1.

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Duggan called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.

2.

ROLL CALL

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

Commissioners absent:  Commissioner Bañuelos

3.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of September 9, 2010 were approved with revisions.

4.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

None

5.

DEPARTMENT REPORT

Clare Hartman stated that the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 17 due to Veteran’s Day.

6.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

None

7.

STATEMENTS OF ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONERS

None

8.

CONSENT AGENDA

None

9.

PUBLIC HEARING – CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – ELNOKA VILLAGE – 251 Elnoka Lane – Final Environmental Impact Report for proposed Elnoka Village project to develop 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 Faber visited the site.

Commissioner Carlstrom visited the site.

Commissioner Poulsen visited the site.

Commissioner Cisco did not revisit the site but has been to the site previously.

Commissioner Byrd visited the site and had some communication with Oakmont Village.

Chair Duggan did not revisit the site.

4:06:05 PM City Planner Erin Morris along with project manager for the applicant gave the staff report.

There was lengthy discussion regarding the discrepancy of the landscape plans and visuals.

Public Hearing:

• Bob Chapman, Board of Directors of Oakmont Village Association – spoke about findings of significant and unavoidable impacts of scenic vistas and blocking views of scenic resources that were found in the DEIR and feels that these have not been satisfactorily mitigated for.
• Kathleen Connelly, Oakmont Village Association – spoke about the finding under AES-3 and the lack of changes to the main project with regard to mass and height.
• Wally Schilp, 252 Belhaven Court – spoke in opposition stating the discrepancies in the General Plan and the Zoning Code with regard to Policy HA4.
• Ken Reese, 6350 Channel Drive – spoke about sewer lines being put in too close to his well; opposed.
• Bill Mabry, Applicant for Oakmont Village – addressed the sewer line replacement program that was mentioned by the previous speaker stating that it is not a part of this project at all. He also clarified issue of visuals with regard to the landscape plan.
• Scot Stegeman, on behalf of the applicant – stated the issues of aesthetics of the road view and hilltop are subjective and a judgment call as they are goals; he also stated that new data that comes in that reduces impacts does not justify a recirculation; with regard to “designed in context” doesn’t mean they have to be comparable in size and scale to the surrounding buildings it only needs to be assessed in the context to what is around it which was done; also stated that the EIR, not the project, is what is before them.

Public Hearing was closed.

Commissioner Byrd asked for a response to Mr. Schilp’s comments regarding Policy HA4.

The consultant responded that they looked at it from the perspective of consistency with the General Plan and believe it is consistent with the General Plan, the other component deals more with design and they believe the policy is addressed in the City’s Design Guidelines of how the design of the proposed development will fit into the neighborhood.

Erin Morris also responded and confirmed that is how they looked at that policy and that the FEIR represents the staff and the environmental consultants’ best effort to explain how HA4 applies to the policy.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Poulsen – stated that when the project comes back to them will be the time to deal with some of the issues of the project design; he does not have issues with the EIR

Commissioner Cisco – stated issues with the unreadable site plan and the visual simulations, she commented that the drastic shift without a lot of clarifying language about what views were being protected in making the significant and unavoidable impact determination to now less than significant, feels the project description is falling apart with issues of trees and landscaping and feels if they certify, it could subject to attack. She stated she wants to be able to tell through the visual simulations and the language of the EIR how those impacts are reduced. She further stated it is a density issue as it is up against other neighborhoods and that the design and how it looks is going to have impact; the better the simulations are and the more accurate they are will help; would like more clarification of what the project really is and how it’s going to look; doesn’t like how the FEIR is organized; the appendices are not in paper form and one of the appendix documents is about a different project.

Commissioner Byrd – also had issues with visual simulations and the General Plan Policy HA4 with regard to density and being consistent with the preservation of other neighborhoods; also is concerned with the lack of traffic collision data and long term analysis for the city and cumulative impacts; does not support certification.

