1.

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Duggan called the meeting to order at 3:59 p.m.

2.

ROLL CALL

Commissioners present:  Commissioners Bañuelos, Byrd, Carlstrom, Cisco, Faber, Poulsen, and Chair Duggan.

3.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of July 8, 2010 were approved with revisions.

Chair Duggan announced that it was recommended to reorder the agenda to accommodate the consultant for Spring Lake Village who would be arriving late.

Chair Duggan made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve the change in agenda order.

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:             (7)       (Bañuelos, Byrd, Carlstrom, Cisco, Duggan, Faber, Poulsen)

NOES:             (0)

ABSTENTIONS: (0)

ABSENT:          (0)

4.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

None

5.

DEPARTMENT REPORT

None

6.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

Commissioner Carlstrom nominated Commissioner Bañuelos to serve as Vice-chair, and Commissioner Byrd seconded.

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:                (7)    (Bañuelos, Byrd, Carlstrom, Cisco, Duggan, Faber, Poulsen)

NOES:               (0)

ABSTENTIONS:   (0)

ABSENT:            (0)

7.

STATEMENTS OF ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Faber will abstain from Item 10 due to a business venture related to modular homes.

8.

CONSENT AGENDA

None

9.

REPORT – CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – SPRING LAKE VILLAGE – Final Environmental Impact Report for the Spring Lake Village expansion and annexation project at 555 Montgomery Drive and associated parcels – the expansion would construct 652 independent senior living units, 41 surface parking spaces, 55 underground parking spaces and associated site improvements on four parcels adjacent to the existing campus; one expansion parcel is within the county of Sonoma and is proposed to be annexed into the City  and prezoned to PD0308; three adjacent parcels not part of the Spring Lake Village expansion are proposed to be annexed into the City and prezoned to RR-20, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 031-070-033; 031-070-034; 031-070-059; 031-070-041; 031-070-042; 031-070-043; 031-070-049; 031-080-002; 031-080-024 – File Number MNP07-025

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Carlstrom - met with the applicant and some of the neighbors and visited the site.

Commissioner Faber - visited the site and met with the applicant.

Commissioner Bañuelos - met with the neighbors.

Commissioner Poulsen - no new disclosures since he last met with the neighbors and applicant.

Commissioner Cisco - no new disclosures.

Commissioner Byrd - met with neighbors and the applicant.

Chair Duggan - met with neighbors and spoke with the applicant and revisited the site.

City Planner, Bill Rose gave the staff report.

Consultant Pat Collins gave a presentation on impacts.

There was discussion between the commission, staff and the consultant regarding other feasible alternatives under CEQA.

Public Hearing:

• Sharon York, 5555 Montgomery Drive, Executive Director of SLV – supports and recommends approval; feels it is positive and a benefit to the community.
• Paul Hull, residents of Spring Lake Village – spoke in support.
• Michelle Gervaise, 50 Santa Rosa Avenue – read a letter on behalf of a resident Jerry Sonomfsky in support.
• Don Sanders, 5555 Montgomery Drive – supports the project.
• Ken Wells, 360 Brey Road – is not in favor of this EIR and asks the commission to reject stating inadequacies in the EIR.
• David Bensen, 5555 Montgomery Drive – supports the project.
• Mark Hillestad, 278 Brey Road – does not support and stated there were several incorrect or incomplete responses to comments.
• Irma Martin, 350 Brey Road – resident of Brey Road – does not support stating concerns of 3-story buildings, drainage, and wildlife issues.
• Steve Weinberger, W Trans – did the traffic study for the EIR and reported on the Caltrans letter that was received today and stated it didn’t raise any new traffic issues or issues that would be considered significant.
• Barbara Schussman, Bingham McKutchen, Attorney for Applicant and author for CEQA chapter of Curtin’s California Land Use and Planning – stated the she reviewed the Final EIR and it fully complies with CEQA’s requirements, she also reviewed the letters and the comments expressing view points of the desirability of the project that can be considered when the Planning Commission decides whether or how to approve the project as well as when the Design Review Board decides whether or how to approve the project but the comments to not demonstrate that the EIR fails to comply with CEQA’s requirements.
• Scott Stegeman, 1430 High School Road – spoke about impacts versus significant impacts.
• Eleanor Guerin, 360 Brey Road - spoke against the FEIR and its inadequacies and feels her concerns have not been answered.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Cisco – feels it is very thorough and understandable. Feels that concerns have been addressed – supports.

Commissioner Byrd – commented that the previous public hearing and Commissioner Bañuelos’ and the neighbors request for more alternatives had not been met. Does not feel that it meets all the requirements.

Commissioner Poulsen- feels that all the questions were answered and supports.

