Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call the meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission to order and ask for roll call, please.

Thank you. Commissioner Carter?

Here.

Commissioner Siscoe? Here. Commissioner Horton?

Here.

Commissioner Pardo is absent. Commissioner Sanders?

Here.

Acting Vice Chair Duggan?

Here.

And Chair Weeks is absent. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Chair Weeks and Commissioner Pardo.

Okay, we have no remote participation for number two. Okay, approval of minutes. Are there any comments or corrections to the minutes? Okay, seeing none, the minutes as... There are no changes, so the minutes are approved as submitted. Do we have any comments on the approval of minutes?

If you are in the chambers and wish to make a public comment on item 3.1, draft minutes, please make your way to the podium. Seeing none, okay.

Brings us to item number four, public comments on non-agenda matters. So if anybody has anything to tell us about that's something that's in the purview of the Planning Commission that is not on the agenda scheduled for today, please make your way to a podium. Looks like we have nobody for that.

Okay.

On to Commission Business. Okay, the Statement of Purpose. The Planning Commission is charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws of the City of Santa Rosa. Duties include implementation of plans, ordinances, and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed. Okay, are there any commissioner reports? Okay. And we'll move on to department reports.

Yes, thank you, Acting Chair Duggan, members of the Commission, Jessica Jones, Deputy Director of Planning. So I just wanted to quickly acknowledge Ashley Crocker, our Assistant, currently Assistant City Attorney, moving on to be City Attorney for the City of Santa Rosa. She's been with us since 2017 and providing support from a legal perspective to the Planning Commission since that time. Prior to that, she was actually a Planning Commission member, and so she's been an exceptional addition to our team, and we're super happy that we're keeping her at the city, but we're sad that she won't be focusing on planning, so I just wanted to acknowledge her and thank her for all of her work. Tonight is her last night providing us legal support, Support for the Planning Commission. She will, again, be moving on to the Council. But at least in the interim, we will have Autumn Luna from the Attorney's Office, who is here in Chambers. And she will be providing support moving forward in the interim. So that's it.

Okay, and I'd like to second the thanks to Ms. Crocker, because she's been a wonderful addition to our team, and we remember being on the panel with her, and good luck with the Council. Okay, on to, are there any other comments on the department report? Okay, seeing no one, we'll move on to statements of abstention or recusal. Okay, none. There's no presentations, consent items or report items. So that brings us to our scheduled items. And this will be a public hearing for the Stonehouse Hotel Conditional Use Permit. I've gotta read the whole thing here. It's a major conditional use permit and major hillside development permit for the construction of a new 70-room hotel, and it is an ex parte disclosure. Commissioner Horton?

I did visit the site and have nothing else to disclose.

I as well visited the site and have nothing further to disclose.

I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose.

I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose.

And I, too, visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. And I believe it's, okay, our planner today is Suzanne Hartman.

Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Suzanne Hartman, and I am the project planner for this project, which is for the new Stone House Hotel, located at 331 and 3555 Highway 12. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 70 room hotel and to renovate the interior of the existing Stonehouse Hotel to five room, five boutique rooms. So it will total into 75 hotel rooms on the two acre project site. The hotel will have a courtyard on the second floor, some exterior enclosed patios, a ground level reception area and a parking garage. The accessory uses and amenities will be proposed for hotel guests and are not proposed as separately operated restaurant, event or public assembly uses. So no independently operated restaurant, bar, lounge or food or beverage establishment will be open to the public and is not approved as a part of this conditional use permit. and we have conditioned it that any expansion of food and beverage service beyond accessory hotel operations will require additional city review and approval and may include an amendment to the conditional use permit or the plan development policy statement. Some background on this application. It first came in back in 2023 for a pre-application meeting and then a neighborhood meeting was conducted in 2024. The official applications, which is for the Hillside Development Permits application, the Conditional Use Permit application, and the Design Review Permit application all came in on January 8th, 2025. These applications were distributed in April of 2025, and the Notice of Public Hearing was distributed on May 12th of 2026. The project site is located directly adjacent to Highway 12 and is surrounded by detached single family residential uses. The project site includes the existing Stone House building and adjacent vacant parcel. The existing Stone House Hotel has a history of spanning more than a century on Highway 12. The original hotel, I believe, was destroyed by fire in the early 1900s and then was rebuilt as it is today with the stone exterior in 1912. It has been followed by numerous uses, some including a restaurant and bar, a corporate headquarters, and even an entertainment venue, ultimately becoming like a bed and breakfast for the early 2000s, and the project will be preserving the building in its entirety. The northern portion of the site slopes gently from west to east, And the central portion of the site has a large level pad and concrete retaining walls that are a remnant of what is now a long demolished warehouse. And there is an existing grove of trees to the south of the project site with various adult trees, including some heritage trees like a couple of coast live oaks, black oats, and redwoods. The general plan land use designation is retail and business services, and the zoning district is plan development. The policy statement allows hotels and motels and related uses by approval of a conditional use permit, and the policy statement remains the controlling zoning document for the site. The project is consistent with the retail and business services designation which allows retail and service enterprises and the expanded hotel use is allowed in the general plan land use designation and will serve to support tourism. The project is proposing 77 vehicle parking spaces, which is a couple of spaces over what is required, which would be 75 spaces because it's by total of room count. No additional parking is required for any of the accessory hotel uses, which includes that courtyard area, pool yard and dining area, et cetera. And again, those will not be open to the public. There are also 25 compact vehicle parking spaces, which is less than 50% of the total parking spaces. The zoning district doesn't list a maximum lot coverage, so it refers to the city's current zoning code for that, which does allow a coverage of up to 100%, and the project's proposed building coverage will be 35% of the site. The hotel is also proposed to be set back 20 feet from the rear property line and more than 20 feet from all other property lines, which is compliant with the setback requirements for hillside development standards. The ground level parking garage is also partially recessed into the hillside rather than fully constructed above grade. And the hotel will have a stepped floor design that conforms to the rising natural grade of the site. And the combination of the retained tree grove, the existing boundary trees, the primary fence, and vegetative screening have been proposed to collectively ensure that the hotel and associated site improvements are screened from adjacent residential properties. These are some elevations of the proposed hotel. The maximum height is proposed to be 34 feet with the elevator tower extending to 36 feet which is allowed within the policy statement as approved by through the design review process. The project is also conditioned to comply with codes outdoor lighting, which limits the height of all outdoor lighting fixtures to 17 feet and requires lighting fixtures to be shielded or recessed to minimize any light spillover onto neighboring properties. And again, the parking garage is recessed into the hillside to lessen the structure's visibility from public view while still accommodating the required parking spaces. The project is proposing to remove 34 of the approximately 70 existing trees. And according to the arborist inventory report that they provided, it was calculated that 108 replacement trees are needed to mitigate this amount of removal. So the applicant is proposing to plant 66 replacement trees on site and then pay an in lieu fee for the remaining 42 trees. and all such pavements are used for tree-related educational projects or planting programs for the city. The project qualifies for a class 32 categorical exemption for infill development. The project meets the criteria in CEQA guidelines as described in the staff report. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies. The project development occurs within the city limits on a project site of no more than five acres. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, and the approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as written in the staff report and resolution. The project also qualifies for streamlining pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15183 because it's consistent with the general plan 2050 and it would not result in significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site and that were not analyzed by the general plan EIR. There are no unresolved issues as a result of staff review. The comments that have been received were raising concerns in regards to noise, traffic safety, and neighborhood compatibility and so on. And staff has addressed these comments through technical studies, the project conditions and the staff analysis. There were also some specific questions that were received in regards to traffic that I didn't have on this presentation, so I figured I'd address now. One of the questions was asking about a defined threshold for low traffic. And it seems to that there's an absent definition of low traffic, so the context is kind of abhorment. But generally under 400 vehicles per day would be considered low volume of traffic for a street according to what was the answer that was provided by our Transportation and Public Works Division. Also, the Transportation and Public Works Department waived the need to conduct a traffic operational study because the letter that was supplied addresses all operational issues, which is usually the reason for additional operational studies to be requested. So the thresholds are guidelines and the letter addresses the operational issues for this project. And it relates to traffic volumes, which generally correlates with the traffic impacts. So the key issue would have been the traffic impacts. So I just wanted to add that response from our Transportation and Public Works. So the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission, by two resolutions, approve a major conditional use permit and a hillside development permit to allow construction of a new 70-room hotel building, renovation of the existing Stonehouse Hotel building, and associated site improvements at 3331 and 3555 Highway 12. My contact information is on the screen. We also have the applicant and their team present in person with a couple also available via Zoom as well. And they have just kind of a brief presentation as well.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Okay, does the applicant have a presentation?

They have a small verbal presentation, yes.

Good evening.

Good evening. If you want to raise or lower the podium, there's a switch on the side. And then I think you have to get pretty close to the microphone to be heard.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Randy Figueredo of Tierney Figueredo Architects. I'll try to keep this brief because Suzanne, I think, sort of hit the high points as it relates to the use permit and the hillside development permit.

Could you speak a little closer to the microphone?

