Healdsburg City Council
October 5, 2026

10.01.2026 Letter to Healdsberg City Council re Hudson Project Appeal.docx Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
NIRAN S. SOMASUNDARAM

SENIOR ASSOCIATE
DIRECT DIAL (415) 995-5872
E-MAIL [email protected]
October 1, 2026
Healdsburg City Council
401 Grove Street
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Re: Agenda Item 7.a (Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for 359 Hudson Street) Dear Mayor Herrod, Vice Mayor Edwards, and Members of the City Council:

This Office represents Gallaher Signature Living LLC (the "Applicant"), the applicant for the proposed senior residential care facility at 359 Hudson Street ("the Property"). This letter is submitted in response to an appeal filed by Lewis Bangham and Jon B. Eisenberg (the "Appellants") of the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of the Project.

The Appellants raise an erudite argument that the Project is a medical facility prohibited by local zoning. While dressed in seasoned legalese, the argument betrays a profound ignorance of land use laws. It's just dead wrong.

To be clear, the Project will have limited medical operations. A nurse may be on site. A doctor may visit the facility to see residents on a limited basis. Prescription medicines may be dispensed to residents. However, the existence of these limited activities does not convert a senior residential living facility into a clinic or a hospital, any more than a nurse's office in an elementary school would convert the school into a pediatrician's office. To the extent the Applicant provides medical services at the Project, such care would be no different than inhome services an elderly person living at home could receive, and certainly nobody would — or could — argue that in-home care converts a house into a medical clinic.

The tactic that Appellants adopt involves using a complex array of State laws to color how the City Council should interpret local zoning. While it is sometimes true that State law preempts local law, there is no State "override" here. The City Council gets to decide how it interprets the local zoning ordinances it has adopted, and this authority is sacrosanct. Following Appellants' arguments to their logical end would establish a precedent leaving the City Council bereft of planning authority in considering senior care projects.

As discussed below, the Planning Commission's decision that senior care facilities are primarily residential in nature, and allowed by zoning, is supported by the explicit language of the City's Land Use Code, which allows limited medical assistance for elderly residents. Appellants raise no evidence the City's interpretation of its zoning ordinance is erroneous. The Project is rightfully identified as a "Residential care, general" use, consistent with how the City has historically identified senior care residential facilities providing comparable services.

Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

Appellants attempt to muddy the issues in this appeal by citing inapplicable case law, seizing on out-of-context quotations from the Planning Commission hearing, and mischaracterizing the operations of Gallaher-run communities outside of the City. These distractions do not alter the core facts: the Planning Commission's approval is proper and supported by the language of the City's ordinances, its previous approvals, and State law.

The City Council should not concede local power and should affirm the Planning Commission's approval. Appellants' attempted intrusion into the sanctity of the City's zoning authority is inappropriate. It also, ironically, has the potential to expose the City to substantial penalties under State housing laws.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, BACKGROUND, AND RELEVANT FACTS
The Applicant has proposed a 67-unit Continuing Care Retirement Community ("CCRC"), a subset of Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly ("RCFE"), to serve the elderly population of Healdsburg (the "RCFE Project"). The RCFE Project will cater exclusively to residents 62 and older, with a range of services for elderly residents, including: (1) amenities to support social engagement among residents, such as a movie theater, salon, art studio, activity room, and card and game room; and (2) amenities to support wellness, including a fitness center, yoga and pilates studio, and an on-site suite area for residents to meet with their outside physicians for limited medical assistance and advice (e.g., a place for a doctor's "house call").

As part of the larger development, the Applicant has also proposed a single-story memory care building with six treatment rooms, specifically to provide secure and safe residential care for elderly residents living with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia. Lastly, the Applicant has proposed the development of 10 deed-restricted affordable housing units, including eight units affordable to very-low-income households and two units affordable to low-to-moderate income households. This integrated residential community will provide much needed housing for the City's elderly population and for community members who are being slowly priced out of the region.

The RCFE component of the Project constitutes "Residential care, general" use, and requires a conditional use permit to operate at the Property. It is the conditional use permit, and its authorization of the RCFE component, that Appellants challenge.

The Planning Commission reviewed the RCFE Project and granted a conditional use permit, making all findings required under Healdsburg Land Use Code ("LUC") section 20.28.165. The Planning Commission's determination is in line with the language of the LUC, which defines "Residential care, general" uses to encompass state-licensed facilities that provide a mix of residential care for a population, such as the elderly, and "limited" medical assistance as needed. It is also consistent with the City's previous approvals of RCFEs, including the Enso Village project.

The Planning Commission's approval is the subject of an appeal filed by Appellants. Appellants ask the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's approval and call into question the City's previous approval of other RCFEs. Appellants' cited basis is their interpretation of the State law provisions that set forth the scope of services an RCFE can provide, which Appellants contend must dictate how the City interprets City law. There is no basis for this request. The crux of Appellants' argument is that the Project involves more than "limited" medical assistance Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

but, as explained below, these arguments disrespect the City's interpretive authority and its history of handling senior care facilities. Their argument also defies common sense.

II. THE CITY CORRECTLY CLASSIFIES THE RCFE PROJECT AS RESIDENTIAL

CARE, GENERAL
The place to start is with the LUC definition of "Residential care, general" activities, as the tugof-war between Appellants and the Planning Commission is whether the Project's 67-unit RCFE component fits within this definition. Under the City's ordinances, a "Residential care, general" activity is defined as follows:

A State-licensed facility, place or structure that is maintained and operated to provide nonmedical residential care, day treatment or foster agency services for seven or more adults and/or children as defined in the California Health and Safety Code. This use includes the administration of limited medical assistance (e.g., dispensing of prescribed medications).
(LUC § 20.28.310 [emph. added]).

As discussed below, the RCFE component of the Project satisfies each element of this definition.

A. The RCFE Project Is A State-Licensed Facility Providing Residential Care for the Elderly
The Project is a "State-licensed facility," serves seven or more people, and primarily provides non-medical care, as explained below.

First, the Project is proposed as a CCRC — a subset of RCFEs which are State-licensed facilities defined under California Health and Safety Code section 1569.2 et seq. These facilities are, of course, addressed in the part of the general Health and Safety Code that the LUC explicitly and broadly references.1

The portion of the Project located in the Mixed Use District will serve more than seven seniors and will primarily provide these seniors with residential care, including housing, dining, recreational programming, wellness services, and supportive assistance with activities of daily living. This care component largely takes the form of staff providing limited wellness and supportive services appropriate to a residential care setting, such as observation of a resident’s health status to assist with dietary, social, and service needs, maintenance of residential health information, transportation to medical appointments, and assistance with daily living. All RCFE staff who assist residents with daily living are given training in first aid and other adult care services, such as bathing, grooming, dressing, feeding, toileting, infection control, and sensitivity to the signs and symptoms of dementia in individuals.2 This care is not medical care. It is a level 1 Health and Safety Code § 1569.2 defines an RCFE as "a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over...where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided." 2 Appellants devote a significant portion of their appeal to arguing that the RCFE Project's use of specialized care for residents with neurocognitive impairments, such as dementia, exceed the scope of Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

of care analogous to oversight in a daycare, requiring no medical training. Medical care involves licensed clinical treatments and skilled nursing, which is a different animal.

B. Residential Care for the Elderly Includes Limited Medical Assistance, Sometimes for Age-Related Conditions
The Project will include the administration of limited medical assistance to elderly residents. This operational component includes periodic health and wellbeing assessments and medication storage and distribution. It also includes minor first aid and periodic blood pressure, temperature, and pulse checks. This limited medical assistance is conducted by med techs or a wellness director and, in some cases, a licensed RN. These staff members are necessarily given greater training than other RCFE staff. Further, some residents may require oxygen administration, catheter care, colostomy or ileostomy care, contractures, injections, diabetes care, or healing minor wounds. The RCFE Project component may allow outside licensed professionals to come on site to perform these limited services in line with tight State regulations.3 These limited services are the same services that are typically provided as home medical care for elderly residents outside the RCFE context. Conditions like diabetes or oxygen deficiency do not place the afflicted "out of commission" and in need of full-service medical attention.

The RCFE Project component will also include a meeting room where some residents can meet with their doctors to reduce the need for transport. These doctors are not employed by the Applicant and are not regularly on-site. Their visits are, essentially, "house calls" of the variety an elderly resident in a single-family home could schedule.

In sum, none of the services convert the RCFE Project component to a medical facility or medical use, and none differ greatly from the level of care a family member might provide for an elderly relative living in their home. Failing to offer this limited medical assistance with qualified staff would be tantamount to eliminating the level of "care" required for a "Residential care, general" use that serves an elderly population. Without the "care" component, one would be left with a pure residential land use type.
limited medical assistance. This argument stems from a misunderstanding of the laws and regulations that govern CCRCs. The RCFE Project component will be required to comply with Title 22, sections 87100 to 87795 of the California Code of Regulations, which illustrates that the nature of dementia care is not medical, but functional. Under the regulations, RCFEs must supervise residents and provide asneeded assistance with residents’ daily living functions and activities. These activities include bathing, dressing, grooming, using the bathroom, eating, and changing positions (e.g., standing up from a sitting position and vice versa), among others. (See 22 C.C.R. § 87459; see also 22 C.C.R. § 87464(b)). RCFEs that provide dementia care may not diagnose, prescribe medications for, or otherwise treat neurocognitive disorders. Instead, the RCFE Project will simply support residents with neurocognitive disorders in order to make their day-to-day lives comfortable and keep them safe. 3 While the regulations contemplate that RCFEs may, under certain circumstances, admit residents who need "incidental medical care" and then contract with outside providers to render that care (22 C.C.R. § 87609), this arrangement is no different than when an elderly person, who lives alone, hires home health or hospice. The RCFE regulations make it clear that "[t]he use of home health agencies to care for a resident's medical condition(s) does not expand the scope of care and supervision that the [RCFE] licensee is required to provide." (Id. § 87609(c)).

Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

This last point surfaces an important question, and one that Appellants cannot answer: If the Project is not a "Residential care, general" use, then what is it? It is a fundamental axiom that a thing can be defined by what it is not.

First, from an operational standpoint, let's identify what the Project will not do. The RCFE Project component will not provide the level of medical care offered at a medical facility, and residents will need to be taken off-site for anything more than incidental medical assistance. The RCFE Project does not, for instance, include a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) license. When a resident requires routine skilled nursing care, the contractual model provides that the community will assist the resident in relocating to a separate skilled nursing facility of the resident’s choice.

Residents who experience medical emergencies that cannot be treated with minor first aid will be taken to appropriate off-site medical facilities, such as hospitals or doctors' offices.

Second, and from a zoning perspective, let's identify what other land use categories exist in the City's land use blueprint. If the RCFE Project component is not a general residential care use, the only other options in the LUC that capture a medical operation include: (1) "Medical services, minor" uses; (2) "Personal services;" and (3) "Nursing homes." None of these match.
“Medical services, minor” includes a facility “other than a hospital where medical, dental, mental health, surgical and/or other health care services are provided on an outpatient basis by no more than four licensed primary practitioners (e.g., chiropractors, doctors, veterinarians, dentists, optometrists, counseling services, psychiatrists).” (LUC § 20.28.310 [emph. added]).

This definition does not fit because elderly residents of the Project will not receive, in any remote way, outpatient medical services. The Project's staff will not include any doctors. “Personal services” are defined as the “provision of nonmedical services as a primary use.” (Id. [emph. added]). The Project arguably could qualify as the provision of personal services, which include businesses like dry cleaning, fitness centers, hair, skin, and nail care, tanning salons, body piercing and tattooing, massage, legal services, and electronic repair. (See id.). However, these illustrative examples do not capture the residential component of the Project, nor does this definition further Appellants' arguments.

Finally, a “Nursing home” could, at first glance, describe the Project, but the City's definition of such includes a "structure or group of structures operated as a boarding house in which nursing, dietary, and other personal services are rendered." (Id. [emph. added]). An RCFE is not a boarding house. Under the LUC, a "boarding house" is a "dwelling where lodging and meals, but no other supportive services, are provided to paying guests who reside at the dwelling for 30 or more consecutive days. The owner or a manager must reside within or on the same property as the boarding house." (Id. [emph. added]). With respect to the Project, residents reside there permanently, but will enjoy many services other than lodging and meals (e.g., movie rooms, fitness facilities), and neither the owner nor managers reside on the premises with them (as is customary in a boarding house).

This exercise illustrates the Project can only qualify as a "Residential care, general" use. Aside from being an apt, definitional fit, there simply is no other option.

Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

Insofar as the question turns on what a "limited" medical use is, one need only look to other examples where the City uses that qualifier. One finds that "limited" means "accessory," or "subordinate". For instance, the City defines "accessory uses" to include "[u]ses and structures that are incidental and subordinate to the principally permitted or conditionally permitted use on a site and are customarily found on the same site." (Id. [emph. added]). Similarly, "limited" food and beverage production under the City's code includes producers who "operate at a scale, and have activities and impacts similar to, microbreweries, craft distilleries and small wineries." (Id.).

A "limited" daycare, too, has all the attributes of a daycare but contemplates facilities with six or fewer persons. (Id.). The concept of "limited" does not mean an activity does not exist, but that it functions at a scale that is subordinate to a primary use or less intense than what one might find elsewhere.

Appellants' approach in interpreting the City's zoning would lead to absurd results. A school, for instance, that includes a school nurse would, in Appellants' view, qualify as a medical clinic and exceed the bounds of what is permitted under the LUC. By the same token, in-home medical care of any elderly relative in a single-family home would turn that family home into a medical clinic. The City's Code and the Planning Commission both guard against these odd results.

The Planning Commission provided sound planning direction in determining that incidental, limited medical assistance for elderly residents in the RCFE Project fits within the scope of "Residential care, general" operations.

III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL IS IN LINE WITH PREVIOUS CITY

DETERMINATIONS AND IS ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE
The City's interpretation of its own zoning ordinance is entitled to deference unless clearly erroneous. (Harrington v. City of Davis (2017) 16 Cal. App. 5th 420, 434 [city's interpretation of its own law is entitled to great deference]; Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563 [city has broad discretion to construe its own policies]; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 717 [city’s determination that a project is consistent with applicable land use plans is entitled to a strong presumption of regularity]; Cal. Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 637 [court defers to the agency’s factual finding of consistency unless no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion on the evidence before it]). Here, the Planning Commission has interpreted the "Residential care, general" use classification to include RCFE operations. As demonstrated in the previous section, there is ample support for this interpretation.

The Planning Commission's approval is also consistent with previous City interpretations. In 2019, the City approved the Enso Village project, which included an RCFE subject to the same State regulations regarding medical assistance for elderly residents. Per the Enso Village Project Narrative provided to the City Planning Department, the Enso Village project included health/wellness/fitness facilities and programs, an on-site medical clinic, and qualified healthcare professionals.4 In approving the Enso Village project, the City determined that the RCFE portion of the Project was a "Residential care, general" use requiring a conditional use 4 See October 7, 2020 Project Narrative for Enso Village CUP Application, available at:
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3067?fileID=19119.

Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

permit for the Mixed Use zoning district under the LUC. 5 (See Planning Commission
Resolutions 2020-14; 2020-02). In other words, the City has previously determined that an RCFE with health and wellness facilities, an on-site medical clinic, and professional healthcare staff is providing limited medical assistance for the purposes of the LUC. A city's historical and consistent interpretation of an ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference. (See Guinnane v. San Francisco City Plan. Com., 209 Cal. App. 3d 732, 738 (Ct. App. 1989); see also Tower Lane Props. v. City of Los Angeles, 224 Cal. App. 4th 262 (2014)).

Appellants do not provide any evidence that the City's longstanding interpretation of its zoning code is erroneous. They do not, for instance, cite any examples of the City previously classifying RCFEs in a different manner, or identify any use classification under the LUC that better describes the RCFE Project's proposed operations. Instead, as discussed in the next section, Appellants cite a series of mischaracterized provisions of State law to suggest their interpretation of the regulations governing RCFEs at the State level should be accorded more weight than the City's interpretation of the ordinances it adopted. There is no reason for the City to do so.

IV. THE APPEAL IMPROPERLY RELIES ON THE LANGUAGE OF STATE LAW AND

SUGGESTS IT SHOULD CONTROL THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION OF ITS LOCAL CODE
Having no support under the local laws for their position, Appellants resort to citing a series of provisions, language, and requirements from the State's Health and Safety Code. However, the language of State law and the Department of Social Services licensing criteria have no bearing on whether a proposed use is permitted under local zoning ordinance. (See, e.g., City of Dana Point v. New Method Wellness, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal. App. 5th 985 [When evaluating whether an addiction center licensed under State law is permitted at the local level, the pertinent question is not whether defendants were compliant with State licensing laws, but instead whether the use of the Properties was permitted by the zoning ordinance].).

Appellants cherry-pick language from the Health and Safety Code in arguing these State law provisions establish that the RCFE Project component will be providing "medical care" as 5 The Appellants erroneously claim that the NEAP Overlay was necessary for the City's determination that the Enso Village RCFE constituted a "Residential care, general" use. This argument misreads the purpose and effect of the NEAP Overlay language. In fact, the City's approval of the Enso Village project demonstrates a consistent history of treating RCFE projects as a "Residential care, general" use.

Appellants cite LUC section 20.12.210, which provides that "all components of a senior housing development (including assisted living and memory care facilities) shall be considered a residential use, and therefore, not subject to floor area limitations." This provision does not define or govern the particular use classification applicable to senior living facilities. Rather, it addresses a distinct question: whether senior housing development within the NEAP overlay area should be evaluated under residential development standards (density, expressed in units per acre) or non-residential development standards (floor area ratio, or FAR). In the NEAP area, senior housing is measured against residential density standards rather than commercial FAR standards. In approving the Enso Village project, the City determined that the RCFE portion of the Project was a "Residential care, general" use requiring a conditional use permit. This decision was made on the basis of the citywide definition of "Residential care, general" in the LUC, not LUC section 20.12.210, which does not mention or reference the "Residential care, general" use classification.

Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

opposed to "personal care."6 These terms adopted by Appellants have no relevance to the LUC or the use classifications therein. The definition of "Residential care, general" does not include the terms "personal care" or "medical care"; in fact, with the exception of a passing reference to "personal care products," the term "personal care" is entirely absent from the LUC. These terms simply have no bearing on the City's determination of whether or not the RCFE Project provides limited medical assistance.

While the City is under no obligation to consider the State law Health and Safety Code provisions detailing potential RCFE operations when interpreting its own local LUC, it warrants mention that Appellants' interpretation of State law is inconsistent with key language in the governing statutes. For instance, Appellants conveniently ignore the portions of State law that do not support their agenda. In enacting the very Health and Safety Code provisions to which Appellants cite, the State Legislature found that RCFEs offering the limited medical services the Project will provide "are not primarily medically oriented." (Health and Safety Code § 1569.1(g)).

Instead, they are a "system of residential care" that can provide a "homelike environment for older persons with a variety of care needs." (Health and Safety Code §§ 1569.1 (f);(g)). As previously discussed, providing residential care in a homelike environment for elderly residents may at times require limited medical assistance to address age-related maladies, just as an elderly resident in a single-family home might require.

