56] down because there's going
[1:41:57] to be a kid crossing Los
[1:41:58] Amigos with Grandma
[1:41:59] in a wheelchair to go
[1:42:00] to the park and they're going
[1:42:01] to get hit. And that's
[1:42:03] because we're going
[1:42:04] to build that like a freeway
[1:42:05] on-ramp rather than a town
[1:42:06] street before we get there.
[1:42:10] So that's where I do see some
[1:42:12] worries, and I think that's
[1:42:13] not directly tied
[1:42:15] to this part yet,
[1:42:16] but that is something I want
[1:42:17] to bring up and plant the
[1:42:19] seed. I did like what I saw
[1:42:20] at the Willow Glen project
[1:42:21] in Rohnert Park
[1:42:22] on that route. So those are
[1:42:23] my thoughts.
[1:42:26] >> Adding on to that, I don't
[1:42:28] know if you can partner
[1:42:29] with the Qauil Acres project
[1:42:30] and do that in conjunction
[1:42:32] where you actually have the
[1:42:33] bulb-outs
[1:42:35] with the flashing lights. So
[1:42:36] then that way you can have
[1:42:38] that safety measure,
[1:42:40] and it is more
[1:42:41] like that bottleneck slowing
[1:42:42] down traffic.
[1:42:50] >> Through the chair, if I could
[1:42:51] just provide some clarifying
[1:42:52] comments
[1:42:54] on the planned on-ramp for
[1:42:55] 101. The extension of Los
[1:42:58] Amigos would accommodate
[1:42:59] for that on-ramp, but it
[1:43:01] wouldn't actually be coming
[1:43:02] from Los Amigos. The on-ramp
[1:43:03] would be oriented over where
[1:43:04] the existing off-ramp is
[1:43:05] on the opposite side of the
[1:43:06] 101 freeway. So where the
[1:43:09] northern Los Amigos spur
[1:43:10] currently goes down to
[1:43:12] Arata, that's where the
[1:43:13] on-ramp would be. This would
[1:43:14] be a local road that would
[1:43:15] connect up towards
[1:43:16] Healdsburg.
[1:43:26] >> Echoing some
[1:43:27] of the comments we've heard,
[1:43:28] I think that it's absolutely,
[1:43:29] it's imperative that we start
[1:43:31] filling
[1:43:32] in the missing middle. This
[1:43:35] project is doing that,
[1:43:36] and it allows
[1:43:37] for affordability to own
[1:43:38] at multiple levels of
[1:43:39] affordability as far as
[1:43:42] deed-restricted low-income
[1:43:45] and also units
[1:43:46] at market rate that allow
[1:43:48] for a step
[1:43:51] into ownership basis as well.
[1:43:55] It's fantastic that you're
[1:43:56] taking a... It's infill, not
[1:43:59] really because the other one
[1:44:01] is,
[1:44:03] but if it is infill in
[1:44:05] the sense that once it's all
[1:44:06] built out, there won't be
[1:44:07] that blank empty piece of
[1:44:09] land that's unutilized and
[1:44:10] doesn't make sense. So I
[1:44:13] appreciate the architecture.
[1:44:16] Sounds
[1:44:17] like you worked very well
[1:44:18] with the town, provided what
[1:44:19] you knew we would ask
[1:44:21] for as best you could,
[1:44:22] and so I appreciate that
[1:44:24] in this project.
[1:44:30] >> And I'll kind
[1:44:31] of echo the same, you know,
[1:44:32] the comparison to the old
[1:44:33] Redwood Highway Villages
[1:44:34] makes sense. They are
[1:44:35] overparked though. They have
[1:44:36] a ton of parking and they're
[1:44:37] a block away
[1:44:39] from a giant actual park,
[1:44:40] not a planned park. So
[1:44:43] there is, you know, some
[1:44:44] concern there that you're
[1:44:45] building a bunch of houses
[1:44:46] with no recreational
[1:44:47] resources nearby. But I know
[1:44:48] that is the plan. I believe
[1:44:49] some of you are
[1:44:50] on that other project. So,
[1:44:52] hopefully that comes
[1:44:53] to fruition.
[1:44:54] But the designs layout,
[1:44:55] it's a good use
[1:44:56] of the property. And again,
[1:44:57] does provide some great
[1:44:58] housing compared
[1:44:59] to some
[1:45:00] of the projects we see. This
[1:45:01] one, this one looks pretty
[1:45:02] good.
[1:45:03] >> I want a quick follow-up.