Sure. Sorry, thank you. The landscape architect is available via Zoom. The acoustical consultant is available via Zoom until 5.30 this evening. The traffic engineer, unfortunately, is in Southern California and had to go to graduation tonight. but I did speak to him for quite an extended period this afternoon. And I also, the commissioner's questions that Suzanne referenced regarding the traffic study, I forwarded onto him and have an email from him. So if you wanted more clarification on that, on what's considered low impact, IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, I CAN CERTAINLY RESPOND TO THAT ALSO. SUZANNE SAID THE STONEHOUSE HOTEL PROJECT PLANS ON BUILDING A NEW 70 ROOM HOTEL AND THEN CONVERTING THE EXISTING 14 ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL WHICH IS CURRENTLY INSIDE THE HISTORIC STONEHOUSE BUILDING INTO A FIVE ROOM. hotel part of the project and the existing stone house currently has a commercial kitchen and a small dining area and that'll be used for the overall 75 room hotel project when when everything is combined The site itself, the southerly portion is heavily wooded. The northerly portion has been completely developed. The middle of the site used to have a large concrete warehouse and there were extensive retaining walls uh constructor for that warehouse which is you know over the last 20 or so years collapsed and the ground is kind of sloped around them we're planning on building a portion of the project and about half of the ground level parking garage on the pad existing level pad from that warehouse and rebuilding the retaining walls that were against the westerly portion of the project as part of our project. The site design, we tried to, both save trees along the northerly property line and the large oak grove in that southwesterly portion of the project, place the bulk of the new hotel building in that old warehouse pad area, and then step it up the hillside. And by stepping up the hillside to the south, We essentially kept the roof line of the overall hotel the same and simply removed lower levels as we stepped up the hill so that we try to keep as low a profile as we could. And at the same time in the northerly area, Area of the site which is currently the parking lot for the stone house building So right now the stone house the existing stone house building the main entrance Just faces directly onto the parking lot you essentially walk right off the asphalt pretty much straight into the entrance So we're taking that area West of the existing stone house building doing a small a couple of small dining courtyards, and then some steps that'll terrace up onto a garden level with a plaza, and then onto a level that'll contain a swimming pool for the hotel. And that'll give the entrance to the existing stone house a lot more character than just kind of walking in off the parking lot. The parking on the site, a portion of it is located east of the new hotel building between the highway and the hotel building, which sets the new hotel building back from the highway. By setting the building back, we provide a lot more prominence to the existing stone house. At the same time, we have ground level parking, so over half our parking is on that first level of the hotel, so that way we're not, covering the entire site with paving. A portion of the site design was also dictated by the fire department. We have an EVA coming in at the southeast corner of the site. and then the main fire department entrance will be the main driveway that currently exists, and they'll drive westward through the site, and then there's a hammerhead that's placed as part of the project between the new hotel and the pool area. This project was originally submitted to the city, I believe, I mean, not counting the, The concept designer you meeting in the neighborhood meeting the current project you're seeing was submitted in January of twenty twenty five. We've all undergone a couple of round of responses to architectural and landscape comments from the city and probably three or four rounds of comments from the engineering department so there's. Been quite a bit of review and quite a number of studies done and presented to the city. And with that, I'll be available to answer any questions. And as I said, the landscape architect and the acoustical consultant are also available via Zoom.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Sorry. With that, I'll open the public hearing and you need not have filled out a card to speak. We have two podiums and they each have a switch on the side to raise and lower them so you can get the microphone close to your mouth and please identify yourself for the record and there'll be a timer with three minutes on it and when it runs out, please wrap up your comments.

Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission and city staff. My name is Fred Ahlebach. I live in the neighborhood. I'm not really for or against this project. I lived in Sonoma Valley for 18 years and I saw some tremendous pushback against hillside developments or any development in Sonoma Valley. And so I did start out in Sonoma Valley in the NIMBY cohort, but I since had a change of heart, and so I recognized from this staff report would strike fear into anybody who was against it, because it seems like pretty much of a checkmate against anybody who would have any objections to the project. You know, that there's no significant impacts. That's what people would like to try to pick it apart. But... When I read the staff report and looked at it, I live in the neighborhood, my main concerns would be that if you're gonna have a 70 room hotel, there's a certain formula that's used to see how many people would work at the hotel. And so I came up with, for a medium range hotel, that that would be between 45 and 70 people who would work at the hotel. And so I'm wondering as a result of this project, what about the workforce housing in Santa Rosa that this project would generate? That seems like there would be some kind of concomitant fee that the developer would pay towards the workforce housing, a housing impact fee. The in lieu fee is not very much, but I think that I would recommend that the Planning Commission hold out for as much of a fee or a price that you could get for the workforce housing that the project would generate. And also that you would have a community work agreement or I forget the exact name of it. I wrote a letter and I cited that in there so that the people who would build this hotel would be locals and would get union grade wage and that would be a benefit for the workers in the community. so those are my comments and also i do walk through there that area because i live fairly close by and i see to the west of the hotel there's i think sunridge drive and sunridge drive goes down behind the hillside restaurant and behind that little shopping center and then you can go into cvs And anybody who had Google Maps will look at that road. And I think that that that will be a problem for the neighbors there because the brush is growing halfway out across the street in some places. And you can't get one person in one car on that street now. So those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Am I on? Hello, my name is Deb Grabian. We were moving up here in the summer of 2024 when apparently this was put out for public input, so we didn't know about it. We live at 255 Brush Creek, so yes, we are seriously impacted. Couple of things. Number one, you can't possibly have addressed the traffic issue. You've got pictures of Highway 12 westbound in the planning pictures that show two cars. That happens at two o'clock in the morning. That's the only time that happens. Coming here today from my house, I waited eight minutes to make the turn from Rush Creek onto 12. That's how thick the traffic is at rush hour. people pulling out of this driveway from this hotel cannot turn left and they cannot make a U-turn at the corner of Farmers Lane. So let's admit here that most people who are coming as tourists want to go to Napa. They want to go to the wineries, they want to do the touristy things. They're not going to the Hot Monk in Sebastopol for dinner. So they're gonna wanna go east And how do they get there? As the previous commenter mentioned, there was that little button hook by the Flamingo. That's the whole other thing. Why do we need a 70 room hotel two minutes from the Flamingo, which is an institution. But we are impacted by that particular traffic situation. And with one in and out to a hotel of that size, across a pedestrian walkway, because we have people walking back and forth with groceries constantly, that's dangerous. Personally, I would like to be directed to somewhere where that has been addressed, because I don't see how it can properly have been addressed. Second thing is the noise issue. I don't know what kind of studies you've done, but if you're planning on elevating the back of a hotel and having it be two stories with a rooftop terrace, you're going to significantly impact noise ratios in this neck of the woods. And is somebody paying 12 grand a year in property taxes and having moved up from the city to escape that? We're a little concerned. We're both senior citizens and it's just the way it is. I suspect everybody else is going to have some input on this particular thing. So I will cede my point to the floor and thank you very much for listening.

