Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Everyone, we're gonna get started. And with this, I'd like to call the meeting of the 01/22/2026 planning commission to order. If we could have roll, please.

Thank you, chair. Commissioner Carter?

Here.

Commissioner Sisco? Here. Commissioner Horton?

Here.

Commissioner Pardo votes absent. Commissioner Sanders?

Here.

Vice chair Duggan? Here. Chair Weeks?

Here.

Thank you. Let the record reflect that all members are present with the exception of commissioner Pardo.

Thank you. We have no remote participation. We have one set of minutes from January 8. Are there any changes to the minutes or corrections? Okay. So with that, they will be approved as submitted. And then we will go on to public comments on non agenda matters. If you are in the audience and want to make a comment that is on an item that is not on our agenda, but with but is within the subject matter jurisdiction. Please go to the podium and I see you up there, miss Carmen. And you will have three minutes. And there you go.

All I have to say is you have good peripheral vision. Janice Carmen here. And I'd like to make a comment a comment and a request. And that is that I've I look over a lot of documents in between being here, and it's not just planning or zoning or any of this stuff here. It's a lot of other things as well.

I also followed the county, and the county is where I started before I came here. I was there for a year and three months before I came here. But, anyway, that's because I ran for city council. And with that said, I think that I should mention that Terry Saunders was appointed by Diana. And, Diana is from District 3, not District 4, and that we currently have no one representing us from our district.

And that a lot of things get ok'd, and it's not very happy road for the people that have to put up with what gets ok'd. And part of it is that we have no representation for our actual area where we live. He lives on McDonald Avenue, which is far away from us. Okay. That said, my main thing is having to do with zoning.

And, this has to do with a draft that I happen to see. And, I can't even remember, like, when I saw it, but it's fairly recently. And, it may have to do with other things that are evolving right now. And this is that on Saturday, the hours would be from, I believe it was 08:00 until 07:00 at night. And this is absolutely horrifying.

Nobody should have to come home with the soccer kids and after having a nice round of tennis at the local park and have to listen to construction, have to put up with trucks that are near or on their driveway, all the noise and the chaos that goes with the building. And I happen to know about that because when I first came here, it was clear cut, it was illegal, and nothing was done about it. But I had retaliation about the fact that I outed it. So I would like to see Monday through Friday no later than 05:30. 05:30 and it cuts off.

That's it. It had been 05:00 as far as I know. But there should be no machines going on. There should be nobody over on the property from the job. None of it. And, I've put up with all of it over the last year and a half that this has happened to me. So, I have personal experience with it. It's ugly, and you shouldn't be doing this to the good people of Santa Rosa. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments on non agenda items? Seeing none, I will close this public comment and take it on to item five, commission business. The planning commission is charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws in 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.

That will move on to 5.2 commissioner reports. Are there any reports by my fellow commissioners? Okay. Then we will move on. We don't have anything under other. So department report. Miss Jones?

Good afternoon members of the commission and chair Weeks. So I do have a couple of items for you. The first just to inform the commission that we've got two proposed zoning code amendments that will ultimately be coming before the commission and then to the council that are up on our website right now for public review. The first is proposed language for beekeeping regulations within the city. I'm sure the commission is aware that beekeeping has come up as a hot topic recently.

So we have prepared regulations, draft regulations for our zoning code to allow beekeeping within the city. So we've got those up for public comment right now. And then the second one is for conditional use permit streamlining. This is process that we've been working through similar to the streamlining that we created for our design review process and for the landmark alteration permit process where we created a director level process and then did some streamlining from there. The conditional use permit process is looking to do the same thing.

So, we've got some draft proposed changes up on our website and we're looking for public review on that prior to bringing it forward to the Planning Commission and the City Council. And then two other items I wanted to mention for your information. The first is our South Santa Rosa specific plan. The land use and circulation alternatives report will be released next week for public review and we will be doing community workshops for that likely sometime in February and March. Ultimately, will come before the commission as a study session, so you'll get a chance to take a look at that and provide comments.

And once we have a date for that, we can provide an update. And then the final one was the entertainment districts that the council is currently considering. We're doing a study session with the city council next week on that if you're interested in tuning in for that. And if we do get direction from the council for that, it would be ultimately an amendment to our zoning code which again would come before the commission.

That's all.