[1:45:04] I heard a 5-lane Arata
[1:45:06] Lane project? Am I
[1:45:07] hallucinating?
[1:45:12] >> So the town's general plan
[1:45:13] circulation map identifies
[1:45:15] the section of Arata Lane as
[1:45:17] 5 lanes
[1:45:20] from really this project to
[1:45:23] Highway 101. It's a very
[1:45:25] small section. So in the
[1:45:27] event that one day that is
[1:45:28] needed, the project includes
[1:45:31] an irrevocable offer of
[1:45:32] dedication because it's
[1:45:33] required to be consistent
[1:45:35] with the general plan. That
[1:45:36] is not the plan,
[1:45:38] it is not necessary. There's
[1:45:39] no indication that it's
[1:45:40] needed. So until that time,
[1:45:41] the lots that include that
[1:45:43] irrevocable offer
[1:45:45] of dedication along Arata
[1:45:49] Lane, they just use that
[1:45:50] property however they want
[1:45:51] to use that property for
[1:45:52] landscaping and enjoy that
[1:45:54] property. If one day the town
[1:45:56] needs it, the town has it.
[1:45:58] That's why it's there. Thank
[1:45:59] you. No, there's no plan
[1:46:00] for that currently.
[1:46:01] >> Okay, good.
[1:46:02] >> So we have 2 resolutions.
[1:46:03] One is for the negative
[1:46:04] declaration and one is for
[1:46:06] the resolution approving the
[1:46:08] builder's remedy application.
[1:46:10] Do we have a motion? I guess
[1:46:13] we need to read the titles
[1:46:14] on both. We can do resolution
[1:46:16] number 1 first if we have a
[1:46:17] motion to approve.
[1:46:20] >> Anybody want to do it?
[1:46:23] I move to approve
[1:46:24] resolution number 1 and
[1:46:26] resolution number 2. A
[1:46:28] resolution of the Town of
[1:46:29] Windsor Planning Commission
[1:46:30] adopting a mitigation...
[1:46:34] >> Hold on one second.
[1:46:35] >> We do need to do them
[1:46:36] one at a time.
[1:46:38] >> Okay.
[1:46:39] >> Well, I think actually we
[1:46:40] could accept the motion and
[1:46:41] then just vote separately if
[1:46:42] you want to do that.
[1:46:43] >> Okay, whatever works
[1:46:45] for you.
[1:46:50] Moving to approve a
[1:46:51] resolution of the Town of
[1:46:52] Windsor Planning Commission
[1:46:53] adopting a mitigated negative
[1:46:54] declaration and a mitigation
[1:46:55] monitoring and reporting
[1:46:57] program for the Los Amigos
[1:46:59] Cottages Builders Remedy
[1:47:00] Project at 263 Arata Lane.
[1:47:03] Additionally, I move
[1:47:05] to approve the resolution
[1:47:07] of the Planning Commission
[1:47:08] of the Town of Windsor
[1:47:09] approving a builder's remedy
[1:47:11] application for a 32-lot
[1:47:13] tentative subdivision map,
[1:47:15] affordable housing waivers,
[1:47:16] and reservation
[1:47:18] of growth control allocations
[1:47:20] for the same Los Amigos
[1:47:21] Cottages project.
[1:47:23] >> Do we have a second for
[1:47:24] resolution number 1?
[1:47:27] >> I'm going to interrupt.
[1:47:30] Let's just focus
[1:47:31] on resolution number 1. So we
[1:47:32] have a motion for that. Now
[1:47:33] we're asking for a second,
[1:47:34] and then we'll move on
[1:47:35] to resolution number 2.
[1:47:37] >> I second the first
[1:47:39] resolution as read.
[1:47:41] >> We have a roll call vote,
[1:47:42] please.
[1:47:43] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[1:47:50] >> Moving on
[1:47:51] to resolution number 2 as
[1:47:52] read by Commissioner
[1:47:54] Fortino-Dickson. Do we have a
[1:47:55] second?
[1:47:59] >> You can second.
[1:48:00] >> I'll second.
[1:48:02] >> May we have a roll call
[1:48:03] vote, please?
[1:48:04] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[1:48:13] >> Thank you. At this time,
[1:48:15] we will look at item number
[1:48:17] 10, our regular calendar. We
[1:48:18] have no items
[1:48:19] on the regular calendar
[1:48:20] at this time. Item number
[1:48:21] 11, our written
[1:48:22] communication. I will
[1:48:23] acknowledge we received a
[1:48:24] number
[1:48:25] of written communications
[1:48:26] about the Windsor Creek
[1:48:28] presentation and a couple
[1:48:30] questions of staff that I
[1:48:31] think they've handled.