Okay, anyone else wish to speak?

Hello, my name is Carolyn Kohlschweizer and I live at 120 Massimo Circle and our driveway, goes right into the parking lot of the proposed new hotel. So I'm not for or against the hotel per se, but I am concerned about noise and how that might be addressed, especially a pool, which will basically be in our driveway. at the base of our driveway. And we have three dogs that will certainly be barking at everybody who is in the pool, because you can see right through the gate into the pool area. I don't know where the pumps will be located, if that will be an issue for us, hearing those pumps day and night, or if we'll have to have insulation and new windows put in so that we don't hear that. My other concern is management since it's currently being run as a login and you can rent the whole property or you can just rent a room for the night and there is no on the site management and I've brought that up several times with the city but was told that it's fine. But for instance, last 4th of July, they rented out the entire building. They brought food trucks and did fireworks in the parking lot until much after 10 PM. And it was quite an inconvenience to us. So I hope that they will have some management on site and that there will be quiet hours observed. I don't know now how things are going to proceed, but they told me they needed to run it this way in order to get money to build the new part of the hotel. I also don't think the new hotel looks anything like the Stone House, and I'm not quite sure how it will be classified as a luxury boutique hotel. because it looks like all of the other low income housing that's going up, not to disparage that, but it certainly is not high income luxury in my opinion. So those are my comments.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Yes, my name's Greg Hamblin, and I live at 128 Mossimo Circle, directly adjacent to the vacant property. First of all, the idea of a swimming pool outdoor fire pits and a bar, definitely gonna create some noise. I don't know, they said there's been an acoustical study, but I haven't read anything. Just the amount of concrete and the way sound bounces off concrete and water, it'll really impact us. and per Section 2042 of the City of Santa Rosa Code 360 establishes that any commercial accessory use, such as an outdoor bar, must have zero adverse impacts on the adjacent residential uses in terms of excessive traffic or noise. So I don't know if they're putting up acoustical panels or, I don't know. It's gonna be a lot of noise. Also the wall that divides the, that's between the properties, the eight foot high wall, that should definitely be either precast or cement block for security, for sound, and for fire. And that's all I got.

Thank you.

Hello?

Hi.

Hi. Go ahead. Can you hear me?

Yes.

I'm Janet Noe, and I'm also a resident in the area. And I do have a few concerns about this project. First, I think that there's been acknowledged that there's a historic building on this site. and it's built in 1912. And the new project doesn't do anything to reflect the character or the materials of that historic building. So when we heard that there was a project to build a boutique hotel called the Stone House Hotel related to this existing property, you'd expect that the design would reflect something in common. with that building and it doesn't. It has nothing in common with it. In fact, it dwarfs it and it makes it feel insignificant. And so I think that there should be much more attention to the importance of this historic building that's actually constructed in a way that reflects the buildings on Railroad Square. That's actually part of the history of Santa Rosa and how Santa Rosa has been built. So it's really disappointing to see this project done without any attention to that property and trying to call itself the Stonehouse Hotel. There's nothing in common with the Stonehouse that's there. So I'd love to see that shifted. And I think that there's also some attention that needs to be brought to the scale of this building because it's out of character with the area. and it's a residential area, and I think 70 rooms is too much. It's probably gotta be more like 50. It's gotta be a little bit lower profile, and that would also help with some of the problems that have been brought up here, the noise, the traffic, which are real issues to consider. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?

