Loading...
2020/06/11 Planning Commission Minutes Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Rohnert Park Thursday, June 11, 2020 6:00 P.M. 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Blanquie called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Chairperson Blanquie. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Daniel A. Blanquie, Chairperson John E. Borba, Commissioner Gerard Giudice, Commissioner Susan Haydon, Vice Chair Marc Orloff, Commissioner Absent: None Staff attending via Zoom Video Communications: Director of Development Services, Mary Grace Pawson, Planning Manager, Jeff Beiswenger, Planner III, Jenna Garcia, and Planner I, Suzie Azevedo. Staff present: Recording Secretary, Jennifer Sedna, and IS Tech, Michael Son. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR - ADOPTION OF MINUTES 5.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Special Meeting June 4, 2020. ACTION: Moved/seconded (Orloff /Guidice) to approve the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Special Meeting June 4, 2020. Motion carried by the following unanimous (5-0-0) roll call vote: AYES: Blanquie, Borba, Giudice, Haydon, and Orloff; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None. 6. AGENDA ITEMS 6. 1 PUBLIC HEARING – TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – File No. PLSD20 -0002 – Stephen Miller/Signature Homes – Consideration of Resolution No. 2020-011 approving a two-year extension of a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the subdivision of property (commonly known as the Gee Property) located south of Keiser Avenue and within the University District Specific Plan Area, consisting of 42-single-family residential lots. Planner I, Suzie Azevedo, presented the item. Recommended Action(s): continue the Public Hearing to a date certain at the June 25 Planning Commission Meeting. Public Hearing Opened. No Comment. Public Hearing Closed. Applicant Steve Miller from Signature Homes joined the meeting and stated that they are trying to get clarification to modifications on one of the conditions. ACTION: Moved/seconded (Orloff/Borba) to continue the Public Hearing to a date certain at the June 25 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried by the following unanimous (5-0-0) roll call vote: AYES: Blanquie, Borba, Giudice, Haydon, and Orloff; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None. 6.2 PUBLIC HEARING – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN AMDENDMENTS FOR THE SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN– File Nos. PLGP20 -0001, PLSP20-0001 & PLDP20-0001 – Penn Grove Mountain LLC – Consideration of the following Resolutions: 1. Resolution 2020-012 Recommending to the City Council approval of amendments to the text of the General Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). 2. Resolution 2020-013 Recommending to the City Council approval of an amended specific plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). 3. Resolution 2020-014 Recommending to the City Council approval of a revised Development Area Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). Planning Manager, Jeff Beiswenger, presented the item and answered questions from the Commission, including the pattern of reducing or eliminating commercial development from this and other development projects in the City; what was originally envisioned for the 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial space; daily trips of commercial vs. affordable development; the City’s affordable RHNA goals; if the proposal is originating from the City or the Developer, and that it is an economic concern of the Developer to switch the commercial to affordable housing; that recent and current homeowners would see maps of the area with the commercial area and base their purchase decisions on that map; clarity on the conditions of approval for a building permit that there is an affordable housing agreement with the Developer; the timing required for the Developer applying for the affordable credits; why the projects are being reviewed by the Commission so near the deadline for the credits; clarity on the statement of “…unlikely to be developed as commercial…” in the staff report; the timeline and distance of the development of the SOMO commercial area; providing further clarity on the vehicle miles traveled in the traffic analysis for commercial vs. affordable development; and, providing further clarity on vehicle miles traveled or daily trips created by additional residents to city center commercial areas not relieved by neighborhood commercial as proposed. Recommended Action(s): Adopt the following resolutions: 1. Resolution 2020-012 Recommending to the City Council approval of amendments to the text of the General Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). 2. Resolution 2020-013 Recommending to the City Council approval of an amended specific plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). 3. Resolution 2020-014 Recommending to the City Council approval of a revised Development Area Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). Jenna Garcia, Planner III, joined the meeting and answered questions from the Commission, including details on the affordable funds from the City; details of the tax credits to finance affordable housing; and details on the $1 million tax credits available to the City. Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services, joined the meeting and clarified the condition of approval with the Developer regarding affordable housing requirements. Applicant Tim Massey from Willowglen joined the meeting and stated that the opportunity for these credits presented itself at the last minute; that the original 36 units are being done in conjunction with Burbank Housing and that the additional 36 units proposed would also be done in conjunction with Burbank Housing; and answered questions from the Commission, including if the funding isn’t obtained what the alternative plan is; the current status of the development already approved; and, if an additional traffic study was performed by the Developer. Public Hearing Opened. Recording Secretary Sedna read comments submitted by the following: Melissa Ryan, Jeffrey Rubenstein, Kimberly Antonelli, Dan Mahoney, Louis I. Greenblat, Mary Joan Mahoney, Iliani Matisse, Ryan Trabert, Debra Greenblat, Don Trabert, Catherine and Gene Stewart-Chatman, Jaime Trabert, Dennis Viera, Monte Cimino, Julie Royes, Ben & Elyse Anderson, Elizabeth Blevins, Iclea Lopez, Susan DiGiampietro, Barrett Hollingsworth, Michele Salazar, Anne Richards, Brent Oswald, and an anonymous W section resident, while sometimes expressing support for affordable housing, were opposed to the proposed addition of 36 units of affordable housing, elimination of the 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail space, and the resulting increased density and congestion in the Southeast Specific Plan area and surrounding roads. Many also felt there was inadequate notice of the proposed amendments from the Homeowner’s Association, the Developer, and the public hearing notice. Jackie Elward, Tiffany Cazares, Michela (Micki) Jones, Rosemary Mojica, Anne-Marie Rodriguez, Hugo Mata, Rebecca L. Sandoval Young, Matt Epstein, Adam Lam, Catherine Crotty from the Petaluma Family Resource Center, Fanny Lam, Mark Krug from Burbank Housing, Dev Goetschius from Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County, Matt Valkovic and an anonymous W section resident expressed general support of more affordable housing in the City to support diversity and allow residents who work in the City to also live in the City, and were specifically supportive of the proposed addition of 36 units of affordable housing in the Southeast Specific Plan. Public Hearing Closed. Staffmember Pawson rejoined the meeting and answered further questions from the Commission, including if there are any legal ramifications whereby the City is liable for this project; and if the City was able to restrict the affordable housing units to people who work or currently in the City. Staffmember Beiswenger rejoined the meeting and answered further questions from the Commission, including if the City considered also publishing the public notice in the Press Democrat; and what is anticipated on the site for the number of parking spaces per unit. Staffmember Garcia rejoined the meeting and answered further questions from the Commission, including further clarification on the City’s ability to restrict the affordable housing units to people who work and/or currently live in the City. Commissioner Orloff stated that, especially in today’s environment, that he firmly believes diversity is important, that unless there are issues with the outlay of the complex, with parking issues, width of the streets, etc.; that this type of housing is necessary in Rohnert Park, especially having been on the School Board and knowing the teachers have a hard time finding housing in the district, along with other employees of the District. Applicant Tim Massey rejoined the meeting to answer questions from the Commission, including parking issues; and the Chair’s request to respond to the commenters who are potentially being denied the commercial development. Vice Chair Haydon stated there was considerable, thoughtful comments for and against this item; that she absolutely supports the need for affordable housing and recognizes that it is a need in the City, the County and the State; that she is struggling with the change in use and at this time, when t as a community and as a Commission, they have worked hard on the General Plan listening to public and using good design principles in our neighborhoods. We are now being asked to change from good design that includes neighborhood commercial, trading an opportunity for funding of one need, to being asked to set aside that good design principle - for walkable neighborhoods and the accessible nearby commercial, to asking the residents to drive to another area, using another arterial to obtain goods and other community services; that she is struggling with another, repeated loss of mixed use. While she appreciates considering options when funds are available and understands the timing issue; that the Commission isn’t able to carry out and stick with the intent of mixed use in this really beautiful neighborhood and where it’s