[1:48:34] Moving on to item number
[1:48:36] 12. 12.1, individual
[1:48:38] commissioner reports and
[1:48:39] comments, including reports
[1:48:40] on meetings, conferences,
[1:48:41] and activities
[1:48:42] of miscellaneous agendas.
[1:48:46] Agency? None there?
[1:48:50] >> I don't want to steal
[1:48:51] Director Streeter's thunder
[1:48:52] if he's going to do this,
[1:48:54] but I was asked to propagate
[1:48:55] the message that there will
[1:48:56] be a Sonoma County Transit
[1:48:57] bus workshop coming up. Is
[1:49:00] that in your presentation,
[1:49:01] Patrick?
[1:49:02] >> It wasn't, so go
[1:49:03] for it.
[1:49:04] >> Well, I should have had
[1:49:05] the date ready.
[1:49:09] But they're doing them all
[1:49:11] around the town, one, and
[1:49:12] there's one in Windsor.
[1:49:15] It's coming up. I'll have to
[1:49:16] go quickly look it up when
[1:49:17] you're reporting.
[1:49:19] But if people do want
[1:49:20] to weigh in on the Windsor
[1:49:21] shuttle bus or any service,
[1:49:22] because they are changing how
[1:49:23] the buses work with SMART.
[1:49:24] And I will look up the date
[1:49:25] and time. Apologies, and I'll
[1:49:26] find it.
[1:49:28] >> Anything, Richard? Okay.
[1:49:30] Do we have any requests
[1:49:31] for future agenda items?
[1:49:32] Seeing none,
[1:49:34] we will close item number
[1:49:36] 12. Move on to item number
[1:49:37] 13, our community development
[1:49:38] director's report. Director
[1:49:39] Streeter.
[1:49:41] >> Thank you, Chair. I did
[1:49:42] want to quickly address
[1:49:43] the question came up
[1:49:44] during the
[1:49:45] opening presentation about
[1:49:47] the builder's remedy and the
[1:49:48] certified housing element,
[1:49:50] how that all works. So
[1:49:52] to give a little history,
[1:49:54] as Ms. Jordan pointed out,
[1:49:55] we last had our housing
[1:49:58] element, our current housing
[1:49:59] element was certified in
[1:50:00] 2023 by HCD. The way that the
[1:50:03] RHNA works is that the
[1:50:07] State Department of Housing
[1:50:08] and Community Development
[1:50:09] assigns a housing number
[1:50:11] to each of the different COGs
[1:50:12] or council of governments
[1:50:16] within California. So ours is
[1:50:20] MTC-ABAG. So ABAG was
[1:50:23] assigned a certain number of,
[1:50:24] you know, a couple hundred
[1:50:26] thousand units that they had
[1:50:27] to develop. Then the local
[1:50:29] COG, MTC-ABAG, divides that
[1:50:31] amongst the different
[1:50:32] jurisdictions,
[1:50:33] so cities and counties
[1:50:34] within it. That's where the
[1:50:35] 994 were assigned to
[1:50:36] Windsor. So the process of
[1:50:38] developing your housing
[1:50:41] element can't actually begin
[1:50:42] until you receive that
[1:50:45] assignment. And every city,
[1:50:47] I'm pretty sure every city
[1:50:49] and county appealed their
[1:50:50] assignments. So,
[1:50:53] those appeals had
[1:50:54] to be heard by MTC-ABAG. And
[1:50:56] then they granted one or two
[1:50:58] of the appeals
[1:51:00] on technicalities,
[1:51:01] but everyone then had
[1:51:02] to move forward
[1:51:03] with their assignments. This
[1:51:04] all occurred
[1:51:05] through the years 2019 to
[1:51:07] 2022 during COVID. So it made
[1:51:10] it even more challenging. So
[1:51:11] there were significant delays
[1:51:12] in just about every city in
[1:51:13] California getting started on
[1:51:15] developing their housing
[1:51:16] elements. HCD reassured
[1:51:18] everyone that although the
[1:51:19] deadline was January of
[1:51:21] 2023. There'd be a grace
[1:51:25] period because of all the
[1:51:27] delays that everyone had
[1:51:28] faced. And then when January
[1:51:30] of 2023 came around, HCD
[1:51:32] mentioned, actually,
[1:51:34] there's a grace period,
[1:51:36] but you're still open
[1:51:37] to build as remedy. If you
[1:51:39] don't have a certified
[1:51:40] housing element, so Windsor
[1:51:42] is not alone in being kind
[1:51:43] of exposed
[1:51:44] to that that window of
[1:51:46] of builders' remedies. So we
[1:51:48] received a couple of
[1:51:49] builders' remedy
[1:51:51] applications, including the
[1:51:52] one that was just approved
[1:51:53] tonight. But most other
[1:51:54] cities also experienced the
[1:51:55] same thing. So there was a
[1:51:57] gap between when the
[1:51:58] certified housing element was
[1:51:59] due and when it was actually
[1:52:00] certified by HCD. We have no
[1:52:03] intention
[1:52:05] of letting that happen again
[1:52:06] for the next housing element,
[1:52:08] which is required
[1:52:10] to be certified by HCD in
[1:52:12] January of 2031.
