1.

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Duggan called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.

2.

ROLL CALL

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

3.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of December 10, 2009 were approved as presented.

4.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

No speakers

5.

DEPARTMENT REPORT

None

6.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

Commissioner Caston reported on the Economic Development Committee meeting and received update on the current situation for retail in the City and a recommendation from the presenter on focusing on re-tenanting the vacant space that currently exists  

Commissioner Bañuelos reported that a meeting for the Roseland Creek will be held on Saturday at Roseland School.

7.

STATEMENTS OF ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONERS

8.

CONSENT AGENDA

None

Chair Duggan stated that a request to continue Item 9 and Item 11 to the February 11, 2010 meeting had been made. Item 9 due to the blue signs not being installed and Item 11 due to questions about the environmental reports.

Commissioner Bartley moved and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to continue both items to February 11, 2010.

The motion carried with the following vote:

9.

PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – HOMELESS SERVICES CENTER – 600 Morgan Street – Application to operate the Homeless Services Center without a sunset date – File Number CUP09-058

This item is to be continued to February 11, 2010.

10.

PUBLIC HEARING – DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – ELNOKA VILLAGE – 251 Elnoka Lane – Proposal of 209 attached multi-family residential units within three buildings and approximately 5,000 square feet of neighborhood center uses with vehicular access provided from Melita Road and Sonoma highway. Approximately 30% of the residential units would provide affordable housing to low and moderate income families. Project includes Density Bonus, Major Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review applications – File Number MJP08-013

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Allen – spoke with neighbors of Oakmont.

Commissioner Poulsen – nothing to disclose since the last time he visited the site and spoke with the applicant.

Commissioner Bartley – nothing to disclose.

Commissioner Caston – nothing to disclose.

Commissioner Cisco – nothing to disclose.

Commissioner Bañuelos – visited the site.

Chair Duggan – revisited the site.

Planner Erin Morris gave the staff report

Public Hearing:

• B. Wayne Parsons, 6275 Meadowbreeze Court – spoke suggesting that they dedicate as open space that can’t be built upon and there would be a denigration of the value of homes in Oakmont due to the that type of establishment next door and traffic concerns on Hwy 12.
• Bob Walker, 5889 Melita Road – spoke on the traffic report stating the Crane Study was not accurate (gave a PowerPoint presentation that showed traffic impacts).
• Wally Schlip, 252 Belhaven Court, co-chair of Oakmont Property Development Committee – spoke regarding the traffic report stating that there was no new information in the traffic study and spoke in opposition to the study.
• Jean Kapolchuk, 843 Second Street, representative of the Oakmont Village Association – spoke on the inconsistencies of the traffic; aesthetics and land use portions noise and project alternatives.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Caston – stated that the GHG emissions section sites proximity to transit and one of the project features but doesn‘t include discussion about how the westbound connectivity to transit effects that feature, and stated there should be an acknowledgement of that feature; he would also like an acknowledgement of outbound commute into Napa and outbound commute to worksites in Santa Rosa; more specific numbers of GHG emission sited in the analysis; he further stated that he is confident that they are doing more than the two mitigation measures which included PV and AC units on units that are closer to the sound and highlighting landscaping and other type of GHG reduction measures that are being used as would be good.

Commissioner Cisco – stated that the copy of the site plan is bad and it was difficult to coordinate with the text descriptions; she would like clarification about the unmitigatible impacts of the aesthetics and transportation stating that because of the 30% of affordable housing, the project would have been entitled to certain design concessions and wonders if design concessions were allowed to be considered as mitigation; she also asked if any analysis has been done about the septic/wells as to the impact of the underground parking with those systems if they are still in place; she stated that because it would be offering the city low income housing, wonders if there could be detail about where very low housing is scattered throughout the city.

Commissioner Bañuelos – spoke on the traffic and transportation sections and that she had concerns regarding safety stating that the traffic study was done in 2006 and one more recently but wonders if it takes into consideration any other future development in that area; she also stated concern of safety if there was a left turn lane on Hwy 12; she commented that the bike lanes on Melita that would lead to Montgomery may be a better alternative; regarding the Alternatives, likes #2 but didn’t see discussion about affordable housing; she stated she had overall concerns about the significant unavoidable impacts and wonders how those can be resolved.