Hi, my name is Roy Teixeira. I live at 124 Massimo Circle. It's right behind the new hotel, the 70-room hotel. I didn't understand pretty much everything that that woman presented at the beginning of the meeting. I don't speak legally, so all that I know is I've lived there 42 years. and we've pretty much had a residential neighborhood that everybody was happy with. Now, looking at the map that I saw online, my house is right in the middle between the property and the hotel. I haven't seen a thing on how the hotel and the homes behind will be protected between the noise and the noise. I mean, it's being set up for party time back there, and no true thought has been given to the neighbors of that neighborhood. I spoke to, this was beside the point, I spoke to a realtor recently, and I told her about what was going on, and she said, well, the values of those homes would go down by at least $100,000 to $200,000. if you could sell them. I mean, it's just, I couldn't be more against this. It's just a terrible situation. Talk about the traffic, that's a joke. Looking at the people that wanna take a right-hand turn to get in, they'd have to make a 90 degree turn. The speed limit on that road is 40 miles an hour, I think. How do they make a right-hand 90 degree turn into that property? I mean, like I said, I've been living there for 42 years. There was a party last summer. I believe it was last summer. And the noise that was there, my dog cried for an hour and a half while this thing was going on. This is not a place where, this is not a neighborhood where we have hotels. That's ridiculous. I mean, the whole, as you can hear, I couldn't be more against this. My home is gonna be impacted by it. There was no, when I looked at the 26 page thing online, there was nothing between my property and the hotel's pool or whatever to protect my yard. I mean, except for a bunch of trees. I don't know how those trees are gonna protect my yard from people coming in and out, the noise and whatever. So that's my personal ideas about this. And like I said, I couldn't be more against it. It's gonna hurt my house and it's gonna hurt the property of my neighbors.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? And we have two podiums, so if anyone else is wanting to go next, you can go up and wait to take your turn, so go ahead.

I'm Helgi Teixeira, and I live at 124 Massimo Circle. I live right behind right smack in the middle behind this project, and it is going to 100% affect us in a negative fashion. I'm completely against this project. Nothing has been addressed as far as a barrier between the commercial and residential area. I don't see any kind of retaining wall. Nobody has presented that. I can't visualize it, but I see a big hotel going up that's going way above my property line and I'm going to be impacted 20 feet away. Noise is a huge major problem. Any little thing that's going on in the Stone House right now with their 10 rooms or whatever, I can hear it. And now you're going to increase it by 70 rooms with 140 more people, 150 more people, it's gonna be a nightmare. All I ask the commission to ask themselves is, if you were living at 124 Massimo Circle, would you want this property, this project built behind your house? I'm sure the answer is no with every one of you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Nicole Chouinard. I live at 173 Wailupa Circle, which is just across and over a retaining wall. So it does not affect me. I do walk the trail every day religiously. I'm a bill designer for 27 years. My biggest complaint is the aesthetics having nothing to do with the stone house. And I think the lady that spoke before me summed it up really well. And I think 70 units or suites is just too much for that location. That's about it, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anybody else wishing to speak? Okay, seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission. And I've got a few items that came up and I'd like either the applicant or staff to address them. And if I have missed anything, please let me know. Let's see.

Chair, if I may, just quickly, just a quick reminder. I heard the applicant mention that the noise consultant is only available on Zoom until 5.30, which is 15 more minutes. So perhaps if we could get any questions related to that from all the commissioners so that we can have that person respond before they have to leave.

Anybody have any questions on the noise? Okay, go ahead.

Pardon the interruption, one moment, Commissioner. If I could just confirm with the applicant that the individual who will be speaking on this topic is Tina? Okay, wonderful, thank you.

So my question is about the pool area, the bar area, and the pool equipment. It's been raised, a concern's been raised that having that at the rear of the property, pretty much on the fence line of two residents that I can see, What has been the thought process behind what that noise level could be at peak times? And how would that affect the residents on that side of the property?

Right. So the pool equipment will be housed inside a building. And there will be that the project proposes an eight foot wall. on the northern portion and the western portion of the property boundary. And the noise study evaluates the noise from the pool activities, the pool equipment, parking, and any outdoor activities that are happening at the bar, at the garden. And with all of that, projected noise levels are in compliance with the city standard, which is the ambient noise levels plus five dB, five decibels.

Do you have another question? We've closed to public hearing, ma'am, sorry.

Just to follow up, so when that noise study was done, include a full pool, a full bar of people, I guess. I know that you said that there's a certain decibel level that meets a certain threshold, but I guess what is that threshold? Is that a threshold of sort of a few people by the pool, or is it a bunch of people by the pool? What does that actually measure for people who are gonna be living behind this property? What does that mean in real terms for them? And how long is that noise is expected to be lived with as a resident?

So the threshold, if by threshold you mean the city standard, the city standard is existing ambient noise, which we took measurements of, plus five decibels. And the noise levels that we used for the pool and any outdoor activities are reference levels. that exists in literature. So those values are commonly used for noise studies, and those are the values that were used in the noise impact analysis. And while we'll be mitigating the project's noise level, for the nearest receptors or their residences is the proposed a foot wall.

Just my last question. What are the operating hours? I guess this is for the applicant. What are the operating hours of the pool in the bar?

Sorry, this question is for Randy, right?

Correct, although I would like to ask you if the rooftop terrace, is that also included as far as the exterior noise at the same time as the pool is full of people and the rooftop terrace could be full of people? If that also falls in the same category as what you found for the not exceeding the threshold?

Yeah, I could probably answer both of those. I was just asking my client about the hours of operation, which it didn't seem like those have been set yet. And I'm sure the city has some typical standards for outdoor activity operations. As far as the rooftop terrace, I mean, there really isn't a rooftop terrace. It's not like the three-story building with something going on on the third floor roof. The roof terrace is on the roof of the parking garage, so it's on the roof of the single story. And then the hotel is around it like a donut. And it's not really a heavy activity area, it's just a small area with some, you know, seating and planting that's really just there for the rooms. There are some of the rooms that base into the interior courtyard of the hotel itself rather than looking out at the surroundings. And so that's just there mainly for that purpose. And then there's just a small area on top of the roof. So really it's a hole in the donut. It's not a rooftop terrace.

Thank you. Before we get back, we might have more questions for you, Mr. Figueroa, but let's ask to make sure there's no more for the astound study person. Okay, Commissioner Horton.

And let me know, maybe this is for you or the noise person, but the issue of like special events or parties was brought up. I mean, is that something that you're anticipating and how does that affect the noise issue? If you can just speak, or if somebody can just speak to that.

Well, I think the events that were brought up tonight, I mean, it sounds like at this point they've got the 14-room boutique hotel, which is the Stone House, and they have times where they rent out the entire building. And there were some events. So once it becomes a more traditional hotel, it's not like there's really that option there for someone to come in, book, 75-room hotel bring in food trucks and light fireworks or whatever the speaker earlier mentioned. It'll be more of a typical hotel that you would expect with rigid onsite management and control over the pool area and activities. Thanks so much.

Any other questions, especially for the sound person? Any other questions for the applicant? I'm sorry, ma'am, the public hearing is closed. This is the time for the Commission to ask questions of the staff or the applicant. Please let us ask the applicant and staff the questions.

In terms of construction, the sound study did address actually during construction, and the city has days and times that construction typically occurs. In terms of the gate, which I think is now just kind of an open gate, we're proposing to do solid gates in those areas. The gate that's kind of in question, I believe, is the one that's at the, northwest corner of the site, which is the driveway coming down from Massimo. So right now there is a driveway that essentially extends all the way from Massimo down to our property. It was there from an old deed that was done with the neighborhood, right? So it's a fire access. And I've talked to the fire department about that. And since that drive is so narrow, the fire department doesn't consider it as fire access, technically. I mean, they won't, it's not an EVA as far as the fire department's concerned. So that's why we have the EVA going out onto Sunridge at the other corner of the site. But what the clients decided to do is to leave that gate in place because I'm sure for the neighborhood, whether or not the fire department considers that a legal conforming EVA, that the neighbors would be happy if anything happened to their exit out onto Brush Creek Road to be able to open that gate and go down that driveway.

Okay, thank you. And can you address the construction of the eight foot tall wall? Is it gonna be stone or open wire fencing?

Well, right now there's a retaining wall that we're gonna be building on that back portion, concrete retaining wall. which will be fairly high because it was high before when the warehouse was there. And then on top of the retaining wall, we're going to be building an eight-foot sound wall. Right now on the plans, I'm calling it out as either a concrete plank sound wall or a overlap wood sound wall. So it could, if it was a wood sound wall, it would be... A board sound wall that then would have boards over the gaps in it, so it would meet all the requirements of an acoustical engineer sound wall construction and that would be foot high and that would be on top of the retaining wall. In that area.

And also, could you confirm that there'll be on-site staff at all times?

Yes, yeah, I mean, it's a, yeah, yeah, no, it'll be a 75-room facility, so they'll have, you know, manager and staff and just like any other, you know, hotel that you would stay at.

Okay, and are there any other questions for the applicant? Are there any other questions for staff? Okay, Ms. Siscoe? So... No, the public hearing has been closed. You had your chance, you had your three minutes. We are now discussing it amongst ourselves and with staff and the applicant.

So I would like to ask, confirm with staff, after this meeting, the project will have to go through major design review and would that be the place for the individuals that have concerns about the aesthetics and how it cooperates with the Stone House to bring their concerns?

Correct, the design review and preservation board meeting will be next Thursday, and that's gonna be covering the design of the hotel and site improvements.

And that's their department, so bring those concerns there.

I think I had one more question for staff that I captured from our public hearing. So the Stone House itself is, even though it is historic as far as in an older hotel from our, you know, 100 years ago or so, it's not protected as a historic structure, correct?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you. And... And I have one more question, probably for the traffic engineer, and perhaps you know the answer, Mr. Fiorito. Was Sunridge Drive ever part of the traffic study as far as people on foot, residents in the area, people exiting the hotel and driving over the hill?

I don't believe so. I mean, it's not... It's not part of our project.

You need to speak into the microphone.

It's not part of our project and it's not at the driveway onto the highway. So I don't know what would have been studied there. I mean, obviously people can, come off of Highway 12 and detour that way as a shortcut, but I assume some people do that now.

Okay, thank you.

The traffic study seems to mention Sunridge Drive, or just mentioning about the emergency vehicle access for Sunridge Drive. I think in general, the traffic study focuses on the access points for cars entering and exiting, so it's kind of focusing on that aspect of it from the entranceway along Highway 12. But yeah, Sunridge Drive is briefly mentioned showing that the emergency vehicle access is coming up from that way. From what I can see on the traffic analysis here.

Okay, thank you. Okay, if there are no more questions, would someone like to move a resolution?

I move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a major conditional use permit for the construction of the new 70-room Stonehouse Hotel and associated site improvements located at 3331 and 3555 Highway 12, file number PRJ25-001, CUP25-001, and wait for the reading of the text. Is there a second?

I second that.

Okay, Commissioner Siscoe, would you like to start us off? And we do have two resolutions. And if you want to make all your comments with the first one, that's fine.

Excuse me, I'm gonna be able to make all of the findings for this resolution and for the hillside permit resolution. I think the studies have been done and therefore I can make all of the required findings for both.

Okay, Commissioner Horton.

Yeah, I would just align my comments with Commissioner Siscoe. I'm supportive and I can make all the required findings. Thank you.

Commissioner Sanders. I'm not sure that I can make a required finding about it not being a nuisance, particularly the pool area, the bar area with no stated operational hours. I'm not convinced quite about the impact of when we have large events. Plenty of the younger gets released. We've got a bunch of people who are drinking beers and having a good time and they're splashing around in the pool. And as I look at the map, there's people that live right behind the pool. I'm not sure that that won't be a nuisance, so I don't think I will be supporting the resolution.

Okay, Commissioner Carter.

Yeah, I'm gonna take a minute here. There were appropriate studies done with this application. I think the noise study is adequate. I think a lot is misunderstood about the site design here. What's being referred to as a roof garden is clearly an atrium surrounded by buildings and there is treatment to the property lines closest to the nearest neighbors intended to mitigate to some extent the noise. and some analysis has been done, but I'm not sure it was as complete as the neighbors would like to see. I'm also a little bit, I understand how our engineering staff exempted the project from the VTM analysis due to the size, but I think there's language in the guidelines that were referenced that said a project with 250 or more additional trips could trigger an operational study and I think one could have been done. We have nothing that really looks at the in and out movements and how those are gonna be compatible or incompatible with the traffic on 12 and I can't make the finding D that the site is physically suitable without a more in-depth traffic analysis that looks at those movements and the volumes of traffic coming in and out, a single access point to the project. I understand that it's a beautiful site and it's more secluded than one would think when one gets on the site and I think a hotel can be constructed there that fits in with the site and that the site improvements can be made in a way that makes it compatible with the surrounding residential uses, but I'm not sure that this site plan does that. And I'm also not sure if I can make all the findings on the hillside grading. It looks to be pretty aggressive grading there. I didn't run calculations to know what percentage of what slopes are being modified, but the plan is aggressively graded to create the pad for the building. that's another reason I can't make the finding that it's suitable and I won't be voting for the resolution.

Okay, well, as far as the pool area is concerned, I don't know if it's in the resolution as far as the hours of operation, but I know that that's typically captured in a conditional use permit like this and I think that that would assuage my concerns about the pool noise. I do have some traffic concerns, but I can make all the rest of the findings. I think that our Traffic Department of the City has reviewed the studies that were submitted and have agreed with the conclusions that were drawn from them, so I will be in support of the resolution. Recording Secretary, may we have a vote, please?

Thank you, Acting Chair. Commissioner Carter?

No.

Commissioner Siscoe? Yes. Commissioner Horton?

Yes.

Commissioner Pardo is absent. Commissioner Sanders?

No.

Vice Chair Duggan?

Yes.

Let the record reflect that that motion does not pass with, sorry, does pass with three. Does pass with three, a majority vote. Thank you very much, with three ayes.

All right, moving on to the second resolution.

Second resolution, resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a hillside development permit for construction of a new 70-room hotel building, renovation of the existing stone house building into a five-room boutique hotel and associated site and hillside improvements located at 3331 and 3555 Highway 12, file number PRJ25-001, HDP25-001, and wait for the reading of the text.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, that's moved by Commissioner Siscoe, seconded by Commissioner Horton. Is there any additional discussion? Okay, may we have the vote, please?

Thank you. Commissioner Carter?

Aye.

Commissioner Siscoe? Aye. Commissioner Horton?

Aye.

Commissioner Pardo is absent. Commissioner Sanders?

No.

Acting Chair Duggan?

Aye.

And Chair Weeks is absent. Let the record reflect that that motion passes with four affirmative ayes.

Okay, so please note that our action is final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk's office within 10 calendar days of today's decision pursuant to zoning code section 20-62-030. Okay, and with that, we'll move on to the next item and shall we take a five minute break and come back at about 5.45, actually nine minute, but okay. Okay, I'd like to call the meeting back to order. The next item is public hearing for item 11.2, public hearing for fiscal year 2026-2027 Capital Improvement Program Consistency with the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2050. And our planner is Sashnor Bisla.