Furthermore, Appellants' insistence that State law prevents RCFEs offering medical assistance from being treated as local residential uses is demonstrably false. State law does the exact opposite – it prohibits local jurisdictions from treating smaller RCFEs, which provide the same level of limited medical assistance as the RCFE Project, from being treated differently from local residential uses. In fact, RCFEs providing the same limited medical assistance to six or fewer residents cannot be classified in any manner that "implies that the residential care facility is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling." (Health and Safety Code § 1568.0831). Appellants' claim that the State law provisions they cite mandate that the City must determine that this same medical assistance exceeds the scope of the LUC's "Residential care, general" use classification is not just unsupported under State law; it is directly contrary to the very State law scheme Appellants purport to rely on. 6 Appellants appear to derive these terms from Hutcheson v. Eskaton FountainWood Lodge (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 937. However, the case is inapplicable here. Unlike the present appeal, Hutcheson had nothing to do with land-use ordinances or zoning issues. The dispute in Hutcheson arose from a situation where someone with power of attorney for her elderly relative, despite lacking the authority to make "health care" decisions, admitted the relative into the dementia wing of an RCFE, and the California Court of Appeal then determined whether the relative's residency contract was enforceable against her. (Id.) The court held that the agreement was unenforceable because the contract specified the RCFE would provide "dementia care" to the relative, and for the purposes of determining the power of attorney’s authority, admitting a person to the RCFE’s dementia wing constituted a "health care" decision that the power of attorney was not authorized to make. (Id., pp. 949-50; see Gordon v. Atria Management Co., LLC (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1028). This limited holding — that a power of attorney can only place someone into memory care if they are authorized to make "health care" decisions for them — has no bearing on whether the medical assistance provided in an RCFE falls under the City of Healdsburg "Residential care, general" definition.

Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

V. THE PROJECT IS PROTECTED UNDER STATE HOUSING LAW
As the City knows, the entirety of the Applicant's proposed development constitutes a housing development project subject to protection under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5; "HAA") and State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §§ 65915-65918). Under the Housing Accountability Act, the City is prohibited from denying the development project or conditioning its approval in a manner that renders the development infeasible7 unless it makes specified findings that denial or conditioning is necessary. None of these narrow criteria apply here. Furthermore, an unlawful denial of an HAA-protected housing project subjects an agency to a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit and, where bad faith is shown, courts may quintuple that penalty. (Gov. Code § 65589.5 (k)(1)(B), (k)(2) & (l)). The HAA mandates that a city reimburse an applicant's attorney's fees and costs of suit where the applicant prevails against a city. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)). Should denial of projects cause an agency's housing element to fall out of compliance, further consequences can include a loss of zoning authority and loss of access to State housing funds. Appellants conveniently do not advise the City of these consequences.

Nor do Appellants advise the City that failure to allow a lawful density bonus incentive or concession exposes the City to payment of attorney's fees. (See Gov. Code § 65915(d)&(e)).

Ignoring penalties they need not pay, Appellants attempt to argue that the development cannot qualify for State Density Bonus Law because the project lacks an affordable housing unit marketing plan as contemplated under LUC § 20.20.035(C)(1)(i). As Housing Director Stephen Sotomayor stated at the Planning Commission hearing, an affordable housing unit marketing plan will be included as part of the required affordable housing agreement for the development.

Regardless, the City cannot deny the development, or its requested State Density Bonus Law waivers, for lack of a marketing plan. Nothing under State Density Bonus Law requires such a marketing plan for a development project to qualify for its protections. Furthermore, under the Permit Streamlining Act, the City had 30 days from receipt of a housing development application to inform the applicant of any further items needed for a complete application. (Gov. Code § 65943(a)). If the City believed that the Applicant's project was not in conformity with any requirement under local law, it was required to inform the Applicant within 30 days of the project application being determined as complete. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i)). Since the need for an affordable housing unit marketing plan was not raised, the Applicant's project is deemed consistent with LUC § 20.20.035(C)(1)(i) as a matter of law and cannot be a basis to overturn the Planning Commission's approval. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B)). Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted a marketing plan in advance of the City Council Appeal hearing – though this submittal does not change the above analysis. 7 This includes conditions that may make the development project financially infeasible, including any public access requirements that may result in increased insurance costs for the community that render the project financially infeasible.

Healdsburg Planning Commission
October 1, 2026

VI. CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission's approval of the RCFE Project is consistent with the City's prior practice, the plain language of the LUC, and applicable State law. We respectfully urge the City Council to deny Appellants' meritless appeal and look forward to bringing much needed senior housing and affordable housing to Healdsburg.

Sincerely,
Sean Marciniak
Partner
Niran Somasundaram
Senior Associate

Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 1 of 14

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT TITLE: Enso Village Senior Living Community
SUBJECT: Major Design Review (DR 2020-09)
Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2020-02)
The proposed project consists of a Senior Living Community with 221 independent living units and 54 assisted living/memory care beds plus ancillary facilities. The proposed uses were approved by a Master Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2019-04) approved by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2020. A Major Design Review Permit and a Major Conditional Use Permit are required to authorize the proposed project design and operating characteristics.

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 16977 Healdsburg Avenue, Healdsburg, CA Note: Site addresses have not yet been assigned to the parcels in the North Village development
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.: APN 091-060-037
GEN'L PLAN & ZONING: Mixed Use (MU)/ North Entry Area Plan Overlay (NEAP) APPLICANT/OWNER: Kendall at Sonoma, a Zen Inspired Community RECOMMENDED ACTION:

By motion, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 2020-14 (Exhibit 1) approving Major Design Review Permit DR 2020-09 and Major Conditional Use Permit CUP 2020-02 for development of the Enso Village Senior Living Community project, based on the suggested findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The applicant and property owner, Kendal at Sonoma, a Zen Inspired Community, requests a Major Design Review approval (DR 2020-09) and a Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2020-02) to authorize development of a Senior Living Community on a 16.07-acre parcel located on the west side of Healdsburg Avenue near the northern Healdsburg city limit (Exhibit 2). Enso Village ("Project") is a collaboration between Kendal, a Quaker-based retirement community provider, and the San Francisco Zen Center, one of the largest Soto Zen Buddhist organizations outside of Asia. The Project is located within the North Entry Area Plan ("NEAP") planning area and comprises roughly half of the North Village mixed use development site. Exhibit 3 shows the conceptual plan Agenda Item #: 4A
Meeting Date: November 17, 2020
Prepared By: Linda Ruffing, Planning Consultant
Reviewed By: _/s/ David Woltering_________
David Woltering
Interim Community Development Director
Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 2 of 14 and general site layout for the North Village Project as presented for Master Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2019- 04) that was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year.

Enso Village will be a State-licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly and will offer a continuum of care services for residents above the age of 60. The Project will have 221 senior independent living units, 30 of which will be income-restricted based on Area Median Income (AMI). In accordance with the Development Agreement, 10 units will be targeted to households in the moderate-income range (<120% AMI) and 20 units will be targeted to workers and volunteers serving the Senior Living Community who are in the very low-income range (<50% AMI). To support residents as their needs change over time, the facility will have a total of 54 assisted living and/or memory care beds. The ratio between assisted living and memory care beds will be flexible and based on needs at any given time.

As envisioned, Enso Village includes a total of 427,500 SF of space in multiple buildings or building wings connected by breezeways and covered walkways. The main campus contains independent living units, assisted living and memory care units, and common areas including dining, bistro, lobby, zendo, library, spa/wellness/fitness, clinic, therapy areas, administrative offices, support spaces, etc. A secondary residential building ("Meadows Building") is a smaller two-story structure containing independent living units and is located to the south of the main campus. The exterior space includes a variety of courtyards, gardens, and smaller focal structures. Onsite parking for 270 vehicles is provided and includes surface parking, covered carports, and a car barn which uses a mechanized vehicle lift system. It should be noted that the 270 parking spaces is less than the 289 spaces proposed for the Enso Village site in the submittal for Master Conditional Use Permit CUP 2019-04.

CUP 2019-04, Condition 16, identifies approved shared parking allocations and notes that the total number of shared parking spaces may be reduced by up to 24 spaces to accommodate angled parking on Street B.