Commissioner Allen – regarding the readability of the document, said it was done well; the fact that the study of unavoidable impacts regarding aesthetics portion of the EIR, stated that this is a scenic corridor and it is something that needs to be paid attention to, it is a loss of aesthetics for the entire community of Sonoma County; regarding the traffic study, he commented that it is a sensitive area and that it is much different when you experience it; he also stated there could have been more discussion about what the alternatives are and how it pertains to keeping the affordable housing component but also making it acceptable and blending in to the rest of the neighborhood; he further commented that the brownouts to the public safety facilities such as the fire stations may not be reflected. Overall he feels that by looking at the alternatives it would give the developer and the community a better way to engage one another by looking at what are the possibilities.

Commissioner Poulsen – also stated that it was readable but did have some trouble making out some of the exhibits; stated that the traffic and environmental portions were fine.

Commissioner Bartley – also stated it was clear and readable; regarding page 3.1-5 on the discussion about “views” under the aesthetics section, stated that his understanding of CEQA and City policy is that we are concerned with public views but the private views are not protected and would like clarification on that; he also commented on the 3-D visualization that he would like to know about how the buildings are set into the photograph what bench marks are used stating that there should be some description to show that it is accurate.

Chair Duggan – stated the following:

• Page 2.2 parcel numbers are incorrect;
• The site plan is unreadable;
• Page 2-2.8 recreational amenities doesn’t describe the setback from Oakmont;
• Page 2-3.9 the second bullet on site plan doesn’t quantify acreage and the fifth bullet point about the car sharing program, wonders who will administer that;
• Page 3.1-15 the first sentient on grading isn’t defined anywhere;
• Page 3.2-11 third paragraph about bicycle trail, she stated it is not found on any maps and would like it to describe how far it is from the path;
• Page 3.8-18 road to connect on pedestrian path on Melita would like it to be noted if there is to be a crosswalk there;
• Page 3.12-2 description of Montgomery Drive don’t seem to be accurate regarding bike lanes;
• Page 3.12-27 regarding the transportation section stating threshold of significance states the study should take into account school traffic;
• Page 4-9 mentions Sonoma Highway being widened to 4 lanes, wonders how does that effect project setbacks;
• Page 5-3 Regarding the Alternatives stated that information presented isn’t identical stating that if it could be more consistent between all the alternatives it would be easier to compare and easier to follow;
• Page 6-12 the table 6-4 about proportionate vehicle travel wonders if there is a footnote on how those percentages were arrived at;
• Appendix F the Geotechnical report from 1993 describes an unrelated project;
• Appendix A the setback dimension from the lift station from Melita Creek is not noted on site plan;
• She also thought it would be helpful if there was a parcel map talking about the different designations and zonings.

Break

11.

PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE, TENTATIVE MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE – VISTAS AT KAWANA SPRINGS – 1846 and 1865 Meda Avenue – Application to rezone 10 acres to R-1-6 Single Family Residential, develop 95 homes including 55 Single-Family attached homes and dedicate 0.70 acres for public park purposes – File Number MJP08-020 

This item is to be continued to February 11, 2010

12.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE, TENTATIVE MAP AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT – VISTA GABRIELLE – 5150 Sonoma Highway – Application to Rezone the subject property from R-1-6 to the R-3-18 Zoning District and to subdivide 0.5 acres into seven (7) lots to allow the construction of six (6) new single-family attached residences with the existing single-family residence to remain, for a total of seven (7) dwelling units on a site with slopes in excess of 10% – File Number MJP07-007

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Bañuelos visited the site.

Commissioner Cisco spoke with the app regarding changes.

Commissioner Caston – no new disclosures.

Commissioner Bartley met with the app regarding changes.

Commissioner Poulsen did not re-visit the site but spoke with the applicant.

Commissioner Allen visited the site.

Chair Duggan visited the site and watched the video of the previous meeting.

City Planner Bill Rose gave the staff report.

Applicant representative Bruce Aspinall gave a brief presentation.

Public Hearing:

No speakers

Commissioners discussion ensued:

All commissioners spoke in support of the project.

Commissioner Bartley made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11500: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED VISTA GABRIELLE SUBDIVISION AND RECLASSIFICATION LOCATED AT 5150 SONOMA HIGHWAY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER(S) 031-430-018; 031-430-019 – FILE NUMBER MJP07-007

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

Commissioner Bartley made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11501:  RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5150 SONOMA HIGHWAY TO THE R-3-18 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT – FILE NUMBER REZ06-032

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

Commissioner Bartley made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11502: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR VISTA GABRIELLE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 5150 SONOMA HIGHWAY – ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER(S) 031-430-018; 031-430-019 – FILE NUMBER HDP08-020

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

Commissioner Bartley made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11503: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING THE VISTA GABRIELLE SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE MAP LOCATED AT 5150 SONOMA HIGHWAY – FILE NUMBER MJP07-007

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

13.

PUBLIC HEARING – APPEAL – 4180 Montgomery Drive – Appeal to the Planning Commission to overturn the decision of the Community Development Department which concluded that a Conditional Use Permit for a service station at 4180 Montgomery Drive cannot be processed – File Number CUP09-085

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Bañuelos visited the site.

Commissioner Cisco visited the site.

Commissioner Caston visited the site and spoke with members of City Council regarding past use of the site.

Commissioner Bartley is familiar with the site.

Commissioner Poulsen visited the site.

Commissioner Allen visited the site and spoke with a member of City Council.

Chair Duggan visited the site.

City Planner Bill Rose gave the staff report

Jake Gentling – applicant representative gave a presentation.

Public Hearing

• Bryce Pattison, 365 Todd Road – spoke in favor of granting a CUP
• Mike Robertson, 2300 Bethards Drive, Robertson Engineering – spoke in support of granting a CUP
• Shawn Bryan, 1311 4^th Street – (future operator) spoke in support of granting a CUP
• Dennis DeCota, 1605 4^th Street, Executive Director of California Service Station and Automotive Repair Association – spoke in favor of the applicant.
• Mike Sheppard, 2033 San Antonio Place – spoke in favor of granting a CUP
• Steve Crane, 201 California, San Francisco, Commercial Real Estate Broker with NAIBT – spoke in favor of the applicant.

Commissioner Cisco asked staff if a permit was issued in April and a new buyer came in within 6 months, could there be a one-time finding to get this approved without doing a zoning code text amendment but continue the existing permit that was issued in 2008.

Attorney Molly Dillon responded that it was their decision to interpret the code in that way but it would be precedent setting.

Commissioner Bartley stated if that could be referenced in the findings.

Molly stated that it would be important to include as many circumstances in the decision that is made and the application of that and that the interpretation would be that because of the fact that there was an ongoing process; foreclosure, bankruptcy all of the circumstances that existed that there wasn’t an actual closure that it wasn’t an intentional closure.

Commissioner Caston stated that he was wary of not interpreting foreclosure as closure or abandonment. But the timeline shows that there was clear and continued intent to operate and would like to see that wording used instead.

Commissioner Bartley also stated that this site is the “neighborhood gas station” and this in itself is unique.

Molly Dillon stated that it would be better to focus on the specific circumstances surround the abandonment/closure issues.

Commissioner Allen stated they didn’t have to deny the appeal that they could make a finding and working with the applicant to focus on the continued intent to keep it as an operating facility and not get into unique circumstances.

Commissioner Caston suggests denying the permit tonight and using the old permit.

Molly Dillon clarified that what they would be doing is granting the appeal, tell staff to go back and look at the code section based on their understanding of continued intent that existed that there was continuous activity to continue operation.

Chair Duggan stated they need to grant appeal and bring back to the next meeting to vote.

Commissioner Poulsen made a motion and Commissioner Allen seconded to grant the appeal with a formal resolution to be brought before the Planning Commission on February 11, 2010.

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

14.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Duggan adjourned the meeting at 6:13 p.m. 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, February 11, 2010.

PREPARED BY:

Anette Niewald, Recording Secretary

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Chuck Regalia, Executive Secretary

Vicki Duggan, Chair