Commissioner Carlstrom – likes the project stating how the city has been called to develop with mixed use and increased density in creative areas with an influx of affordable housing; doesn’t feel that it is black and white with regards to HA4 and in commented that in very recent meetings as a commission they have approved projects with much higher density next to residential homes; she likes the applicants responsiveness to a majority of the neighborhood concerns such as the setback, additional screening, stop lights, impacts that were considered, and the alternatives that were considered.

Commissioner Faber – stated that the FEIR was not done well; aesthetic impacts, screening west of Elnoka Lane, documents and visuals are not correct; does not support certification.

Chair Duggan – also agreed with Commissioners Cisco and Faber and does not feel comfortable certifying tonight.

Clare Hartman stated that staff will bring a revised resolution that does not support certification of the FEIR at the next meeting. She urged the commission to be as specific as possible with regards to what elements they feel are deficient.

Additional Comments by the Commissioners:

Commissioner Byrd: Aesthetics, simulations and massiveness that appears in the simulations; the approach to land use consistency with regards to HA4; traffic information; wants collision data.

Commissioner Cisco: project description needs to be clear and relatable to visual simulations; a discussion in the aesthetics portion about what actually was considered significant and unavoidable or a better tracking from the draft to the final that they are now mitigating with the landscaping.

Commissioner Byrd: also added other projects beyond 2011 needed to be considered as to what they would look like with regard to traffic and widening Hwy 12.

Commissioner Faber: main concern is credibility; he doesn’t see back up for the mitigations and how it relates to the previous EIR; there is not an accurate site plan or landscape plan; the simulations need to be accurate including how the stop lights work including the traffic patterns and turning lanes.

Chair Duggan: readable site plan.

Break

10

PUBLIC HEARING – MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS – The Bicycle Pedestrian master Plan (BPMP) serves as the official policy and planning document addressing the planning of facilities and programs to enhance the role of walking and bicycling as viable and appropriate transportation alternatives to driving. This effort updates the following areas from the 2001 BPMP: analysis of the existing conditions, bicycle and pedestrian collision analysis, recommended network, bicycle education and safety programs, and implementation plan.

Transit Planner Fabian Favila gave the staff report

Public Hearing:

• Dr. Jerome Chin, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital Neurologist – recently did detailed analysis for the last six years on bike accidents and advocated the use of helmets as lifesaving; he also encouraged there be added language in section 4 that talks about bicycle helmets to include some of the findings from his study.
• Patricia Arnold, Manager of Oakmont Village Association, 6575 Oakmont Drive – stated that her board has not had time to look at documents and spoke of issues of bike/pedestrian paths in their area, wants more time to prepare comments.
• Lynda Angell, Historic Railroad Square Association – commented on calming traffic at Wilson Street and recommended 4-way stops at 6^th and Wilson and 8^th and Wilson; supports the West 6^th Street share-the-road from Wilson to Pierson; she also stated with regards to the Wilson Corridor from 3^rd to 9^th Streets that impacts to their merchants in losing 95 parking spaces would be devastating to existing businesses and discourage new businesses from coming to the area. 
• Joe Lazavigna, Wild Oak HOA – objected to route 231 of the proposal and read the letter that was submitted to the commission earlier in the day.
• Charlotte Thomas, 124 West 6^th Street – concerned with loss of parking and opposed to eliminating parking.
• Lea Barron-Thomas, 306 Boyce Street – spoke about Class 2 bike lanes on West 6^th stating she doesn’t know if that will make it safer or easier and commented it needs to be studied more; feels there should be a full EIR and not just a Mitigated Negative Declaration; stated that traffic calming measures should be considered; doesn’t feel class 2 bike lanes will be safe.
• Pablo Maciel, 520 Wilson Street – spoke about parking being essential on Wilson Street and is concerned with the removal of parking. 
• Allen Thomas, 306 Boyce Street – feels the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate with regards to West 6^th Street; he also commented that today was the last day to submit questions but yet the commission is being asked to act on the environmental document; also stated that there haven’t been enough alternatives such as bike boulevards, keeping the parking in place, and putting in traffic diverters discussed; he also commented on the Wilson Street corridor that there is a plan for a class 1 bike lane in the SMART plan.
• Jennifer Watson, 121 10^th Street – stated she is a cyclist and does not support bike lanes and would prefer to share the road with cars as it is safer.
• Roger Martial Praplan, LaGare Restaurant – spoke of parking issues with respect to the possibility of the loss of parking;
• Christine Culver, Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition – Chapter 1, Policy 4.1-2 wants language changed about bike racks with follow through on how they are installed; 4.1-7 – event organizers, change language to required organizers with 1000 or more attendees to provide valet parking; 6.3 – add complete bicycle friendly application; goal 7 regarding policies – concerned that staff hasn’t followed through with desired direction of the Board in their recommendations and feels they should have more responsibility than just assisting staff and wants to move the Board to Public Works; Table 2.1-1 – wants  to make sure that Wilson Street can accommodate bicycles appropriately; Table 2.1-3 – would like to adjust table to separate under 16 year old riders from the rest; Chapter 3 – Jennings Ave. was removed and would like that put back in as part of the plan; recommends adopting the federal policy directive of complete streets until the California guidelines are available; under bicycle facilities – please remove the paragraph that was taken from a list serve; stated there was weak support of staff supporting class 2 and that there are many studies that show they keep bicycles and autos where they belong; 3.9 – please remove 2^nd paragraph as it doesn’t recognize other elements; information about bicycle boulevards was removed and needs to be added back in.
• Cheryl Itaumura, 6^th Street Playhouse – opposes the removal of parking on West 6^th Street.
• Carol Dean, resident of West End Neighborhood – spoke of concerns of leaving the class 2 designation on West 6^th Street; feels there are other methods of accommodating bikes; would like to see Chapter 6 completed.
• Bill Butcher, owner of yoga studio on 7^th and Wilson – concerned with the loss of parking.
• Diana Curtain, Chops Teen Club – opposed to the removal of parking.

