1.

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Duggan called the meeting to order at 3:58 p.m.

2.

ROLL CALL

Commissioners present:  Commissioners Allen, Bañuelos, Bartley, Caston, Cisco, Poulsen, and Chair Duggan.

3.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of October 22, 2009 were approved with revisions.

4.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

• Amanda Bornstein, Greenbelt Alliance and the Accountable Development Coalition, 555 5^th Street Item 9 – spoke on the Downtown Station Area specific Plan Zoning regarding the nonconforming uses stating that she supports Option 1 which is the shortest amount of time before being switched over to a new use.
• Duane De Witt, Roseland area – spoke on Park Equity Study Map stating that SW Santa Rosa is lacking in green space, parks and open space. He also stated that minorities lack amenities and that all the low income and affordable housing all in one quadrant and not affordable housing scattered throughout the rest of the city.

5.

DEPARTMENT REPORT

None

6.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

None

7.

STATEMENTS OF ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Poulsen - is abstaining from Item 9  

Commissioner Caston will abstain from Item 9 due to the outstanding question of whether or not he has a financial interest in the area.

8.

CONSENT AGENDA

None

9.

PUBLIC HEARING – DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS – Planning Commission will receive a status report and provide comments on the proposed Zoning and Design Guidelines Consistency Amendments as they relate to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan – File Number ST08-004.

City Planner, Clare Hartman and Jessica Jones gave a report on the recent open houses and brochures created in order to expose the public to the plan.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES:

• Allen Thomas, 306 Boyce, representing the Bastoni family that owns the bakery at West 7^th and Madison Street – spoke on proposed uses not allowed by current zoning. He encouraged them to not rush the process.
• Jennifer Watson, 121 10^th Street – spoke of her concern of single family homes were not permitted for her neighborhood and that R-3-18 which is multi-family dense housing and the possibility of apartment buildings being constructed next to them with zero setbacks.
• Duane De Witt, Roseland – commented to keep in mind that the primary reasons for the plan is to get more people to use transit and advocates to cut the parking requirements to 50% of what’s there; He also commented on green site design by using native trees and  plants and incorporating permeable paving and designing resource efficient landscapes.

Commissioners discussion:

Commissioner Allen – supports the work done by the staff; regarding the nonconforming issue on Maxwell Court, he stated that the need to increase the density will come into play once the railway is built. He supports the plan.

Commissioner Bartley – commended staff for the outreach to the public. He stated the parking reduction makes sense; appreciates the compromise of the non-conforming use; the park on the graphic is still shown as commercial which should be corrected and the two commercial parcels that show up in the residential subsection next to City Hall seems to fit more in with the Park and Gardens District in terms of guidelines; is curious how the commercial design guidelines may or may not integrate into this and how the design concept could possibly be rolled into the same updates; stated that the urban center street type and the properties constructed on Courthouse Square should be developed with consistent building heights and asks which buildings should they choose to be consistent with.

Commissioner Cisco – is comfortable with the recommendations for the parking reduction and the most flexible solution for converting uses; stated also that they recommended to City Council  that they remove the attached requirement for medium density because there are non-historic districts that have historic property; she also stated her concern of the Sebastopol Road/Roberts Road area and the economic development reports that state there is no commercial property available next to freeways and would like to make a recommendation to City Council that they take another look at this designation along with individuals on the Economic Development Committee to make sure that this designation will invite major developers and make sure that the transit-village mixed is really the appropriate designation for that particular spot at this time.

Commissioner Bañuelos – also commended staff for all their work into this project. She supports the parking reduction; favors Option 1 and reluctantly Option 3.

Commissioner Duggan – also commended the staff for their work; she likes the idea of the historic combining district; is supportive of the parking reduction; is a little reluctant for Option 3 regarding the nonconforming uses with regards to the Wilson Street corridor as it seems this area might turnover first as far as housing goes but as far as the other areas go such as Maxwell Court and towards Sebastopol Road it makes perfect sense.

Commissioner Allen would like to see some kind of marker in the document that when City Council looks at it they see an opportunity sight at the social services building.

Commissioner Cisco agreed as well as all the other commissioners that perhaps a unified comment in that direction as well as looking at it along with an economic development person.

10

PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING VARIANCE – MORAN DRIVEWAY ADDITION – 2615 Sunrise Avenue – Zoning Variance application to widen an existing driveway to accommodate additional parking on-site. The proposed driveway addition encroaches into the (required) side yard setback and the resulting on-site parking spaces do not meet the residential parking dimensions specified by the Zoning Code – File Number ZV09-005

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Bañuelos did not visit the site

Commissioner Cisco had no disclosures

Commissioner Caston had no disclosures

Commissioner Bartley visited the site

Commissioner Poulsen visited the site

Commissioner Allen visited the site

Commissioner Duggan visited the site

City Planner Noah Housh gave the staff report.

Danny Strening, applicant representative made brief comments

Public Hearing:

There were no speakers

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Caston stated it was appropriate but reiterated the importance of obtaining building permits and approvals first.

Commissioner Cisco stated she had no issues.

Commissioner Bañuelos stated she had no issues.

Commissioner Bartley feels that they are taking the variance process light and stated that they should be cautious in granting them; he also mentioned that if the neighbor agreed to a lot line adjustment and they did a lot line adjustment they wouldn’t need a variance that it would just be conforming.

Commissioner Poulsen had no issues.

Commissioner Allen stated he favors as long as they haven’t created a loophole in the way they proceed with these.

Commissioner Duggan is supportive

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11496 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING A ZONING VARIANCE FOR AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL PARKING DIMENSIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY ADDITION FOR THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 2615 SUNRISE AVENUE – FILE NUMBER ZV09-005.

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

Allen, Bañuelos, Bartley, Caston, Cisco, Poulsen, Duggan,

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

11.

PUBLIC HEARING –  DENSITY BONUS – ACACIA SENIOR HOUSING – 657 Acacia Lane – Application for Density Bonus to allow 44 affordable senior housing units – File Number MNP09-019

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

City Planner Erin Morris gave the staff report.

Robert Hayes, the Architect for the project made brief comments.

Public Hearing:

• Rich Saraceni, 705 Acacia Lane – requested that final elevations be original ground level but welcomes the project. He also stated concern about the due to his property being flooded by the Masonic Temple.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Allen favors the project.

Commissioner Poulsen stated as long as the parking issues have been resolved, he supports.

Commissioner Bartley supports; he also stated that the project will go to Design Review and that the applicant is obligated to pick up all their own site drainage and put into a storm drain system.

Commissioner Caston supports the project.

Commissioner Cisco stated she has no issues with this project.

Commissioner Bañuelos also stated she has no issues and is excited that it is on the east side.

Chair Duggan supports the project.

Commissioner Bartley made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11497: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DENSITY BONUS FOR ACACIA LANE AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING LOCATED AT 657 ACACIA LANE, FILE NUMBER MNP09-019

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

(Allen, Bañuelos, Bartley, Caston, Cisco, Poulsen, Duggan)

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

Commissioner Bartley made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11498: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ACACIA LANE AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING LOCATED AT 657 ACACIA LANE – FILE NUMBER MNP09-019

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

(Allen, Bañuelos, Bartley, Caston, Cisco, Poulsen, Duggan)

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

12.

PUBLIC HEARING –  REZONING – THE VILLAS – 1755 Sebastopol Road and 1700 Hampton Way – Application to rezone from R-3-15 Multi-Family Residential to R-3-30 Multi-Family Residential – File Number REZ09-003

City Planner Erin Morris gave the staff report.

Kurt Nichols, applicant representative from Carlile Macy, gave a presentation.

Public Hearing:

• Unknown speaker - 1733 Sebastopol Rd, property owner adjacent to project asked if his property could be considered for same type of rezoning if project approved.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Caston is hesitant to set a new precedent stating that if they make the first two findings now and make the last two findings when the project comes through and then the property is sold, there is a potential that they wouldn’t be able to develop a lower density project that would meet the General Plan designation but not the Zoning Code; supports the density bonus for this area.

Commissioner Cisco doesn’t feel that this qualifies and meets the criteria; she stated the way this policy is written in the General Plan is that it anticipates that the applicant coming in with a project and rezoning at the same time so that all of those aspects would be in front of the commission. She also stated that development is not fenced or walled off from the surroundings and said it is important to remember that this is an isolated city piece within the middle of a county pocket. Does not support this rezoning.

Commissioner Bañuelos has concerns but likes the idea of multi-family residential but wonders how the General Plan Policy LUL-F4 will really be able to become a reality. She is reluctant to support.

Commissioner Bartley is concerned with trying to do something that doesn’t fit into the standard mold and basing all of this on a General Plan policy that they can potentially get rid of in the next update because of the Station Area Plan yet there is a piece of property zoned that is based on a policy that is gone that it could get lost since it would be only living in the resolution. He also stated that they are looking at three different parcels and if they rezone, they could have three separate projects. He feels that it is an inappropriate use of a General Plan condition to try to rezone. Does not support.

Commissioner Poulsen agrees with comments by Commissioner Bartley regarding the rezone living on paper and the difficulty in referring to these types of documents; he also stated that having a project in front of them would be easier to see what is intended. Doesn’t favor a rezone at this time.

Commissioner Allen stated he needs more information before voting in favor.

Chair Duggan stated if there was a project that demonstrated that this could work, that would be one thing but she expressed concern with extra crossings of the trail stating bicyclists using the trails with multiple roads crossing and cars trying to get out, it could be a conflict. She does not support.

Commissioner Caston commented that there are a number of areas in the city that they are trying to turn them from previous uses to new uses and the first developers will have the hardest time getting that first project done. He feels that they need to help those developers and applicants that are willing to take the risk to help us realize the visions that they have approved and take the leap on those first projects.

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Bartley seconded to DENY the application, with a formal resolution of denial to be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting.

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(6)

(Allen, Bañuelos, Bartley, Cisco, Poulsen)

NOES:

(1)

Caston

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

13.

PUBLIC HEARING –  DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION – SPRING LAKE VILLAGE EXPANSION PROJECT – 5555 Montgomery Drive – Construction of 62 independent senior living units, 41 surface parking spaces, 55 underground parking spaces, and associated site improvements on four parcels adjacent to the existing campus – File Number MNP07-025

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Bañuelos visited the site and met with the applicant and the neighbors

Commissioner Cisco is familiar with the site and did not revisit the site

Commissioner Caston met with the applicant

Commissioner Bartley met with the applicant.

Commissioner Poulsen since the last time, he talked with neighbors and the applicant since then and this time had a phone conversation with the applicant and visited the site.

Commissioner Allen recently visited the site and had a conversation with the applicant.

Chair Duggan revisited the site, met with the applicant’s representative and had a conversation with a city council member and had a conversation with some of the neighbors on Brey Road.

City Planner Bill Rose gave the staff report.

Pat Collins, Senior Environmental Planner with Winzler and Kelly gave a presentation.

Bill Rose completed the staff report.

Public Hearing:

• Mark Hillestad, 278 Brey Rd – Stated that the Villa heights and placement violate design guidelines
• La Dell Escola – 356 Brey Rd – Concerned with water supply and stated that the project is too big
• Wayne Martin, 350 Brey Rd – Expressed concern that Brey Rd is too narrow that people will park on Brey Rd; he also commented on water drainage issues; that the project is too big and speeding drivers
• Laurie Fong - 5737 Melita Rd – Stated that Melita Rd, is a narrow road; the project is too massive and urges them to consider a two or one story project; consider less of an industrial look to the buildings
• Paul Hull – President of Spring Lake Village Residents Association – He stated that Spring Lake Village is a wildlife corridor.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Poulsen had no comments.

