[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.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript