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 November 17, 2010 were approved with revisions.

4.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

None

5.

DEPARTMENT REPORT

None

6.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S REPORT

Commissioner Bañuelos reported that she attended the annual Planning Commission Conference at Sonoma State University.

7.

STATEMENTS OF ABSTENTION BY COMMISSIONERS

None

8.

CONSENT AGENDA

8.1

CONSENT ITEM – RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL  NOT ADOPT THE DRAFT SANTA ROSA AVENUE CORRIDOR PLAN – Santa Rosa Avenue from Sonoma Avenue to Highway 12 – File Number ST10-008

Planner, Lisa Kranz introduced the resolution. 

Public Hearing:

• Judy Kennedy, 620 Oak Street – thanked the commission along with Burbanks Gardens and Juilliard Park neighborhoods for their vote. She hopes that other Planning Commissions in the future will listen to your vote which says that if all the stakeholders are not being treated equally that the plan is not good enough.  

Commissioner Carlstrom stated she would be in support of substituting language that was provided by Judy Kennedy into the resolution. 

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Carlstrom seconded to approve (with alternative language) Resolution 11560: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT THE DRAFT SANTA ROSA AVENUE CORRIDOR PLAN- FILE NUMBER ST10-008

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

9

PUBLIC HEARING – HOUSING ELEMENT ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS – Zoning Code Amendments to implement the Santa Rosa General Plan 2020 Housing Element – File Number ST10-003

City Planner Jessica Jones gave the staff report

Public Hearing:

There were no speakers

Commissioners discussion ensued:

All commissioners expressed support.

Commissioner Cisco made a motion and Commissioner Byrd seconded to approve Resolution 11561: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-22.030, 20-23.030, 20-36.040 AND 20-40.020 AND ADD SECTION 20-42.190 CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE SANTA ROSA GENERAL PLAN 2035 – FILE NUMBER ST10-003

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

10.

PUBLIC HEARING – CERTIFICATION OF REVISED 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 Carlstrom – watched the video from the October meeting.

Commissioner Bañuelos – watched the video from the October meeting.

No other disclosures were made.

City Planner Erin Morris gave the staff report

Consultants for the applicant, John Voss and Trevor Macenski gave a presentation.

There was a brief discussion concerning trees that were being considered for mitigation and the size of the trees depicted in the simulation as well as future development for lot 14.

Public Hearing:

• Pat Amedeo, 7618 Oak Leaf Drive, Co-Chair of Oakmont Property Development Committee – spoke about the process that began in 2002 for the general plan review regarding insufficient acreage for low income housing stating that no study was ever made as to the effect of such zoning changes and requests that the commission refuse to certify the FEIR until this evaluation has been completed and incorporated into the FEIR.
• Jean Kapolchok, 843 2^nd Street – stated that the FEIR does not or could not represent all the concerns brought up at the last meeting; page 2.2 anticipates that this document will be before them and although comments from the October 14, meeting occurred after the official comment period the FEIR needs to include a procedural accounting of the commission’s actions in a specific identification of the concerns; she also does not understand how there can be a finding of compatibility of surrounding land.
• Wally Schilpp, 252 Belhaven Court – stated that policy HA4 has never been addressed and doesn’t see how it can be finalized without considering HA4.
• Scot Stegeman – stated the FEIR does not have to contain all additional comments; he summarized that the council legally decided that this would be designated as a housing opportunity site and they followed up and designated to the medium density residential zoning district; he further stated that with regard to HA4, it doesn’t require it be identical, the same mass or the same scale it requires that they proceed in the context of the surrounding neighborhood and the fact that the decision was already made it wouldn’t be identical when they made it affordable stating Oakmont sized houses and lots and density are incompatible with delivering low income housing.
• Kathleen Connelly, Vice President of Oakmont Village Association – commented about the proposed stoplight and her concern of two stoplights being so close together.

Consultant Trevor Macenci responded to issues brought up in the public hearing and answered questions from the commission.

Assistant City Attorney, Molly Dillon stated that the statement in the FEIR concerning the dates of consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council were inaccurate and they need to be corrected. She also stated that the resolution as proposed regarding recommendation to the council also needs to reflect the fact that the Planning Commission considered this item on October 14 and is now considering tonight.

Commissioners discussion ensued:

Commissioner Faber – stated the issued with HA4 was difficult, would like to hear from other commissioners before making a decision.

Molly Dillon interjected that it is pointed out in the EIR that it is a special project because it’s a density bonus project and has an affordable housing component which under state law has some restrictions on potential modifications that could be imposed on the project.

Commissioner Cisco – stated that she was a part of the process when the city designated it to medium density in the general plan update and that area was chosen because the way the PD had been formulated and that there was already cluster housing and a higher density project envisioned there, when the rezoning came forward it was difficult to break apart the planned development zoning because of the acreage there; she further commented that although the FEIR is not organized, the concerns that were brought forward at the last meeting were addressed; feels it is adequate and will support.