The applicant has prepared a detailed narrative project description (Exhibit 4) that provides substantial information about the proposed Enso Village Project. The application includes a comprehensive plan set (Exhibit 5). The most recent version is dated October 9, 2020, and includes the following illustrations:

Additional attachments included with this staff report address specific components of the application as follows:
1 COVER / TITLE SHEET
2 VICINITY PLAN & PROJECT DATA
3 AREA ANALYSIS & FLOOR PLANS
4 SITE & CONTEXT PHOTOS
5 SITE & CONTEXT PHOTOS
6 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
7 CONCEPT DIAGRAMS
8 CONCEPT DIAGRAMS
9 SITE / ROOF PLAN & HEIGHT LIMITS
9A PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
10 SITE PLAN
11 CONNECTIVITY PLAN
12 LEVEL O MEADOWS BLDG., LEVEL 1 MAIN BUILDING
13 LEVEL 1 MEADOWS BLDG., LEVEL 2 MAIN BUILDING
14 LEVEL 2 MEADOWS BLDG., LEVEL 3 MAIN BUILDING
15 LEVEL 4 MAIN BUILDING
16 SITE SECTIONS
17 ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATIONS
17A MID GRAY COLOR SCHEME NO SUNLIGHT
17B MID GRAY COLOR SCHEME IN SUNLIGHT
17C LIGHT GRAY COLOR SCHEME NO SUNLIGHT
17D LIGHT GRAY COLOR SCHEME IN SUNLIGHT
18 ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATIONS
18A ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATIONS
19 ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATIONS
20 ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATIONS
21 ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATIONS
21A SUN CONTROL
22 VIEW OF ENTIRE NORTH VILLAGE FROM SOUTH
23 VIEW OF ENTIRE NORTH VILLAGE FROM NORTH
24 AERIAL VIEW OF ENSO VILLAGE
25 RENDERINGS
25A RENDERINGS
26 RENDERINGS
27 RENDERINGS
28 RENDERINGS
28A RENDERINGS
29 RENDERINGS
30 MATERIALS BOARD
31 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
32 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLANTING PLAN
33 PLANT LIST
34 PLANT LIST
35 ENLARGEMENTS & SECTIONS, A STREET
36 ENLARGEMENTS & SECTIONS, B STREET
37 ENLARGEMENTS
38 ENLARGEMENTS
39 ENLARGEMENTS
40 ENLARGEMENTS
41 CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION PLAN
42 MATERIALS & SITE ACCESSORIES
43 PARCEL 1 SURVEY & EASEMENT MAP
44 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
45 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
46 PRELIMINARY LID PLAN
47 PRELIMINARY LID DETAILS
48 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION EXHIBIT
49 VALET PARKING CIRCULATION
49A FIRE AERIAL ACCESS EXHIBIT
50 TRAFFIC STACK EXHIBIT
51 TRUCK TURNING MODEL
52 TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENT WITH 2 DRIVEWAYS
53 TRUCK TURNING MODEL ALTERNATE
54 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN
55 OVERALL SITE EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN
56 PROJECT INFORMATION
57 CODE ANALYSIS
58 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 1 CODE ANALYSIS
59 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 2 CODE ANALYSIS
60 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 3 CODE ANALYSIS
61 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 4 CODE ANALYSIS
62 MEADOWS BLDG. LEVEL 1 & 2 CODE ANALYSIS
63 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 1 S. LOAD / EXITING
64 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 1 N. LOAD / EXITING
65 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 2 S. LOAD / EXITING
66 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 2 N. LOAD / EXITING
67 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 3 S. LOAD / EXITING
68 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 3 N. LOAD / EXITING
69 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 4 S. LOAD / EXITING
70 MAIN BUILDING LEVEL 4 N. LOAD / EXITING
71 MEADOWS BLDG. LEVEL 1 & 2 LOAD / EXITING
72 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NE WING
73 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS N WING
74 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NW WING
75 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS W WING
76 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SW WING
77 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SW WING
78 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CENTRAL WING
79 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SE WING
80 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WELLNESS
81 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MEADOWS W WING
82 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MEADOWS E WING
83 CARPORT ELEVATION & SECTION
84 MECHANICAL ROOF PLAN
85 EXTERIOR DETAILS ROOF & WOOD
86 EXTERIOR DETAILS MET & CONC
87 EXTERIOR DETAILS WINDOWS & WOOD
88 EXTERIOR DETAILS GUARDRAILS & MISC
Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 3 of 14  Exhibit 6 is a "Driveway Access Evaluation Report" (July 8, 2020) prepared by W-Trans to address technical issues relating to the design and lay-out of the driveways to the Project from Street "A."  Exhibit 7 is a "Car Barn Memo" (May 6, 2020) prepared by HKIT Architects that explains the reasoning behind the design team's decision to utilize a mechanized vehicle lift system in a parking structure instead of a subgrade parking garage.
 Exhibit 8 is a "Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan" (July 6, 2020) prepared by Walker Consultants.
 Exhibit 9 is an "Addendum to the TDM Plan" (October 5, 2020) prepared by Walker Consultants to address parking during special events.
 Exhibit 10 is an "Evacuation Executive Summary" (September 24, 2020) prepared by Prevent-A Fire and Safety Consulting Firm, LLC that summarizes the scope and content of an Emergency Operations Plan/Program for Enso Village.
 Exhibit 11 is a draft "Vegetation Management Plan" (October 2, 2020) prepared by Firewise 2000, LLC for Enso Village.
 Exhibit 12 is a revised "Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report" (October 5, 2020) prepared by Horticultural Associates.
 Exhibit 13 is a "Response to City Arborist Comments" (October 5, 2020) prepared by Horticultural Associates.

The complete application package includes additional technical documentation such as a Geotechnical Report, Master Hydrology Report, Fire Flow Analysis Report, Stormwater Low Impact Development Report, Supplemental CUP Questionnaire for Alcohol Related Uses, a Preliminary Title Report, and a Declaration of Reciprocal Easement, Joint Use and Maintenance for the North Village Project.

In addition, the application submittal includes a "Applicant's Response to City Staff Comments" letter dated October 9, 2020 (Exhibit 14) that responds to City staff comments on the application, and an "Applicant's Response to Planning Commission Comments" letter dated October 9, 2020 (Exhibit 15) that responds to Planning Commission comments received at the September 10, 2020, Planning Commission workshop. Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 present annotations from the applicant indicating where each item is addressed in the revised application. All of these documents are available for review on the City of Healdsburg's website at:
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Commission-3/?#11172020-1169 SITE & VICINITY DESCRIPTION:

The Enso Village site is 16.07 acres in size and is located at the southern end of the 32-acre North Village Project site at 16977 Healdsburg Avenue. The Enso Village site is located west of Healdsburg Avenue and is bounded by the North Coast Rail Authority ("NCRA") right-of-way and "Street A" (the entry street to the North Village development) on the east, "Street B" (a secondary street in the North Village development) to the north, U.S. 101 to the west, and a vacant parcel owned by Simi Winery to the south. The NCRA rail corridor is currently inactive but is planned for future passenger rail service operated by Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit ("SMART"). The property immediately north of the North Village Project site is owned by Lytton Rancheria and is currently vacant.

The Montage Healdsburg (formerly known as Saggio Hills) project site is located immediately east of Healdsburg Avenue and is currently under development with a luxury resort and residences. In addition to the luxury resort and residences, the Montage Healdsburg project includes a planned community park, fire substation, and affordable housing that are in various stages of the planning and development review process.

The North Village Project site was previously operated as a lumber mill. Environmental remediation and grading were performed in 2004 in anticipation of future development. At that time, a surface drainage system was installed consisting of swales and a stormwater detention basin. The detention basin is located in the southeast portion of the Enso Village site. In addition, there are two active faults within the North Village Project site, one of which traverses the Enso Village site.

Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 4 of 14 The Enso Village site consists of a relatively-level graded pad with hillsides sloping up to the U.S. 101 right-ofway to the west. At the foot of the southwestern hillside is a graded "bench" that is about 10' higher in elevation than the remainder of the site. Exhibit 5, Sheet 43 shows the configuration and constraints of the Project site including existing topography, the NCRA right-of-way, the fault zone and setbacks, the drainage easements and the detention basin.

BACKGROUND:

On May 20, 2019, the Healdsburg City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report and adopted the North Entry Area Plan (“NEAP”) and an ordinance amending the Land Use Code (Title 20 of the Healdsburg Municipal Code) to establish implementing regulations for the NEAP. The NEAP establishes a vision concept, land use guidelines, development standards and design guidelines for a new mixed-use neighborhood on a 32-acre property located at the north entry to Healdsburg between Healdsburg Avenue and U.S. 101 (16977 Healdsburg Avenue).

On February 11, 2020, the Planning Commission approved a Master Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2019-04) to authorize allowable uses and densities and the backbone infrastructure for a mixed-use community known as the North Village Project on the 32-acre property. On April 6, 2020, the City Council adopted a Development Agreement (DA 2020-01) for the North Village Project. It should be noted that when the North Village Project property owner (CCS Healdsburg, LLC) conveyed title to the Enso Village site to the applicant in August of 2020, an Assignment of the Development Agreement was recorded to assign applicable obligations of DA 2020-01 to the applicant.

The City is currently reviewing the improvement plans for construction of the backbone infrastructure to serve future development on the North Village Project site. It is anticipated that construction of site roadways and utilities will commence in early 2021.

In May of 2020, Kendal at Sonoma submitted applications to the City of Healdsburg requesting a pre-application review of the Enso Village Project. Feedback was provided by City staff and consultants and the applicant revised the Project plans and prepared additional information (Exhibit 14). In July, a formal application was submitted requesting a Major Design Review Permit and a Major Conditional Use Permit. The Major Design Review Permit is required to ensure that the Project design is consistent with site and building design requirements established by the City's planning policies and regulations. The Major Conditional Use Permit is required to ensure that the proposed Project will be operated in a manner that does not negatively impact uses on nearby properties.

On September 10, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop in order for the applicant to present the Enso Village plans, explain their vision for the Project, discuss the various considerations that informed the Project design, and receive informal feedback. In response to feedback received at the Planning Commission workshop, the applicant revised the plans and documentation, as summarized in Exhibit 15. The Major Design Review Permit and Major Conditional Use Permit applications are now scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2020.

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS - HEALDSBURG GENERAL PLAN 2030, NORTH ENTRY AREA PLAN, LAND USE CODE & NORTH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:

A detailed consistency analysis of the Enso Village Project with applicable City policies and regulations is provided in the following exhibits and summarized below:
 Exhibit 16 - Healdsburg General Plan 2030 Consistency Analysis  Exhibit 17 - North Entry Area Plan Consistency Analysis  Exhibit 18 - Land Use Code Consistency Analysis
 Exhibit 19 - North Village Development Agreement Consistency Analysis Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 5 of 14 Healdsburg 2030 General Plan
The Healdsburg 2030 General Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed Use ("MU"). This land use classification provides for a broad range of commercial and residential uses, including multi-family residential, hotels and retail uses. Exhibit 16 presents a table that identifies relevant guiding principles, goals, and policies in the General Plan and evaluates the Project's consistency with them. As shown, the Project is consistent with General Plan guiding principles and policies relating to housing, infrastructure, and economic development. The Project is also consistent with General Plan land use policies pertaining to development at the North Entry.

North Entry Area Plan (NEAP)
The Healdsburg 2030 General Plan identifies the northern entry to Healdsburg as an area warranting special study in recognition of its importance both as an attractive gateway into the City and an area of transition from the rural landscape of the Alexander Valley to the more urban core of downtown Healdsburg. In May of 2019, the City Council adopted the NEAP to provide specific policies and regulations to guide development on a 32-acre parcel of land located on the west side of Healdsburg Avenue at the north entry to Healdsburg (i.e., the North Village Project site). The 16.07-acre Enso Village site is located on the southerly portion of the North Village Project site.

Exhibit 17 presents a table that identifies relevant guiding principles and policies from the NEAP that relate to Land Use, Design, Circulation and Open Space, and Utilities. The table provides an evaluation of the Enso Village Project's consistency with these planning policies. As summarized in the table, the Project is consistent with all of the applicable requirements of the NEAP.

Land Use Code
The Land Use Code contains regulations to implement the policies of the Healdsburg 2030 General Plan, including the NEAP. Applicable Land Use Code regulations for the Project include provisions relating to permitted and conditionally permitted uses; specific development standards for lands within the Mixed Use District and within the NEAP Overlay; and general development standards for parking, grading and erosion control, drainage and utilities. Consistency of the Project with Land Use Code requirements is addressed in Exhibit 18.

North Village Development Agreement
On April 6, 2020, the City Council adopted a Development Agreement by and between the City of Healdsburg and CCS Healdsburg LLC for the North Village Project ("DA"). Specific provisions of the DA pertain to the Enso Village Project and these obligations were assigned to the applicant when CCS Healdsburg LLC conveyed the Enso Village Project site to Kendal at Sonoma. Exhibit 19 evaluates the Enso Village Project's consistency with pertinent sections of the DA. As noted, the timing for some of the DA obligations is in the future.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Through the Major Design Review Permit process, the Planning Commission is tasked with ensuring that new development is attractive and enhances the appearance of the community, that the best possible traffic circulation is obtained, that the design and layout of new development projects are in scale and character with surrounding land uses, and that new development projects comply with the Healdsburg General Plan, local area plans and specific plans (in this case, the NEAP), and the Land Use Code.

While a Master Conditional Use Permit was granted for the entire North Village Project (CUP 2019-04), a projectspecific Major Conditional Use Permit is required for the Enso Village Project because the applicable use type ("residential care, general") is a designated conditional use in the Mixed Use/NEAP Overlay zoning district. The Major Conditional Use Permit process allows the Planning Commission to grant and deny applications and impose conditions to ensure that the operation of a proposed use meets the objectives of the Land Use Code and will not adversely affect surrounding properties.

Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 6 of 14 The following discussion focuses on key topics which were raised by the Planning Commission and community members at the September 10, 2020, workshop for the Enso Village Project. Exhibit 14 presents the Applicant's Response to City Staff Comments and indicates revisions made in the final submittal and responses to comments provided by City Departments. Exhibit 20 includes all City Department Comments, including comments provided in the pre-application review process and the applicant's response to those comments (which resulted in a number of changes to the Project plans prior to submittal of the formal applications for a Major Design Review Permit and a Major Conditional Use Permit.

Exhibit 15 presents the Applicants Response to Planning Commission Comments that were received at the September 10, 2020 workshop. As shown, and as discussed below, that applicant has provided additional information and a number of design revisions are proposed in response to concerns raised and suggestions made at the workshop.

The reader is also directed to Attachment B of Exhibit 1, draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-14, which sets forth a comprehensive set of Conditions of Approval recommended for Major Design Review Permit (DR 2020-09) and Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2020-02). The Conditions of Approval are intended to ensure that the Project is consistent with General Plan policies; NEAP policies, development standards and guidelines; and Land Use Code regulations. In addition, the conditions of approval associated with the Master Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2019-04) for the North Village Project and mitigation measures identified in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report ("NEAP EIR") for the NEAP adopted through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") remain applicable to the Project.

Site Design and Layout
As described in the Narrative Project Description (Exhibit 4) and shown on the Site Plan (Exhibit 5; Sheet 10), the Enso Village Project is comprised of multiple buildings or building wings connected by breezeways and covered walkways. The main campus contains independent living units, assisted living and memory care units, and common areas including dining, bistro, lobby, zendo, library, spa/wellness/fitness, clinic, therapy areas, administrative offices, support spaces, etc. The Meadows Building is a smaller two-story structure located on an elevated bench in the southern portion of the Project site that is separated from the main campus by a drainage swale and the perimeter loop road. The exterior space includes a variety of courtyards, gardens, and smaller focal structures that are connected by walkways as shown on the Connectivity Plan (Exhibit 5; Sheet 11). As shown, pedestrian access is available around the perimeter of the main campus with public access to the main building available at three locations: the main entrance, the bocce courtyard and the south courtyard/farm area. As summarized in Exhibit 17, the layout of the Project is consistent with the Guiding Principles of the NEAP and the NEAP Design Guidelines.

Circulation and Parking
Location of site entries. The Traffic Circulation Exhibit for the Project is shown on Exhibit 5; Sheet 48. The main campus fronts on Street A and Street B (recently renamed "Boxheart Drive" and "Dovetail Lane"). Two driveways are located on the Street A frontage. The first is a two-way driveway providing ingress/egress for the south parking lot, and the second is a one-way entry to the main entry/valet/loading zone for the Project.

At the February 11, 2020, MCUP hearing, the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the location of these two driveways and a planned driveway across the street (for the mixed use residential component of the North Village Project) and a condition of approval was included in for MCUP requiring additional analysis and review. In response, the applicant submitted a Driveway Access Evaluation Report (Exhibit 6) and a Traffic Stack Exhibit (Exhibit 5; Sheet 50) that illustrates the advantages of this layout as opposed to an alternative layout with a single driveway entry. In addition, the applicant provided two diagrams showing the turning radius for a 42.5' truck exiting the Project site from the alternative driveway locations (Exhibit 5; Sheets 52 and 53). This too identifies the proposed two-driveway option as the preferred alternative. At the September 10, 2020 Planning Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 7 of 14 Commission workshop on the Enso Village Project, the Planning Commission concurred with the proposed driveway access locations.

Perimeter loop road and emergency access. In addition to the frontage on Streets A and B, the Project includes a perimeter loop road which begins at the cul-de-sac at the west end of Street B, runs along the western edge of the main campus, and loops back to the two-way driveway entry at Street A (as shown on Exhibit 5; Sheet 48).

The loop road serves as a 26' Emergency Vehicle Access ("EVA") and a one-way (southbound) traffic loop from the car barn to the southwestern end of the surface parking lot- at which point it continues as a two-way drive aisle through the south parking lot to the ingress/egress on Street A. Emergency access to the Meadows Building is provided from the loop road via a 20' wide access road, as shown on Exhibit 5, Sheet 49A, Fire Aerial Access Exhibit. The on-site circulation pattern for visitors, residents, and valet parking is shown on Exhibit 5; Sheet 49.

The Fire Department has recommended a number of conditions of approval (Exhibit 1, Attachment B) relating to the circulation system. Compliance with the conditions will be required at the improvement plan and/or building permit stage.

Parking. On-site parking would be provided by a combination of surface parking lots, on-street parking, and a car barn with a mechanized vehicle lift system. The Project architects have indicated that parking for Enso Village would include a total of 270 parking spaces comprised of 132 parking spaces in the car barn, 116 on-site surface parking spaces, and 22 on-street parking spaces on Street B. On-street parking on Street A is not included in this total. The advantages of the car barn over the previously considered subsurface parking garage are outlined in a Car Barn Memo (Exhibit 7) submitted by the applicant.

The application includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (Exhibit 8) as required by the Master Conditional Use Permit. The TDM Plan evaluates the adequacy of proposed parking and includes a map (Figure 1, Parking Site Plan) that shows proposed parking for both the Enso Village Project and the remainder of the North Village Project. The TDM Plan identifies parking demands and peaks and also provides a detailed description of the logistics for the car barn and valet services. The TDM Plan concludes that the number of proposed parking spaces is sufficient to meet peak demands. The Plan includes a number of recommendations and considerations to help effectively manage parking demands. A condition of approval is recommended requiring implementation of the TDM Plan and annual reporting to the City.

Parking for special events. In response to concerns raised at the Planning Commission workshop and in staff comments, an Addendum to the TDM Plan was prepared to address parking demands associated with special events at Enso Village (Exhibit 9). The analysis in the Addendum concludes that the 586 total parking spaces provided on the North Village Project site would include a "pool" of 73 shared parking spaces that could absorb additional demand from special events at the Enso Village Project. The Addendum identifies TDM measures for the Project that could be reinforced or augmented to mitigate impacts during special events including increased shuttle service, incentivizing use of alternative transportation modes, and coordinating the special events calendar with other North Village Project development.

Pedestrian safety. At the September 10, 2020, Planning Commission workshop, concerns were raised about pedestrian safety in the south parking lot. In response, the applicant's design team added a sidewalk on the west side of the northern part of the parking lot. In addition, a raised crosswalk was added with a direct connection to a ramp allowing for controlled resident and staff entry to the east door and to bike parking (Exhibit 5, Sheet 10).

Building Design, Aesthetics and Views
The Plan Set (Exhibit 5; Sheets 7 and 8) includes two concept diagrams that illustrate the design concepts that helped to inform the massing and layout of the Project. As explained on these diagrams, the vision is that the seven gable-roofed buildings emulate a series of "barns" wrapped around four courtyards which are further activated by smaller focal structures. Architectural renderings of the Project, as seen from nine different viewpoints are provided in Exhibit 5, Sheets 29-29. Sheets 26 and 27 include photos of "precedent imagery" of agrarian development that helped to inspire the Project design. In addition, as requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant has Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 8 of 14 prepared a video-simulation to illustrate the view of the Project for southbound travelers on U.S. 101 which will be shown at the November 17, 2020, public hearing.

Alternative (lighter) color scheme. At the Planning Commission workshop, some Commissioners suggested that a lighter color scheme should be considered. Exhibit 5, Sheet 17C, shows an alternative lighter gray scheme (Alt. 2). In addition, the value in sunlight of the proposed mid-grey and alternative light-grey schemes are shown in Sheets 17B and 17D. As expressed in the Applicant's Response to Planning Commission Comments (Exhibit 15), the applicant continues to prefer the initial (mid-grey) scheme and believes it is representative of the agrarian aesthetic and "complements the simple masses and subtle, understated look desired." Sun protection features. Commissioners also suggested that the applicant consider addition awnings, overhangs, shade trees, etc. to provide more sun protection features. In Exhibit 15 the design team indicated that the Project includes such features, but they were not well-depicted in the original plan set. The revised plans now include an additional schematic (Exhibit 5, Sheet 21A), that shows the features of the current design that provide sun protection. The sloped roof overhangs are 4' and will shade upper story windows, balconies are recessed, sunshade devices are provided over living room windows, and trees will be planted to shade the lower story.

Street B pedestrian environment. The pedestrian environment along Streets A and B was discussed at the September 10, 2020, workshop and concerns were raised about the Street B frontage where the main building is very close to the sidewalk. The MCUP requirement that Street B have diagonal parking reduced the building setback. The building design incorporates a stucco base to break up the massing of the four-story buildings. At the Planning Commission's suggestion, the design team investigated adding "green screens" along this frontage, but this was determined to be infeasible due to Fire Department requirements. Alternatively, as shown on Exhibit 5, Sheet 18A), the plans now include wood slat screens or perforated metal screens in four locations on the Street B frontage.

Southeast wing roof massing. Another suggestion made at the Planning Commission workshop was to consider varying the window alignments on the two-story southeast wing of the main building. As shown on Exhibit 5, Sheets 17A-17D, the design team has modified the southeast wing to stagger the windows (to provide more variety) and has added a notch to the roof at the longest wing (Sheet 17A, Elevation 2) to break up the long plane of the roof.

Location/screening of generators. Throughout the design review process, consideration was given to relocating and/or screening the two generators situated adjacent to the west facade of the northwest wing of the main building.

Relocation of the generators to an area adjacent to the car barn was determined to be infeasible due to conflicts with site circulation and the required turning radii for trucks using the nearby loading zone. Instead, as shown on Exhibit 5, Sheet 36, the landscape plans include green screens that are set back 7' from the generator enclosure structure in compliance with Fire Department requirements. These green screens will help to buffer views of the generator enclosure from the windows of the adjacent assisted living/memory care units.

Solar panels. Exhibit 5, Sheet 9A shows a preliminary layout for a photovoltaic array on the roofs of the proposed Project buildings. As noted, the only solar panels proposed in the initial construction are located on carports in the south parking lot facing Healdsburg Avenue. Sheet 24 shows an aerial view of the Project which depicts these roof surfaces. The renderings on Sheet 25A and Sheet 28A show views of the Project from offsite locations on Healdsburg Avenue and on U.S. 101 which would include roofs with the photovoltaic arrays. The panels would be mostly obscured from views within the Project site due to the building heights and roof pitches.

Landscape Design
Additional screening and tree planting. Exhibit 4, Sheets 31-42 show the Landscape Concept Plan and enlargements and details for the Project landscaping. Of note, the plans now include a cluster of trees screening the view of the north end of the car barn from the future affordable housing development site on the north side of Street B. Landscaping around the car barn also includes oak trees on the west side to help screen the car barn from Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 9 of 14 views from vehicles travelling on U.S. 101. Native oak trees were selected as a site-appropriate species and one that has superior fire characteristics relative to redwood trees which had been suggested at the Planning Commission workshop. Additionally, a number of shade trees have been added along the perimeter path and site walkways to provide respite to pedestrians.

Tree preservation. The applicant submitted a Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report (Exhibit 12) prepared by Horticultural Associates. Horticultural Associates subsequently prepared a supplemental document (Exhibit 13) which responds to comments from the City Arborist. The Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report indicates that a total of eight trees will be removed, including one heritage tree (Tree #57) which is dead. While the report indicates that the dead tree could be retained for habitat, the Vegetation Management Plan (Exhibit 11) recommends that the tree be removed as it would pose a significant hazard should it ignite in a fire. The City's Heritage Tree Ordinance (Land Use Code section 20.24.057.D) establishes that a tree permit is not required for "removal of a heritage tree that is dead or so diseased or damaged that it is no longer viable, as determined jointly by the City arborist and planning and building director." The City Arborist and Interim Community Development Director have determined that, based on this exception, a heritage tree permit is not required. Conditions of approval are recommended, based on the City Arborist's comments, to ensure that sufficient tree protection measures are specified in construction plans for work in the vicinity of the retained trees.

Operational Considerations
Vegetation management. The Project site is located in a "Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone" as specified by CalFire and the Healdsburg 2030 General Plan. The applicant has submitted a draft Vegetation Management Plan ("VMP") (Exhibit 11) prepared by Firewise 2000, LLC. The VMP assesses on-site and off-site wildland fire hazards and risks that may threaten the Project. It identifies an "Irrigated Zone 1" which is comprised of the irrigated landscape area immediately surrounding the Meadows Building and on the western face of the main building (between the building and the perimeter loop road). The VMP also identifies a "Fuel Treatment ZoneZone 2" that surrounds the Meadows Building and extends along the western hillside of the site between the perimeter loop road and the U.S. 101 right-of-way. Requirements for landscaping and maintenance in both zones are identified in the VMP.

The VMP identifies the drainage leading to the stormwater retention basin in the southeast corner of the Project site as "the most significant fire threat due to the amount of brush and ladder fuels under the trees." It establishes requirements for limbing up trees and removing dead, down and dying vegetation to reduce fire risks throughout the areas identified as Zone 2. A condition of approval is recommended requiring implementation and maintenance of all VMP requirements for site landscaping.

Emergency preparedness and evacuation. At the September 10, 2020, Planning Commission workshop, concerns were raised about emergency preparedness and evacuation of the Enso Village Project given its size and mobility limitations of elderly residents. The Narrative Project Description (Exhibit 4) indicates that a detailed Emergency Operations Plan ("EOP") is being prepared that will include evacuation plans for all levels of care. The EOP is subject to review and approval by the California Department of Social Services and other regulatory agencies. The Narrative Project Description states that:
"Enso Village will work with Healdsburg emergency services staff to refine the [Emergency Operations] Plan and ensure it is in place prior to occupancy. The Plan will include training of all employees, regular tabletop exercises and coordination with the Healdsburg Fire and Police Departments. Additionally, the EOP will include specific provisions for planning including a full site generator, emergency food storage areas, reversable HVAC systems to provide negative air pressure for isolation areas, and continuous sterilization systems to protect against viruses and enhance indoor air quality, among other enhancements." (p. 11) The applicant submitted an Evacuation Executive Summary (Exhibit 10) that was prepared by the firm which is preparing the EOP (Prevent - A Fire and Safety Consulting Firm, LLC). This summary addresses concerns relating to evacuation of the car barn. It indicates that the car barn will be connected to the emergency power system to ensure its continued operation during a power outage and that valet attendants and other key staff will be trained Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 10 of 14 on emergency operations and how to quickly deploy vehicles from the car barn during an evacuation. In the Applicant's Response to Planning Commission comments (Exhibit 15), the applicants indicate that Enso Village management will begin the process of evacuation if the County, State and/or first responders issue a "Warning Notice to Evacuate." The estimated time to evacuate the entire car barn is 90 minutes. A condition of approval is recommended requiring submittal of the EOP to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project.

FINDINGS
Design Review Permit Findings
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.125, the Planning Commission is required to make the following five findings in order to approve a Major Design Review Permit. Suggested language to support each finding is shown in italicized text below each finding:

A. The proposed development or use is consistent with all applicable policies and requirements of the General Plan and Land Use Code.

The proposed Enso Village Project is a licensed "residential care facility for the elderly" which is a residential use type that is permitted within the Mixed Use "MU" land use classification in the Healdsburg 2030 General Plan. The Project advances General Plan policies encouraging development of a variety of housing types to address housing needs in the community, including senior housing and affordable housing. The Project is also consistent with General Plan policies encouraging mixed use development. The Project is consistent with the vision, guiding principles, policies and guidelines of the North Entry Area Plan (NEAP) which was adopted as an amendment to the Healdsburg 2030 General Plan. The Enso Village Project complies with the requirements of the Mixed Use "MU" zoning classification and the North Entry Area Plan "NEAP" Overlay as established in the Land Use Code (Healdsburg Municipal Code, Title 20) as discussed in detail in the staff report at Exhibit 17 for the November 17, 2020, Planning Commission hearing on Design Review Permit (DR 2020-09).

B. The proposed design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in the Citywide Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time.