Commissioner Allen had questions regarding Alternative 1.

Commissioner Bartley suggested strengthening the noise aspect with regards to the Statement Of Overriding Consideration for construction noise and feels it would be good to mention that it’s in relation to the auditorium.

Commissioner Bañuelos spoke of concerns regarding the alternatives and wonders if there is more explanation on other alternatives as far as expanding on the Spring Lake property itself as opposed to the other properties on Brey Rd. She also commented with regards to the wildlife and the neighbors concern about the wildlife that wasn’t discussed in the DEIR and is concerned that there is a lot of other wildlife that doesn’t necessarily have to be protected but will be lost if a project like this goes through. She asked if there could be other studies done on the wildlife that is not talked about. She also commented concerns made by the neighbors regarding the wells and would like to see a discussion about that in the DEIR whether it would be affected once the project goes through. Another concern she expressed was of of emergency vehicles and the narrow road questioning how they will get through in a timely manner. She suggested that more dialogue take place with neighbors and the applicant.

Commissioner Cisco stated that the DEIR was very thorough and easy to read and had no other comments.

Commissioner Caston stated that more analysis is needed in two of the appendices, specifically the Landscape Appendix F and Model results from Appendix B to include more discussion on how they impact the mitigation measures in corresponding chapters in Section 4, specifically how the landscape plans are being used to mitigate any visual impacts that are revealed. He also stated Section 4.5, the Greenhouse Gas Efficiency should include more detailed analysis on how to get to the 935 tons of greenhouse gas emissions with the Urbemis Model.

Chair Duggan also stated that it was a very thorough and readable EIR and made the following comments:

• Page 4.2-7 regarding the wildlife corridors that states it would be unlikely to use the project site as a wildlife corridor, she believes from the testimony at the prior hearing given by the neighbors that it already is used as a wildlife corridor and feels that this should be fleshed out more.
• Page 4.2-12, Streambed Alteration - commented that one of the storm-drain plans is to clear out the existing outfall to the creek and wonders if that will have any impact on the creek if it increases the size of the culvert and the potential to change the natural flow of the creek or disrupt the bed.
• Page 4.4-5, Geology and Soils - stated that if there was a major earthquake and it damaged the dam at Spring Lake wonders if this parcel will be flooded.
• Greenhouse Gas chapter - wonders if there are restrictions on what they can do with the wood of the trees that are cut down accounted for as carbon sequestered, i.e., burning wood.
• Chapter 8.5, Noise - stated that there seemed to be a discrepancy between chapter 8.5 (Noise Chapter) and page 4.12-7 (Visual Resources) in the distance of the buildings from the center line of Montgomery Dr.
• Chapter 4.11-7, Transportation - wants to know if traffic control procedures TR3 can be amended to include notification to the bicycle community for the commuters that use the bike lanes if they are closed or inaccessible for any length of time.
• Page 4.11-8, TR3-A talks about identifying specific trees or brush that need to be trimmed or removed within a 150 ft section of Montgomery Drive frontage and wonders if those trees are accounted for in the number of trees that need to be removed.
• Appendix B, Urbemis Model Results – with regards to the total VMT, she wonders if that includes staff or just residents.
• Appendix E, Traffic Report - regarding moving on-street parking to the other side, she wonders if it has been studied for potential impacts to the traffic on Montgomery Dr.

14.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Duggan adjourned the meeting at to the regular Planning Commission Meeting to be held at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at Santa Rosa City Hall on Thursday, December 10, 2009.

PREPARED BY:

Anette Niewald, Recording Secretary

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Chuck Regalia, Executive Secretary

Vicki Duggan, Chair