Thank you, Acting Chair Duggan and members of the Planning Commission. The item before you today is the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 Capital Improvement Program General Plan Consistency. The Capital Improvement Program is a five-year financial plan for the maintenance and expansion of public infrastructure, and the program's projects must be consistent with the general plan. State law requires that planning agencies review the public works projects for conformity with the general plan and that the Planning Commission determine that the projects are indeed consistent. There are six new CIP projects proposed for the upcoming fiscal year related to transportation infrastructure, regional and local water and wastewater infrastructure and maintenance, and there are water supply studies. It also includes an updated Creek Master Plan and city parks projects within the downtown area. So I'll go through the proposed projects one by one. First we have the use of parks development fees from projects within the downtown area to be used towards projects within the same area. And this is consistent with the general plan as it ensures that there is funding for the ongoing improvement of parks as well as parks planning. There are transportation improvements proposed for portions of Bennett Valley Road and Maple Avenue. This includes crosswalk improvements, bicycle improvements, and the consideration of further intersection safety improvements. And this is consistent with several goals and policies of the general plan, including installing high intensity activated crosswalks, as well as just further improving the overall city active transportation network. The Laguna Treatment Plant plans to replace their programmable logic controllers in order to reduce future cybersecurity risk, and this is consistent with the general plan as it involves the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Santa Rosa's creeks team is also planning to update the citywide creek master plan. And this is consistent with the general plan as it calls for the planning, ongoing planning and protection and maintenance of the city's waterways. There are also proposed studies for stormwater capture and aquifer recharge in order to determine their potential locations and feasibility. And the general plan calls for the implementation of the 2023 Water Supply Alternatives Plan and identifying ways to enhance water supply resiliency. There is a proposal to rehabilitate approximately 11,700 linear feet of existing trunk sewer as well as 31 manholes located south of Ludwig Avenue. I realize I have included the incorrect general plan actions here, but in the staff report, there are general plan policies related to, again, the maintenance of existing infrastructure as well as specifically for sewage infrastructure to be improved. The Planning Commission's determination that these projects are consistent with a general plan is not a project and therefore is not subject to CEQA or environmental review, but each of these projects individually as they go forward will undergo environmental review before they are implemented. The Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission, by resolution, find that the six new projects included in the fiscal year 2026 to 2027 capital improvement program are consistent with the City of Santa Rosa 2050 general plan. And for any questions, this is my contact information. We do have Scott Wilkinson from Parks as well as Steve Brady with Creeks available via Zoom to answer any questions about those projects. If there are any questions about the other projects, I can take them down and get back to you after the meeting.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff? Commissioner Carter?

Is the funding for the Creeks Master Plan, full funding, is it gonna be completed this fiscal year or is it start up, what is it?

I can take a look. Oh, we have Steve Brady here to answer.

Yes, good evening Vice Chair Duggan and members of the Commission. So this is just the initial funding to begin an update of the Creek Master Plan. So we want to get out there and reassess all of our creek reaches again. So that is going to take some time and also to update where projects have been constructed and really update the plan. So I think it probably will take at least one additional fiscal year of funding to implement an update of the Creek Master Plan.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Seth? Commissioner Horton?

Thank you. Just a really quick clarifying question, pardon my ignorance. The parks funding for downtown, so that's collected in downtown, and then that goes only to parks in downtown, right?

That is correct, yes.

Okay, and again, probably a really uninformed question, but why aren't all zones being covered under this for parks funding?

Do we have Scott Wilkinson available to answer? Okay.

Hello, Scott Wilkinson, Parks Planner. It is true that what is being considered here is only the portion of the park impact development fees that are collected in downtown with projects that are developed within that sub zone. I actually do not have the answer to specifically why the other zones aren't being considered here in this item. So I'll kick that back to answer that one.

The project list is provided by the capital improvements program team. And I can ask them why this is the only one being considered and get back to you.

Yeah, that sounds great. Thanks. I'm not, you know, losing sleep over it, but just for my own edification. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, would someone like to read the resolution?

Pardon, would you like to open the public hearing?

Yeah, we do have a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing, but seeing no one else in the chambers but staff and the commission, I'll close the public hearing.

I move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa finding that the six new projects included in the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 capital improvement program are consistent with the City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2050. I'll wait for the reading.

Second.

Okay, thank you. That was moved by Commissioner Sanders and seconded by Commissioner Siscoe. Any discussion? Would you like to call, kick the vote?

Thank you. Commissioner Carter?

Aye.

Commissioner Siscoe? Aye. And I can make whatever findings we're supposed to be making for this.

Thank you.

Commissioner Horton?

I can make all the required findings and aye.

Commissioner Pardo is absent. Commissioner Sanders?

I can make all the required findings that the six new projects are consistent with the general plan.

Thank you. Aye. Acting Chair Duggan?

I can also make all the required findings and I'm voting in support of the project.

Thank you. And with Chair Weeks absent, that motion passes with five ayes.

Okay, I think that brings us to the end of our meeting. So I would like to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission of whatever it is, May 28th, 2026.