Commissioner Poulsen also agrees that all questions have been addressed and will support.

Commissioner Byrd – stated concern about the number of cars, the existing traffic congestions and that those impact have not been addressed; traffic infrastructure impacts locally or regionally have not been addressed; data that could have been used with regard to average daily traffic, peak hours, peak month and mile post information from CalTrans is available but was not in the comments; has concerns about air quality, noise and aesthetics; further stated that traffic speeds and traffic volumes were not adequately addressed; there was no response to short term/long term significant impacts of Hwy 12 with regard to traffic; agrees that the project meets the need for housing but is still concerned with HA4 and will not support.

Commissioner Banuelos – stated that all of the concerns were addressed; traffic will always be a problem there; feels the pros outweigh the cons and will support.

Commissioner Carlstrom – stated that the applicant met the good faith effort and sufficiently addressed the environmental concerns and provides enough information for the decision makers to judge the project; she stated that concerns brought up at the last meeting were: view simulations were inconsistent, not enough trees or were not sure where the trees were going to be, and the appendices were difficult to access because they were on a CD; she stated that between the DEIR and the FEIR the applicant has made significant changes to the project and considered alternatives and mitigated impacts, provided the pictures, the trees, added a stop light and provided an appendices; in addition the staff was against the EIR and now the staff favors which indicates independent judgment; regarding HA4 stated it is not the responsibility of the EIR to address legal issues; will support certification.

Commissioner Faber – stated that the consistency was being driven by density and the density is the general plan but there is another consistency with aesthetics and architecture and feels there is a disconnect there; stated the applicant perhaps have been the victim of a “not so great presentation” and EIR; cannot support.

Chair Duggan – stated that the revised document has addressed all of the concerns; stated that the traffic light will be a big addition; will support.

City Planner Erin Morris stated that verbiage needed to be added to the resolution indicating that this was before the commission in October and was continued to tonight’s meeting.

Commissioner Carlstrom made a motion and Commissioner Banuelos seconded to approve (with additional verbiage) Resolution 11562: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE ELNOKA VILLAGE PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – FILE NUMBER MJP08-013

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(5)

(Banuelos, Carlstrom, Cisco, Duggan, Poulsen)

NOES:

(2)

(Byrd, Faber)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

11.

CONTINUED 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. 

Project Planner, Fabian Favila gave the staff report. 

Public Hearing:

• Christine Culver, Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition – stated that the plan has removed planned bicycle lanes and bicycle boulevard that are key players in the City’s goals to reduce greenhouse gases; feels the plan should look beyond an auto centric view and that we need to start making it easier for people to get around without using a car; she Wilson Street should continue to be Class 2 bike lanes from 6^th Street north and suggests putting a red box around it so that nothing would happen there until the time it became feasible; She would like to keep Class 2 bike lanes included on 6^th Street; South A Street should not have bike lanes removed; strongly feels Jennings Avenue needs to be a bike boulevard and it was requested by the BPAB.
• Barbara Moulton, 1354 Yulupa Avenue – stated that Jennings Avenue should remain a bicycle boulevard as it’s the only east west through route and further stated that diverters are not a required element of bicycle boulevards.
• Allen Thomas, 306 Boyce Street – spoke about W 6^th Street and 6^th Street and feels that this area should be a shared road and possibly a bike boulevard and there hasn’t been studies done to recommend a Class 2; he also wonders why there isn’t a Class 1 going across the SMART property; further commented that diagonal parking behind Class 2 is a disaster and hopes that Class 3 is put in; would like a study like that which was done on Wilson Street.
• Leah Barron-Thomas, 306 Boyce Street – stated that a study needs to be done regarding 6th Street and West 6^th Street; she stated that Class 2 does not represent consensus; should be left as shared road until a study can be done; encourages the commission to not make the decision now.
• Betsy Hall, 123 6th Street – stated concern about tearing down houses to make room for bike lanes.
• Nick Caston, 110 5^th Street – is in favor of maintaining plans that were started in 2001; stated that when the station area plan is put in there will be a need for greater pedestrian and bicycle safeguards in the area; stated that by adding bike lanes you make it safer for pedestrians as well and that Wilson Street does not have adequate site lines to be able to handle the pedestrian traffic that comes with the increased density that is planned; 6^th Street should be the connector to the greenway so it should be kept; also suggests changing the philosophy of the master plan that it should read “no Class 3 bike sign is better than a dangerous Class 3 bike sign.” He would like to also put back in the pedestrian and the cycling safety measures for the important areas both on Jennings and in the downtown Railroad Square area.
• Lynda Angell, Railroad Square – spoke about Wilson Street, 6th Street and West 6th Street and supports Class 3 on these streets; parking is needed for businesses there; she also stated SMART has not provided enough parking so offsite parking is important.
• Diana Curtain, Director for CHOPS – is not convinced that Class 2 is the safest option and would like a more comprehensive study done to see what the safest option is; West 6^th Street should remain a shared road would ensure its safety; she expressed safety concerns for neighbors and traffic issues during events; requests that these parameters be considered in the commissioner recommendation for the safest plan for West 6^th Street and a detailed study with input by all the stakeholders before the final decision is made. In the interim she requests that the current Class 3 be kept in place.
• Sheryl Lee Tamura, Managing Director of 6^th Street Playhouse – West 6^th street should be studied further and believes that a Class 3 shared road is the proper designation for the area and should remain until a further detailed study has been completed.