[1:52:16] But we also have no control
[1:52:17] over when those assignments
[1:52:18] and allocations are made and
[1:52:19] when they're divided up by
[1:52:21] MTC-ABAG and what the
[1:52:23] assignment would be and when
[1:52:24] we could actually begin the
[1:52:26] process of adopting the
[1:52:27] housing element.
[1:52:29] But learning lessons
[1:52:30] from the past,
[1:52:32] we'll try to have everything
[1:52:33] lined up and ready to go as
[1:52:34] soon as we are able to. And
[1:52:38] then just discussing upcoming
[1:52:39] agendas. So for Planning
[1:52:40] Commission,
[1:52:44] this is not a Planning
[1:52:45] Commission meeting,
[1:52:46] but commissioners
[1:52:47] are welcome to attend. We
[1:52:48] have the community meeting on
[1:52:51] the station area plan
[1:52:52] scheduled for next Monday the
[1:52:53] 20th. And then on August
[1:52:54] 11th, we do have a joint
[1:52:56] Town Council Planning
[1:52:57] Commission meeting. Again, to
[1:53:00] discuss the station area plan
[1:53:02] update. This will be the
[1:53:03] first of 2 joint meetings
[1:53:05] that we'd like to hold. And
[1:53:07] on August 25th,
[1:53:10] we have a public hearing
[1:53:11] for the Clearwater Project.
[1:53:14] As part of their development
[1:53:15] agreement,
[1:53:16] they must come back
[1:53:17] before the review authority
[1:53:18] to give an update
[1:53:20] on progress of that
[1:53:22] development agreement. This
[1:53:24] one may also include
[1:53:26] potential modifications to
[1:53:27] that development agreement.
[1:53:30] And looking
[1:53:31] at council calendars, on
[1:53:32] July 15th, so tomorrow,
[1:53:34] we do have introduction of
[1:53:36] the ordinance that would have
[1:53:37] the updates
[1:53:40] to the zoning ordinance,
[1:53:42] including updates for ADU and
[1:53:44] JADU code that was
[1:53:46] recommended for approval
[1:53:47] by the commission
[1:53:48] at our last meeting. And on
[1:53:51] August 5th, we have the
[1:53:52] council requested that
[1:53:54] planning staff come
[1:53:57] forward with an item
[1:53:58] to receive direction
[1:53:59] on potential modifications
[1:54:01] to the gas station ban. So
[1:54:03] we're putting together a
[1:54:05] package to bring
[1:54:06] to the council
[1:54:07] for their consideration
[1:54:09] on providing further
[1:54:11] direction to staff or just
[1:54:12] saying let the issue go away.
[1:54:14] And I think with that, that
[1:54:17] will conclude my report
[1:54:18] tonight.
[1:54:20] >> Great, thank you very
[1:54:21] much.
[1:54:22] >> Just real quick, I found
[1:54:23] the dates and I thank you.
[1:54:24] So it could be a twofer.
[1:54:25] After you do the station area
[1:54:26] plan,
[1:54:27] you can come back the next
[1:54:28] night, July 21st, at the
[1:54:29] Windsor Chamber/Depot
[1:54:30] from 5:30 to 7:00 to talk
[1:54:32] about the transit changes.
[1:54:33] So show up
[1:54:35] to that if you want.
[1:54:36] >> Great.
[1:54:41] At this time, we will
[1:54:42] adjourn the meeting. The next
[1:54:43] regular meeting of the
[1:54:44] Planning Commission is
[1:54:45] scheduled for Tuesday, July
[1:54:46] 28, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.,
[1:54:47] and will be held in the
[1:54:48] Council Chambers located at
[1:54:49] 9291 Old Redwood Highway,
[1:54:51] Building 400, Windsor. Thank
[1:54:53] you.