Public Hearing Closed

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Cisco – likes the thoroughness of the plan; favors keeping Wilson St. as Class 3 because of pedestrians and parking feels that a sharrow would be perfect; West 6^th St. should be vetted out more as there are many concerns as it is an event area; she stated she is not prepared to move on zoning code changes tonight; feels that education will be a big part of the plan.

Commissioner Byrd – feels it’s a time to get it right stating issues of Wilson St., 6^th St., Jennings Ave. and parking are all things that the community wants to share and participate in; concerned that BPAB hasn’t voted on the plan yet; does not feel he could vote on the zoning code changes as he feels that the BPAB should also look at that before they vote on it.

Commissioner Poulsen – has concern with other streets in the city and the loss of parking; would like to know exactly which streets will be losing parking.

Commissioner Faber – also has concerns about loss of parking; concerns of area at Oakmont/Wild Oak and the legal issues there; also doesn’t see why sharrows couldn’t work at Wilson and 6^th St.

Commissioner Carlstrom – stated that education is going to be a major component; would like to explore the sharrow option at Wilson and 6^th Street;  also would like to see issue of Wild Oak resolved.

Chair Duggan – stated that the first priority for the public right of way should be to move people by whatever mode they choose; stated that if we want people on bikes then we need to provide bike infrastructure; commented on the downtown cut-through through the mall for bikes and pedestrians should be considered in the plan; would like to see provision for a bicycle parking fund in the zoning code; there should be a provision for call buttons  for overhead flashers for cyclists; is okay with class 3 with places like Wilson St. but there should be something in the document for enhanced class 3 where they wouldn’t go in without sharrows; bicycle boulevards should be reinstated; asks if there is a map of the sidewalks that are missing that can be incorporated into the plan for pedestrians and would also love to see policy for pedestrians that all four crossing are striped with crosswalks; asked about zoning code change and the requirements for college and trade schools being the same as other schools; Route No. 1 on Fulton Rd. the east side of roadway needs a Class 2 lane;  there should be enhanced signage at the end of the Joe Rodota Trail where cyclist cross the roadway; there should also be signage on Sebastopol Rd. prior to the corner at Fulton Rd.;  would like to retain Wilson as Class 2 until SMART path alignment has been nailed down; Route 9 the bike crossing at Talbot and 4^th St., doesn’t approve crossing there without a warning flashing crossing and thinks between Clyde and Alderbrook are better locations; on West 6^th  asks if there is the potential for reversed back in diagonal parking; wants to retain Jennings as Bike Boulevard; would like enhanced flasher at Dutton to provide entry to SMART trail; Route 6, the Brush Creek trail has no crossing at Montecito and feels a flasher to cross is needed; trail crossing on Route 73, the Joe Rodota at Stony Point needs enhancements or signage to alert drivers; with regards to pedestrians stated from Cobblestone to Chanate Ct. needs to be looked at from Parker Hill to Lewis with more enhancements; the Executive Summary on Pg 1 there needs to be updated information; Figure 1-1 doesn’t mention of creek trail that goes to Willowside and feels it should be added; discrepancy on Range/Guerneville/Dutton bikeway states the plan as having Guerneville Rd as not having bike lanes but it actually has Class 2 lanes; stated Prince Memorial Greenway as not being safe; Tables 3.1 for bike lanes and routes have discrepancies; also stated discrepancies on Table 5-6 for Mendocino; would be reluctant to pass without BPAB’s input.

There was brief discussion about continuing the item.  