Commissioners’ discussion ensued:

Commissioner Byrd – stated that there was one road from Guerneville Road that intersects with Jennings and would like to retain Jennings as a bike boulevard, regarding 6^th Street and Wilson Street, feels that area is in flux due to the housing issue and SMART and would like to see that area be studied or remain Class 3 Sharrows; Wilson Street needs further study because is it will be a connector from the possible SMART station.

Commissioner Cisco – commented that it was a much better plan; believes that Jennings Avenue should be kept as a bike boulevard with perhaps a red box around it; supports the Class 3 Sharrows for Wilson; West 6^th Street is more difficult as they are in a hurry to receive funding, not sure if Class 2 will make it safer but it appears the way the volumes are now that a Class 3 on an interim basis and/or a red box with staff notations that further study is needed; feels the zoning code text amendments needs to be postponed for now as we don’t know yet if they compete with the new amendments for economic development and to give staff time to do the analysis.

Commissioner Poulsen – stated that issues for him are parking removal and how that effects businesses; likes that Wilson is shown as a Class 3; agrees that putting a red-box around West 6^th Street for possible further study; Jennings Avenue as proposed is fine; feels the zoning code amendments should be postponed; supports approving the plan.

Commissioner Carlstrom – Wilson Street, West 6^th and 6^th need further study but would like to keep as Class 3 for now but would like studies for SMART linked to this; Jennings should be restored to a bike boulevard; also wonders why a Class 1 wasn’t considered across the SMART property; feels philosophy changes to language needs to be considered; would like to see more opportunity for the community to be involved as well as the BPAB comments be addressed; also favors postponing zoning code amendments.

Commissioner Faber – favors Wilson Street as a Class 3; would like to leave South A Street as is; commented that there needs to be flexibility at the 6^th Street and West 6^th Street areas with maybe a temporary sharrow and a red-box, and work with the neighbors; Jennings should remain as a bike boulevard; favors postponing the zoning code amendments.

Commissioner Banuelos – commended the staff for the work done; agrees  that Jennings Avenue be a bike boulevard; agreed that Wilson Street needs further study but for now enhanced Class 3 with sharrows would be best; 6^th and West 6^th Streets need some kind of compromise and perhaps a study should be done with maybe a red-box; agreed that any existing bike lanes should not be removed; also believes the philosophy statement should be changed to a more positive statement; she also agreed that the zoning code be postponed.

Chair Duggan also agreed about the philosophy statement; the paragraph on page 3-6 about bicycle lanes being safer should be struck as she feels it is editorializing and doesn’t add to the discussion; she would like to add back in the strikeout on page 3-12 under bicycle; Wilson Street is the most dangerous street for bikes in the city therefore cannot support Class 3 for that street, believes there needs to be sharrows or other roadway markings indicating to motorists that cyclists are present; South A needs to be retained as a bike lane; supports keeping 6^th and West 6^th as a Class 3 but when SMART goes in a Class 2 will probably be needed; supports postponing the zoning code amendments; also commented that on West 6^th and 6^th that with Class 2 parking would be gained and bike lanes behind conventional diagonal parking is dangerous but not with reverse parking; feels Jennings Avenue should be retained as a bike boulevard.

There was further discussion between staff and the commission to postpone the zoning code amendment resolution and to revise the resolution for adopting the Master Plan and bring it back for a consent item at the next meeting.

Commissioner Byrd made a motion and Commissioner Cisco seconded to approve Resolution 11563: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN.

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

Commissioner Byrd made a motion and Commissioner Cisco seconded to approve Resolution 11564: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A DOWNTOWN STATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ADOPTION OF THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN.

The motion carried with the following vote:

AYES:

(7)

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

NOES:

(0)

ABSTENTIONS

(0)

ABSENT:

(0)

12.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Duggan adjourned the meeting at 7:15 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, January 13, 2011.

PREPARED BY:

Anette Niewald, Recording Secretary

ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Chuck Regalia, Executive Secretary

Vicki Duggan, Chair