Although the Citywide Design Guidelines are applicable to all projects subject to Major and Minor design review, they are only mandatory within “Character Area 1.” In areas subject to a specific Area Plan, such as the NEAP, the Area Plan provides design guidelines and standards, and the Citywide Design Guidelines are only used to provide additional information about topics not addressed within the Area Plan. The Enso Village Project site is located within the planning area for the NEAP, which comprehensively addresses the design standards for the Project. Therefore, the Project design was evaluated for consistency with the design guidelines established in the NEAP. See discussion below for Finding E.

C. The proposed development or use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning district in which it is located.

The Enso Village Project is a senior living community with both independent living units and assisted living/memory care beds. The use was determined to be consistent with the special purposes of the MU District and the NEAP Overlay when the Planning Commission granted a Master Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2019-04) for the North Village Project on February 11, 2020. The Enso Village Project falls within the "residential care, general" use type which requires a site-specific conditional use permit. The Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2020-02) has been considered in conjunction with this Major Design Review Permit (DR 2020-09). The proposed residential care use is generally consistent with the zoning district, and, as conditioned, the Project is consistent with the zoning district’s specific requirements.

Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 11 of 14 D. The proposed development or use is consistent with all other conditions imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council with respect to any matter related to the purpose of design review.

The proposed Enso Village Project is consistent with the NEAP, the Master Conditional Use Permit for the North Village Project (CUP 2019-04), and the North Village Development Agreement (DA 2020-01). All applicable conditions associated with the Master Conditional Use Permit are incorporated into this approval. The Project is also required to comply with all applicable mitigations of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the North Entry Area Plan (NEAP FEIR) and the NEAP FEIR Addendum, as presented in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (NEAP MMRP).

E. For proposed developments or uses in the North Entry Area Plan Overlay, the design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the goals, policies, objectives and design guidelines set forth in the North Entry Area Plan, as adopted by the Healdsburg City Council on May 20, 2019, as may be amended from time to time.

As detailed in the staff report and Exhibit 16 for Major Design Review Permit DR 2020-09 (NEAP Consistency Analysis) and specifically in Exhibit 16.D which evaluates consistency with the NEAP Design Guidelines, the proposed Enso Village Project is consistent with the Guiding Principles, Land Use & Development Standards, and Design Guidelines established in the NEAP.

Conditional Use Permit Findings
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.165, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit. Suggested language to support each finding is shown in italicized text below each finding:

A. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg general plan and any applicable planned development, specific or area plan.

The Enso Village Project site is designated Mixed Use (MU) in the Healdsburg General Plan and is subject to the policies and guidelines of the North Entry Area Plan (NEAP). As detailed in the staff report for Major Design Review Permit DR 2020-09 and Exhibit 15 (Healdsburg 2030 General Plan Consistency Analysis) and Exhibit 16 (NEAP Consistency Analysis), the proposed Enso Village Project is consistent with the Healdsburg 2030 General Plan and the NEAP.

B. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is consistent with the applicable development standards of this Land Use Code.

The proposed Project has a use type designation of "residential care, general" in the Land Use Code. Both the use type and the Project location are consistent with the Mixed Use (MU) District and the North Entry Area Plan (NEAP) Overlay as established in the Land Use Code. As detailed in the staff report for Major Design Review Permit DR 2020-09 and Exhibit 17 (Land Use Code Consistency Analysis), the Enso Village Project complies with the applicable development standards of the Land Use Code.

C. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to public health and safety or materially injurious to uses, properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The location of the Enso Village Project site is in a Mixed Use (MU) District, surrounded by undeveloped land that is within the North Village Project site to the north, vacant land and the Simi Winery to the south, the NCRA railroad right-of-way, Healdsburg Avenue and the Montage Healdsburg development to the east, and U.S. 101 to the west. The NEAP EIR determined that the North Village Project as a whole would not significantly impact properties or improvements in the immediate vicinity of the site. The NEAP Final EIR and the NEAP MMRP include mitigation measures to ensure that construction-related activities do not result in impacts to nearby properties and/or uses. Based on the analysis in the NEAP EIR and its required mitigation measures, the proposed Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 12 of 14 Enso Village Project will not result in or create a detrimental condition on the property, property vicinity or within the community.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Planning Commission may consider the following alternative actions:

Staff Recommendation – Approve Resolution No. 2020-14 (Exhibit 1) approving Major Design Review Permit DR 2020-09 and Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2020-02) for development of the Enso Village Senior Living Community, based on the suggested findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

Alternative 1 – Approve Resolution No. 2020-14 (Exhibit 1) with modifications based on changes identified at the Planning Commission hearing.

Alternative 2 – Continue action on the applications in order for the applicant to address design-related concerns and require that revised plans be brought back to the Planning Commission for future action. This would likely require noticing of a future public hearing.

Alternative 3 – Continue action on the applications and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution for denial based on inconsistencies with applicable City regulations or policies. This would require noticing of a future public hearing.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

During the NEAP planning process, an Environmental Impact Report ("NEAP EIR") was prepared to analyze the potential project and cumulative environmental impacts associated with future development under the NEAP (State Clearinghouse No. 2018062041). The NEAP EIR found that, with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR, all significant impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level except for the traffic impacts and safety hazards at the U.S. 101/Dry Creek Road intersection and the Dry Creek Road/Grove Street intersection. These impacts were identified as significant unavoidable adverse impacts and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15083, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared and adopted as part of the City Council resolution certifying the NEAP EIR.

On May 20, 2019, the City Council certified the NEAP EIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("NEAP MMRP") to ensure that mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented. The Draft and Final EIRs are included as Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 22, respectively. The NEAP MMRP is included as Exhibit

23. Review of the MCUP application for the North Village Project involved preparation of an Environmental Checklist in order to determine whether and to what extent the NEAP EIR remained sufficient to address the potential impacts of the Project. The analysis included updated traffic modeling and greenhouse gas emissions analysis to account for the specific uses proposed. An Addendum to the NEAP EIR was prepared, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15164, to document the City’s review of the North Village Project (Exhibit 24). As explained in the Addendum, the City determined that the North Village Project did not warrant preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR as it involved no new significant environmental effects and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

For the Enso Village Project, which is a component of the North Village Project, the City has identified the following applicable CEQA streamlining and/or tiering code sections, each of which, separately and independently, provides a basis for the project’s CEQA compliance:

A. A Community Plan Exemption, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183;
Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 13 of 14 B. Reliance on the NEAP EIR as a Program EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168.

As explained in the Addendum, the Environmental Checklist found that the North Village Project did not warrant preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR as it involves no new significant environmental effects and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The proposed Enso Village Project is consistent with the NEAP and the Master CUP; it proposes the same development program in substantially the same footprint for development as the City previously reviewed and approved. The Project is within the broader development assumptions analyzed in the EIR and would not cause new significant environmental impacts not previously identified in the EIR or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the Addendum provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project have already been adequately analyzed in the NEAP EIR that the City previously certified, and no further review or analysis under CEQA is required.

Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the NEAP EIR and Addendum, the potential impacts of the proposed Enso Village Project remain within the impacts previously analyzed and disclosed in the NEAP EIR. Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 no further analysis is required under CEQA before taking action on the Major Design Review Permit and Major Conditional Use Permit for the Enso Village Project.

FISCAL INFORMATION:

The Enso Village Project is a privately funded development. The Project will generate property and sales tax revenues which will help to offset the City's costs of providing services to the Project. In accordance with the Development Agreement for the North Village Project, the nonprofit Senior Living Community developer and operator is required to record a Payment-In-Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement against the Senior Living Community parcel to reimburse the City for lost property tax revenue in the event that the Senior Living Community receives a "welfare exemption" from ad valorem property taxes, plus the cost of increased demands for services from the City's Fire Department. The annual payment shall equal approximately $334,000, with increases each year based on the Consumer Price Index.

DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:

The Enso Village Project applications were referred to City Departments, the City Arborist, and SMART for review and comment. Comments received are included as Exhibit 20 and, where applicable, information and suggested conditions are integrated into the recommended conditions of approval for the Project.

EXHIBITS:

Note: Exhibits 21, 22, 23 and 24, as identified below, are available electronically on the City of Healdsburg website and in the online agenda packet for the November 17, 2020, Planning Commission meeting.

1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-14

2. Site Vicinity Map

3. North Village Conceptual Plan

4. Applicant's Narrative Project Description (10/07/20)

5. Enso Village Plan Set (10/09/20)

6. Driveway Access Evaluation Report (W-Trans; 7/08/20)

7. Car Barn Memo (HKIT Architects, 5/05/20)
Planning Commission Hearing- Enso Village Project (November 17, 2020) 14 of 14

8. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (Walker Consultants; 6/06/20)

9. Addendum to the TDM Plan (Walker Consultants; 10/05/20)

10. Evacuation Executive Summary (Prevent, LLC; 9/24/20)

11. Vegetation Management Plan (Firewise 2000, LLC; 10/02/20)

12. Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report (Horticultural Associates, 7/06/20)

13. Response to City Arborist's Comments (Horticultural Associates, 10/05/20)

14. Applicant's Response to City Staff Comments (Enso Village Team, 10/09/20)

15. Applicant's Response to Planning Commission Comments (Enso Village Team; 10/09/20)

16. General Plan Consistency Analysis Table

17. NEAP Consistency Analysis Table

18. Land Use Code Consistency Analysis Table

19. North Village Development Agreement Consistency Analysis Table

20. City Department Comments

21. Draft NEAP EIR (First Carbon Solutions; 11/30/18)

22. Final NEAP EIR (First Carbon Solutions; 4/09/19)

23. NEAP MMRP (First Carbon Solutions; revised 2/11/20)

24. NEAP Addendum (First Carbon Solutions; 2/04/20)

25. Correspondence Received from the Public (prior to publishing 11/17/20 hearing packet) Planning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes
November 17, 2020  6:00 PM
Note: This meeting was held virtually via Webex.

1. ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Breznikar, Brunner, Deas, Luks, Petrik, Tracy Commissioners absent: Eddinger
City Staff present: Interim Community Development Director David Woltering, Senior Planner Scott Duiven, Consulting Planner Linda Ruffing, Principle Engineer Curt Bates, Fire Marshal Linda Collister, City Attorney’s Office Eric Phillips, Administrative Specialist Shawn Sumpter

2. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
A. The Commission voted 6-0-1 (Eddinger absent) to approve the November 17, 2020 agenda.

B. There were no minutes to approve.

C. Acceptance of Communications and Correspondence: None D. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest: None
E. Disclosures of Ex Parte Communications: None

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Item
Description: Design Review DR 2020-09, and Conditional Use Permit CUP 2020-02 (Enso Village Senior Living Community)
Project
Description: Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed 221-unit senior living community with a total of 54 memory care/assisted living beds and other amenities on a 16.07-acre parcel on the south end of the "North Village" project site. The proposed Enso Village project includes a total of 427,500 SF of space in two buildings. The main, larger facility contains independent, assisted living, and memory care units and common areas including dining, bistro, lobby, library, spa/wellness/fitness, clinic, therapy areas, administrative offices, support spaces, etc. The second building is a smaller two-story structure with independent living units. The exterior space includes a variety of courtyards and smaller focal structures. Onsite parking for 275 vehicles is provided including surface parking, covered carports, and a car barn which uses a mechanized vehicle lift system.

Location: 16977 Healdsburg Avenue APN: 091-060-037
Applicant: Kendal at Sonoma, a Zen Inspired Community/Stephen Bailey Environmental
Determination: The Healdsburg City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the North Entry Area Plan (SCH# 2018062041) and adopted related findings, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (May 20, 2019). An Environmental Checklist & Addendum to the FEIR were prepared for the Master Conditional Use Permit for the North Village Project (MCUP 2019- PC Minutes 11/17/2020 2 of 5
04) that was approved by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2020; and the Development Agreement for the North Village Project (DA 2020-01) that was adopted by the City Council on April 6, 2020. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning), no further environmental review is required because the Enso Village Senior Living Community project would not result in on-site, off-site or cumulatively significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the FEIR.

Consulting Planner Linda Ruffing provided a project overview.

Representatives of the applicant team including Rod Hemni, Susan O’Connell and Steve Baily provided a project presentation.

Susan O’Connell disclosed that the project is 92% reserved including 14 from Healdsburg and 24 within Sonoma County.

Linda Ruffing provided the staff report.

Commissioner Breznikar commented that the color issues have been addressed well. She suggested that the color shades could be varied among the buildings. She expressed her appreciation for the changes to the windows and other architectural elements making the buildings look much friendlier. She feels more confident about the emergency procedures presented.

Commissioner Luks asked about cost sharing for the Dry Creek Road/US 101 interchange.

Ruffing stated that there is a condition in the resolution that recites the obligation of this project to contribute its fair share. The mitigation is based on a proportional share. The City is looking at adopting a traffic mitigation fee which will pay for those improvements.

Commissioner Luks asked about the roofs and how they will perform in a fire drift. He also asked about the roof color.

Hemni described the types of roof used as being fire resistant and meeting the requirements of the meet the fire hazard area standards.

Commissioner Brunner asked if the car barn will be powered by the generators in an emergency.

Hemni confirmed that it is included in the generator plan.

Commissioner Brunner expressed his preference for the mid-grey color option.

Commissioner Deas about the car barn evacuation plan.

Hemni explained that 3 sets of cars can be dropped at a time in the car barn. While the car barn could be evacuated in 90 minutes, the emergency preparedness plan is predicated on evacuating proactively at the warning stage and not waiting for a mandatory notice to allow for more time to evacuate residents.

Commissioner Petrik asked about the circulation plan, in particular the width of the pedestrian pathways.

Hemni confirmed that the sidewalks on Street B are 6’ to accomodate the preference for diagonal parking and 13’ wide on Street A.

Jim Fain, project engineer stated that the perimeter trail ranges from 6 to 8 feet in width.

Commissioner Petrik commented that he had hoped to see more landscaping along the perimeter trail to provide shade for pedestrians. To which Commissioner Breznikar agreed.

PC Minutes 11/17/2020 3 of 5
Hemni stated that they could look at adding more shade elements and asked if that was something that could be worked out as a condition to be approved at staff level.

Commissioner Luks agreed with adding more landscaping to be approved at staff level.

Commissioner Petrik opined that the exit from the parking onto Street A will be difficult.

Principal Engineer Curt Bates stated that staff also had concerns and asked the traffic engineer to analyze the traffic patterns in relationship to the driveways. Mr. Bates indicated, based on the traffic analysis, the consensus is that there is sufficient sight distance to accommodate the turning movements.

Commissioner Petrik commented on the pedestrian improvements along Street B asking for more enhancement.

Commissioners Deas and Petrik stated that they like the design.

Commissioner Breznikar commented that if the buildings were pushed back there would be more room.

Hemni noted that they are meeting the required 10’ setback.

Ruffing added that there was a more generous setback, but this was compressed with the Commission’s preference to provide angled parking on B Street.

Director Woltering asked the Fire Department to comment on the possibility of low growing landscape to soften the area between the inside edge of the sidewalk and the building façades.

Fire Marshall Linda Collister stated that as long as exiting was accommodated, they could look at drought tolerant, low-growing, clustered landscape material in this area.

Commissioner Petrik stated that he would be in favor of trying to add some landscape back in.

Chair Tracy asked about the raised crosswalk mentioned in the presentation.

Hemni explained that the raised crosswalk in the parking lot would slow traffic by acting as a speed bump.

Chair Tracy commented that he prefers the mid-grey color option. In his opinion the white entrance is the least attractive element of the project.

Collister confirmed for Chair Tracy that the vegetation management plan is a required element.

Chair Tracy asked for confirmation that the evacuation management plan is being prepared and will be reviewed by State and City agencies.

Steve Baily confirmed that the evacuation plan will be reviewed by the Department of Social Services (DSS).

Chair Tracy asked about the status of the SMART emergency vehicle access easement (EVA).

Ruffing responded that Comstock has rights to construct the EVA without SMART approval.

Chair Tracy stated that he would support a condition for more shade on the pathway to be reviewed by staff. He stated that while the panels on B Street are not unattractive, it would benefit from low growing fire-resistant plants to provide softening.

Commissioner Luks expressed his appreciation for the video simulations from the freeway and the revisions to the 2-story buildings. He acknowledged the affect of the decision to include angled parking on Street B on the building frontage. He stated that the decorative panels proposed are a good solution. He expressed concerns about the driveway entrances on A PC Minutes 11/17/2020 4 of 5
Street and opined that there should be no left turn out of the east parking lot. He stated his preference for the darker grey (mid-grey) color option. He suggested that a decision on the colors could be delayed.

Commissioner Breznikar wondered if there were other color choices besides grey.

Chair Tracy opened the hearing for public input and hearing none, closed the public input portion of the hearing.

Commissioner Deas stated that overall, he likes the design and feels the issues have been addressed. He expressed his preference for the darker color scheme. He acknowledged that with the angled parking there are not many options on Street B. He supported additional shade on the pathways to be reviewed by staff.

Commissioner Luks stated that overall, he likes the project and thinks it will be great for the town.

Commissioner Breznikar opined that it is a fantastic project, beautifully designed and acknowledged that she will probably never be satisfied with color choices but would not stop her from voting on this wonderful project. She asked if there was a particular meaning for “Enso”.

O’Connell explained that the name is symbolic. “Enso” is a calligraphy symbol created with one stroke done in one breath.

Commissioner Petrik said that he loves the project overall and fully supports it. He asked that a condition be added for staff to work with the applicant to develop a more robust planting plan along the western perimeter pathway. He prefers the dark grey color option.

Chair Tracy stated that he supports the project and thinks the workshop helped work through a lot of issues. The applicant has been very responsive to the Commission’s comments and concerns. This will be a tremendous addition to our town.

Director Woltering summarized the conditions to be added:

1. Low growing fire resistant non continuous ground cover shall be added to the B Street frontage to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director and the Fire Chief.

2. Additional shade trees and benches shall be added along the west perimeter trail to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.

Chair Tracy noted that there is a consensus of the Commission for the dark grey color option.

Commissioner Brunner commented that he had an issue and had to restart his session and asked Commissioner Luks to summarize his comments.

After hearing Commissioner Luks’ summary, Commissioner Brunner commented that the angled parking will cause less traffic incidents in the long run and expressed his support for additional landscape along Street B and the west path.

On a motion by Commissioner Petrik, seconded by Commissioner Luks the Commission voted 6-0-1 (Eddinger absent) to approve Design Review DR 2020-09, and Conditional Use Permit CUP 2020-02 for the Enso Village Senior Living Community at 16977 Healdsburg Avenue with the addition of two minor conditions.

5. COMMISSIONER AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: None

6. DIRECTOR’S REPORT: Director Woltering provided information on the following:
 Cancellation of 11/24 regular meeting.
 Agenda for the 12/8 regular meeting.
 Resignation of Chair Tracy effective at the close of this meeting.

PC Minutes 11/17/2020 5 of 5
 Selection of officers to be added to the next meeting agenda Chair Tracy stated that due to an imminent move to the east coast to be closer to family he was resigning from the Commission. He commented on his time in Healdsburg and on the Commission stating that he would miss both. He described his time on the Commission as very satisfying and expressed his appreciation for staff and his fellow commissioners.

The meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.
___________________________ __________________________
David Woltering, Interim Secretary _______________, Chair