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Byrd seconded to continue to December 9, 2010 in order to give staff time to respond to comments.

Break

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(6)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(1)

(Bañuelos)

11.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING –  CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – DENSITY BONUES ORDINANCE – Proposed revision of Zoning Code Section 20-31 providing for residential density bonus and developer incentives and concessions for development of affordable housing, senior housing, or child care facilities – File Number ST10-007

City Planner Lisa Kranz gave the staff report.

Public Hearing:

• David Grabill, Housing Advocacy Group – spoke about fast-tracking and concessions and whether a developer has to do 15% affordable or pay in lieu fees before they qualify for the concessions and incentives and Density Bonus; he stated State law says if they build affordable units in their project then they will get concessions or incentives; he hopes that requirement is not mandated as it is an incentive program to encourage builders to build affordable units on site.
• Bill Mabry, Oakmont Senior Living – has concerns over issues with density bonus and can’t see why we don’t implement state law regarding this; feels that it discourages the development community to build affordable projects; priority processing would be a great incentive.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Carlstrom – likes the additional concessions; and would like the additional language added from the staff report; with regard to priority processing, is concerned that it be right as opposed to concession but would be open to offering it as a concession to projects with less than 100% affordable housing.  

Commissioner Faber – also wants the optional language added; wants to encourage affordable housing; leans to the lower percentage to encourage affordable housing.

Commissioner Poulsen – wants the optional language and still thinks the priority processing should be included and not count it as an incentive.

Commissioner Cisco – would prefer to go with staff’s recommendation and wait to let the HAP process be worked out; likes the priority processing left as a concession.

Commissioner Byrd – feels it should be stronger to encourage developers to build on site.

Chair Duggan – likes the revised language and wants the optional language; feels the priority processing be a concession or incentive and not a right.

Lisa Kranz summarized that what the commission was recommending was the optional language to the council, and wishes to keep priority processing as an incentive or concession, but what is not clear is if there is any affordability associated with that priority processing as an incentive or concession.

After lengthy discussion about priority processing as an incentive and concession and to apply to only projects that are fully affordable, it was agreed that by right for density bonus, for any level of affordability at 20% very low and low, would receive fast-tracking with a mutual agreed upon schedule between the applicant and the city.

Commissioner Poulsen made a motion and Commissioner Byrd seconded to approve (with added optional language and changes to allow priority processing by right for 20% very low and low with a mutually agreed upon schedule between the city and the applicant) Resolution 11555: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISISN OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING PROVISION S OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915) AND REPLACING EXISTING CITY CODE CHAPTER 20-31

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(6)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(1)

(Bañuelos)

12.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Duggan adjourned the meeting at 8:18 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 Wednesday, November 17, 2010.

PREPARED BY:

Anette Niewald, Recording Secretary

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Chuck Regalia, Executive Secretary

Vicki Duggan, Chair