located in the City; and suggests City putting a tent sign at the park for improved public noticing. Commissioner Borba stated that he is supportive of affordable housing; that the City has worked hard towards the affordable housing goals, more so than most cities in the County; that the applicant mentioned this project was approved long ago, and has been worked on by the City with community participating and expressing their concerns; that the Commission cannot always approve things that are the easy items to build due to changing whims; that there are neighborhood centers that are fairly busy now but remained vacant when they were opened for a while until they were full, and that this is a trade-off the developers get with the City when they get permission to build homes and apartments with commercial districts available to help the citizens in those neighborhoods and now we’re being asked to change our minds at the last minute; that there seems to be four W section residents who expressed support of the project, everyone else was opposed to it or live in other sections or were from out of town; that there is no question that the City needs affordable housing; that there was a comment from the fireman whose wife works at Rancho Cotate the need to provide affordable housing for people who work in the City, the cops, teachers, restaurant workers, and wish more could be done for that; that even though many people voice their opposition, the Commission still has to take an approach that is not the popular approach that some have done for other projects but is currently torn; that as recently as yesterday that people who were at the development office were likely shown a diagram with a shopping component and were even told that; that he could remember when he bought his home in 1990 in M section that they were told there would be a grocery store, which they never got but they did eventually get a somewhat successful shopping center, due to entrepreneurial people like Commissioner Guidice, who want to open businesses in town and want to employ people in town and provide a living; that a happy medium has to be found and that there is already affordable housing going in this development and, that he is not sure it’s a good trade off; and, that he would like to hear the other Commissioners’ thoughts. Commissioner Guidice stated that he echoes some of Commissioner Borba’s conflicts and Vice Chair Haydon’s input; that this Commission has a long history of supporting affordable housing and workforce housing and that at the same time, as the City has advanced, and has considered other developments such as the downtown and Stadium Lands, that the City has tried to find that good blend and mix so that people don’t have to get out of their sections, so that it is more walkable, so that its closer and that’s important; that the City has done a very good job of reaching their affordable housing goals, especially for the low and very low, and is missing a little of the medium affordable but that is now what’s being proposed here; and, that he is struck by the nature and comments of residents of the W section opposed to this and that they were told there would be a commercial component to it and it adds charm and character to the community as Vice Chair Haydon mentioned. Chair Blanquie stated the residents in the W section were loud and clear about their concerns; that there was no question that the homeowners were told that there would be a commercial development there and it was switched; that we live in unprecedented times, with the economic impact from the COVID virus, balancing economic needs and the need for housing is a compelling one, whether it be in Rohnert Park or Santa Rosa; that this section of town already has 36 units of low income housing and that Rohnert Park is on pace to do their fair share; that the interests of the Applicant and the owners of the property needs to be balanced; that it’s a very fluid situation and that there is not a lot of time to deliberate; that there is a compelling reason in our own neighborhood to create affordable workforce housing that is needed and that this is heard all the time; that workforce housing isn’t what people think, that these are teachers, educators, and workers that work throughout our City; that diversity in different areas is going to be welcomed with this set up and that it accomplishes those things; that the Commission appreciates all of the comments and that they are taken to heart and deeply appreciate them; that what is before the Commission is what the applicant cedes; that there is no evidence that the parking problems are overwhelming or not solvable and can be worked through with staff and the applicant; that environmentally there are concerns and wish there would be a commercial component to give the people what they deserve; and, that he encourages staff and the applicant to continue to work towards this to satisfy the concerns of the citizens in that area. Commissioner Borba stated that he is torn both ways on this and that clearly the overwhelming supermajority of the residents of W section that the Commission has heard from are opposed to this change and they have been promised a commercial area; that the City, the Commission, and past members have set forth a desire to have commercial be part of neighborhoods; that he is struck that a common refrain from a good majority of people is “not in my backyard” and that is not how the City should govern; that the City should be governed and make decisions based on the needs overall and the mandates in place; that the mandates are conflicting with the needs because the mandates are the general plan which favors neighborhoods and commercial centers in neighborhoods; that Sonoma Mountain Village has a host of commercial space available that will be there for people in this neighborhood; that he lives in a neighborhood without a commercial space, that crossing a busy street is required and that neighbors travel in cars, putting constraints on the system; that the commercial space is limited in space to 10,000 sq. ft.; and that in the past he has voted on projects to support multi-family units that were being put in neighborhoods that were already in existence when there was vocal opposition from neighbors and the needs of many must be thought about; and, that he keeps thinking about the additional 36 families that could have a more reasonable place to live in terms of location, distance, costs, trips traveled and hates to say no to those people. Chair Blanquie stated that it is a dynamic situation and it’s not a simple solution; that the Commission has weighed both the benefits of additional housing which is needed; that the applicant is telling the Commission that commercial isn’t going to work there; that there is a history of residents who didn’t sign up for this but nobody did; that the Commission has to make a decision on this because it is time sensitive; that he is inclined to go along with Commissioner Orloff’s motion because it’s a decision that needs to be made based on the information they have before them tonight; that residents can appeal to the City Council and would support them to do so. ACTION: Moved/seconded (Orloff/Blanquie) to adopt Resolution 2020-012 Recommending to the City Council approval of amendments to the text of the General Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). Motion carried by the following (3-2-0) roll call vote: AYES: Blanquie, Borba, and Orloff; NOES: Giudice & Haydon; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None. ACTION: Moved/seconded (Orloff/Blanquie) to adopt Resolution 2020-013 Recommending to the City Council approval of an amended specific plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). Motion carried by the following (3-2-0) roll call vote: AYES: Blanquie, Borba, and Orloff; NOES: Giudice & Haydon; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None. ACTION: Moved/seconded (Orloff/Blanquie) to adopt Resolution 2020-014 Recommending to the City Council approval of a revised Development Area Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs). Motion carried by the following (3-2-0) roll call vote: AYES: Blanquie, Borba, and Orloff; NOES: Giudice & Haydon; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None. Commissioner Guidice left the meeting at 8:27 p.m. stating that he had a conflict with Item 6.3. 6.3 PUBLIC HEARING – SOMO VILLAGE - SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE, AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SOMO VILLAGE, LLC, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND LARGE LOT TENTATIVE MAP - File Nos. PLEN20-0001, PLGP19-0004, PLMC20-0004, PLDA19-0003, PLFD2016-0001, & PLSD19-0002. Planning Manager, Jeff Beiswenger, presented the item: Recommended Action(s): Continue the Public Hearing to a date certain at the July 9 Planning Commission Meeting. ACTION: Moved/seconded (Orloff/Borba) to continue the Public Hearing to a date certain at the July 9 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried by the fo llow ing (4-0-1) ro ll call vote: A YES: Blanquie, Borba, H aydon, and O rl off; N O E S: N one; A BST A IN : Giudice; ABSE N T: None. 7. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION C om m issioner B orba asked, regarding the public com m ent and the input being read, if the C om m ission has the ability to speak to the com m enters live. C om m issioner B orba stated there is a quality of life issue w ith people living at SSU who are C O V ID -19 positive, or are at threat to it, and that there is a cart that drives people from SSU to the M -Section to sm oke w ithout m asks, and possibly leave their butts there and requested staff to look into the situation. C om m issioner O rl off asked, given the conversation this evening regarding local com m ercial business, w hat the status is w ith dow ntow n and fo r staff to pro vide an update. V ice C hair H aydon requested to get independent com m ercial advice to recalibra te w hat the needs and trends are and looking ahead, and asked if the C ity has advisors on retainer, and to look at our C ity and recalibra te to m ake pru dent decisions. 8. ITEMS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE STAFF T here are a couple of busy virtual m eetings com ing up. 9. ADJOURNMENT C hairperson B lanquie adjourn ed the regular m eeting at 8:4 0 p.m .