Commissioner Bañuelos - Does not feel the responses were adequate; stated visual impacts were not complete and has concern of tree impacts. She is not comfortable with the underground garage and drainage issues and doesn’t feel alternatives are fully looked at; would like to see a smaller project and feels there should be a wildlife corridor. Commented that there should be a meeting of the minds with more neighborhood meetings. Would like a compromise and suggests the possibility of a recirculation. Doesn’t feel it is in the spirit of Brey Road and it doesn’t fit in with that neighborhood. Does not support.

Commissioner Faber – commented that it was their responsibility to look at the EIR and not the design of the project. Stated it is a very well written EIR, that it is adequate and complete; it contained enough analysis, all the issues been studied and comments were detailed. He supports the EIR.

Commissioner Carlstrom – Doesn’t see attempts made to satisfy neighbors concerns and doesn’t believe the project is good enough to certify yet. Would like more analysis of alternatives; a more collaborative process with neighbors and feels that the EIR does not adequately consider alternatives. Does not support certification at this time.

Chair Duggan – asked if the Design Review Board will be able to have the discretion to make it a better project. She wonders if there could be a way to explore other alternatives such as cutting down the height of the two villas and putting cottages in another layout to make the new expansion parcel look more like the other one. She asked the applicant if they would entertain prolonging the process and considering more alternatives.

Bill Rose responded that the secondary process of project approval would be able to identify concerns of the project itself and public hearings will be held and a number of modifications can occur through that process. With regards to alternatives, stated that the applicant requests more specific direction as to what that objective means as it relates to CEQA and significant impacts. 

Applicant representative Barbara Schussman responded that the EIR is to be certified before any action on the project. Once the City considers the project itself then they can consider what standards to apply in the zoning and design review issues but those things are not before them at this time.

Commissioner Faber interjected that if they can agree that the proper work has been done on the EIR perhaps that will send a strong signal to the applicants of some of the things that they may be looking for in the future as far as design review goes.

Commissioner Byrd commented that he feels that issues raised with regards to alternatives does focus on the EIR and there were not a sufficient number of alternatives.

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11553:  RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE SPRING LAKE VILLAGE EXPANSION AND ANNEXATION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – FILE NUMBER MNP07-025

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(4)

(Cisco, Duggan, Faber, Poulsen)

NOES:

(3)

(Bañuelos, Byrd, Carlstrom)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

10

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – REZONING – STONY POINT PLAZA – 711 STONY POINT ROAD – Application to amend the Policy Statement for the Stony Point Plaza Planned Development 80-001 Zoning District – File Number REZ10-004

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Carlstrom – no new disclosures

Commissioner Faber – no new disclosures

Commissioner Bañuelos – no new disclosures

Commissioner Poulsen – no new disclosures

Commissioner Cisco – had a brief meeting with the applicant

Commissioner Byrd – no new disclosures

Chair Duggan – no new disclosures

Planner, Bill Rose gave the staff report

Applicant, Lance Straub, Weingarten Realty gave a presentation.

Public Hearing:

• Lew Lawson, 718 W Jasmine Circle – thanked the board and everyone involved to work out a solution.
• June Michaels, resident of Casa del Sol – spoke about mitigating noise for the last 6 years and stated that none of this had been addressed. She also stated that she was not privy to the information in the new MOU; doesn’t want change in the zoning as it takes away their voice.
• Carolyn Mays, Board Treasure of Casa del Sol HOA – thanked Weingarten and the City for the outcome and stated there would be a new sound wall.
• Robert Cantu, 2560 Laguna Road – president of North Coast Builders – encouraged approval of the rezoning.

Applicant responded to the public hearing

Steven Butler, attorney for Weingarten also replied to the public hearing regarding concerns of noise.

Commissioners Discussion ensued: 

Commissioner Cisco – is in support stating the results were positive and felt that all the concerns were addressed from the neighbors.

Commissioner Byrd –is also pleased with the new MOU and the meetings the applicant had but is concerned with the language in the MOU that limits the tenant’s voice. He also stated concern with zoning changes that limit the required Use Permit process.

Commissioner Poulsen – supports, feels it is a win-win for everyone.

Commissioner Bañuelos – pleased with the meetings that took place, still is concerned with the MOU stating that the voice of the tenants will be limited; would like more assurance that neighbors will have input.

Commissioner Faber – concurs with Commissioner Cisco’s comments and stated the Home Owners Association is the channel for owners to use.

Commissioner Carlstrom – feels it is a great example of the applicant listening to neighbors; would like to know if the applicant is unable to receive the permitting for the sound wall that the entire MOU will be null and void and wonders what the ramification of that would be; supports the application.

Chair Duggan – also feels this was the best recourse and is in support.

Commissioner Cisco – Commented regarding the MOU and the non-opposition clause that the Board cannot oppose the rezoning of the amended policy statement; she doesn’t think there is anything that restricts it if there are items under the CG Zoning that still require a Conditional Use Permit or a Minor Use Permit, that they still go through the same process and the tenants have a voice for that.

Bill Rose stated that was his understanding as well and the MOU is with the Board of Directors and doesn’t preclude the residents from being able to speak. Also, using the CG Zoning Use Tables doesn’t remove discretion. There are a number of uses that will still require both Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits which would come before the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Poulsen made a motion and Commissioner Cisco seconded to approve Resolution 11549:  RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL REZONING BY AMENDMENT OF THE STONY POINT PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 80-001 (PD) POLICY STATEMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 711, 741, 771 STONY POINT ROAD AND 2001, 2025, 2055 SEBASTOPOL ROAD – FILE NUMBER REZ10-004

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

(Bañuelos, Byrd, Carlstrom, Cisco, Duggan, Faber, Poulsen)

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

11.

PUBLIC HEARING – TENTATIVE MAP – COUNTY MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION – 1180 FULTON ROAD – Application to subdivide an existing 25.16 acre site into a one lot airspace condominium to convert the 178 space mobile home park from a rental park to a resident ownership park – File Number MAJ06-046

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Carlstrom – spoke with a neighbor

Commissioner Bañuelos – visited the site

Commissioner Poulsen –visited the site

Commissioner Cisco – visited the site prior but did not revisit

Commissioner Byrd – visited the site

Chair Duggan – did not revisit the site but received a phone message from the home owners attorney

Planner Erin Morris gave the staff report.

Applicant, Dave Spangenberg gave a presentation.

Public Hearing:

• William Constantine, Attorney for the Country Mobile Home Owners Association – spoke with regards to Mr. Spangerberg’s letter, the Sequoia case quotes El Dorado as still being relevant that there is no minimum level of resident support but that portion of the case was only describing what had occurred however a year later when AV930 was adopted was when the requirement of residents survey was put in.
• Philip Dion, 132 Winchester Drive – President of the HOA – is opposed due to the inability to afford to buy their lots
• Roger McConnell, 156 Shoreham Way – opposes stating the owners and their attorneys have refused to tell them the prices that the lots will sell for or give them any guarantees that they will be affordable.
• Bill Sleeth, 176 Yorkshire Drive – residents of Country Mobile Home – opposed due to loss of low income housing, buying a small expensive lot under their home is not rational and will be more than their homes are worth
• Dawn Wright, 54 Norfolk Drive – also is opposed stating seniors on a fixed income huge increases in rent will destroy their lives and they would not be able to sell or realize any investment in their home which is their only security
• Suzanne Angeo, 58 Norfolk Drive - is opposed stating that the landowner has never disclosed lot prices but they believe that he will sell the lots for $150,000-200,000 each which is not affordable.  

Applicant responded to the public hearing – stating that the court is what should be considered.

Commissioner Poulsen asked the City Attorney to weigh in on the subject.

Assistant Attorney Mike Casey responded that their office had looked at this issue; that they can exercise some discretion as staff is suggesting. He stated they believe the Commission is allowed to consider the results of the resident survey and that it’s in the Commission’s purview to consider whether or not the conversion is bonafide.

Applicant responded to Mike Casey’s comments stating the real question of whether or not it’s a bonafide conversion is a court question not a city question.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Poulsen – doesn’t see the results in support with only 5% supporting it on the survey; he also referred to the un-codified portion not being a bonafide conversion; supports the staff decision to deny.

Commissioner Cisco – also supports staff decision about it not being a bonafide conversion.

Commissioner Byrd – supports the staff decision stating the survey results, information that was not provided to the owners in regards to land value or potential rents, a majority of the residents being on fixed income, and undocumented information that was provided to the residents; will support staff’s recommendation.

Commissioner Carlstrom – supports the staff decision stating that the government code is very clear; that the residents indicate that the applicant has no intention of make the units affordable to any existing residents, many of the residents will become displaced; doesn’t want to make a community of seniors homeless; the legislative history of the general code indicates that they have no obligation to approve sham conversions and that the survey indicates that the residents do not support.

Commissioner Bañuelos – also supports the denial; agrees with Commissioner Carlstrom about displacing seniors.

Chair Duggan – agrees with fellow commissioners’ comments and supports staffs position to deny.

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11550: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA DENYING THE COUNTRY MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION TENTATIVE MAP LOCATED AT 1180 FULTON ROAD – FILE NUMBER MAJ06-046 

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(6)

(Bañuelos, Byrd, Carlstrom, Cisco, Duggan, Poulsen)

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(1)

(Faber)

ABSENT:

(0)

12.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP – SOUTHWEST ESTATES – 533 BELLEVUE AVENUE – Subdivide 12.94 acres into 48 single-family lots and develop 48 single-family homes with a designated remainder of 4.51 acres for future medium density residential development – File Number MJP01-030 

Ex-Parte Disclosures:

Commissioner Bañuelos – no new disclosures

Commissioner Faber – drove by the site and spoke with the owners representative

Commissioner Carlstrom – spoke to a neighbor

Commissioner Poulsen – no new disclosures

Commissioner Cisco – no new disclosures

Commissioner Byrd – spoke with someone from Ryder Homes

Chair Duggan – visited the site and spoke with someone from Ryder Homes  

Planner Erin Morris gave the staff report.

Brief discussion between Commissioner Faber and City Engineer Tony Cabrera regarding circulation.

Director Charles Regalia interjected that a special tax district has already been formed for all city boundaries.

Commissioner Byrd asked about the tax district and why we take them one at a time.

There was more discussion between commissioners and Charles Regalia regarding the reason for a special tax district with Charles Regalia stating an example could be that there may be a sewer facility that needs maintenance and there is no Home Owners Association but by using a special tax district to collect taxes the maintenance of that facility is paid for – it’s a voluntary action. He further stated that later City Council decided they needed a broader funding source for police and fire and that’s when they adopted another phase of the special tax district that any new development that comes in has to annex to the special tax district to pay those fees.

Applicant, Dave Hunter of Ryder Homes, had no presentation but stated he is available to answer questions.

Public Hearing:

• Kevin McPheeters, 2601 Arrowhead Drive – does not support stating issues of density and the lack of police and fire for an additional 108 homes; would like the park to be supported; and traffic issues.
• Jo Anne Cohn, Bellevue Ranch resident – does not support commenting the lack of infrastructure, lack of parks, lack of police and fire, lack of water, commercial services, and code enforcement.

Applicant responded to the public hearing

There was a lengthy discussion between staff and the commissioners concerning fees, parks, and infrastructure relating to police and fire and how those things are paid for as part of the development.

Commissioners Discussion Ensued:

Commissioner Faber – stated that there was an EIR done for the Southwest Area Plan where numerous meetings took place to put together a master plan community; he stated that this project is a piece of the larger puzzle and that the vision was being executed per the Southwest Area Plan; believes that when it is built out there will be all the beautiful parks, fires station, and other needs; has no issues with the project.

Commissioner Poulsen – also concurs with Commissioner Faber stating it was another piece of the puzzle; as far as connectivity goes, it lines up the bike trails and streets and makes the area better; he also likes the fact that the City has already thought about not having enough infrastructure which is why they are adding the extra tax so that it isn’t a problem; supports the project.

Commissioner Bañuelos – concerned with over development in the southwest area; is concerned with the location of the project and stated it is dangerous for Elsie Allen students; does not support.

Commissioner Carlstrom – also is concerned with impacts stating CTS protections, would like to see more information as to where the protections will come into place, where alternative wetlands or habitat will be built and is concerned about public services being built; but, will support the project.

Commissioner Cisco – stated it is consistent with the General Plan and that it’s not their role to put a moratorium on building; it meets all the requirements; she supports the project.

Commissioner Byrd – likes the project but the overriding concerns of pushing ahead without the need for parks, police, and fire first is his concern and does not support.

Chair Duggan – stated because it was a part of the General Plan for the Southwest area she will support.

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11551: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS SOUTHWEST ESTATES, LOCATED AT 533 BELLEVUE AVENUE – FILE NUMBER CUP10-044

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(5)

(Carlstrom, Cisco, Duggan, Faber, Poulsen)

NOES:

(2)

(Bañuelos, Byrd)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to approve Resolution 11552: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING THE SOUTHWEST ESTATES TENTATIVE MAP LOCATED AT 533 BELLEVUE AVENUE – FILE NUMBER MAJ01-016

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(5)

(Carlstrom, Cisco, Duggan, Faber, Poulsen)

NOES:

(2)

(Bañuelos, Byrd)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT

(0)

Break

13.

PUBLIC HEARING – RETAIL CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES – Amendments to the Santa Rosa Design Guidelines, Section 3.3 Retail Centers and Commercial Districts as initiated by the City Council as an Emerging Issue

Chair Duggan Moved and Commissioner Poulsen seconded to continue to the next meeting due to the lateness of the hour.

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

(Bañuelos, Byrd, Carlstrom, Cisco, Duggan, Faber, Poulsen)

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT

(0)

14.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Duggan adjourned the meeting at 8:06 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, September 9, 2010.

PREPARED BY:

Anette Niewald, Recording Secretary

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Chuck Regalia, Executive Secretary

Vicki Duggan, Chair