Thank you. Do you have an idea when the beekeeping regulation and the CUP streamlining would be coming to us? I mean like this spring, summer?

So sounds like likely sometime in spring or early summer. And then for the conditional use permit will hopefully be this spring.

Thank you. Okay. So if there's anybody in the chamber who would like to make a comment on those items that miss Jones just mentioned, Please make your way to the podium. Seeing no one rise. And we'll go on to statements or to seven statement of abstentions or recusals. Are there any abstentions or recuse? K. No presentations. No consent items. No report items. The first and only scheduled item today is a public hearing, and it's miss Nicholson's. It is the first 2026 general plan amendment package p l n twenty five dash zero six five o.

Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you Chair Weeks, members of the commission. As the chair mentioned, the item before you is the first general plan amendment package of this calendar year. There are two types of general plan amendments proposed.

One is a change to the land use diagram for 33 properties. Seven of these 33 properties are contained within the boundaries of the downtown station area specific plan. So, there is a reference to an amendment being required for that specific plan as well. There is also a proposed addition of two new figures to the general plan circulation element which reflects planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements as adopted in the city's active transportation plan. The project also includes zoning map amendments to 10 properties to be consistent with the proposed land use designations and also an addendum to the general plan environmental impact report.

This is the environmental document required under the California Environmental Quality Act for this project. So just briefly on the project history as the commission is familiar, the council adopted the general plan this last June and that was following a five year long process to do a comprehensive update. Not long after the general plan was adopted, staff realized that there were properties on Sebastopol Road that were supposed to be included in the targeted land use changes that were inadvertently left out. About a month later, the council adopted the city's active transportation plan and staff began work on resolving zoning code and general plan inconsistencies as a part of the general plan implementation package. This was brought forward to the commission this last September.

The commission did ultimately adopt the resolution recommending to the council approval of some rezonings to ensure consistency with the general plan land use, but heard many of the comments expressed from property owners, in particular one neighborhood near Memorial Hospital, and at that time asked that the council consider directing staff to resolve this issue by way of a general plan amendment. So, that is part of what will be discussed this afternoon. There are a number of other properties that are included in this proposal which really came out of the various conversations with property owners through that effort. So first I'll just provide a brief overview of the proposed land use amendments. This is just a picture of the city's land use diagram which sets allowed land uses for every property within the urban growth boundary.

This first example here is just east of Memorial Hospital. The area has been developed as a single family neighborhood since the nineteen forties. The proposed general plan amendment is to change the land use from office to low density residential. This would be consistent with the existing development in the area and would not require any zoning changes as the zoning of single family residential remains. These next two properties are located on Mountain Hawk Drive off of Highway 12.

These two sites have been developed as a mixed use center since 2006. The current general plan land use is very low density residential. Staff is recommending a change to the retail and business services and medium density residential land use to better reflect the existing mix of uses in the development on the site. And, this would be consistent with the current zoning which is for neighborhood commercial. There's a property on Giffin Avenue which has been developed as a single family residence since 1939.

Staff had a conversation with this property owner as part of the implementation effort who expressed a concern and a desire to retain the rural residential zoning. The proper way to do that would be to change the general plan land use in this case and staff can support the very low density residential land use given the mix of land uses as well as the the size of the property and the property owner's desire to pursue animal keeping and agricultural uses. This next property is located on Janet Way, so this is just north of the Southeast Greenway. This particular property denoted by the start is pretty small actually doesn't have a general plan land use. It's unclear as to why it does not, but it does have R 16 zoning.

Staff was contacted by this property owner who also owns the property immediately north who is interested in pursuing missing middle housing or at least constructing an accessory dwelling unit and in an effort to allow the property to be developed, staff is recommending that medium density residential land use be applied to this property and then the implementing zoning of R 315 with the missing middle housing small combining district to be added as well. There are seven properties proposed in the Maxwell Drive neighborhood for a general plan land use amendment as well as a rezoning. These properties have been developed as an asphalt plant since at least the nineteen fifties. This area was looked at as part of the downtown station area specific plan update that was back in 2020. At that time, all of the parcels surrounding this island were given the maker mixed use land use designation.

These seven properties were given the neighborhood mixed use designation which is slightly less permissive in terms of permitted land uses. Staff took a closer look at this area based on the implementation effort and is recommending that these seven properties be both rezoned and changed land use wise to be consistent with all of the abutting properties just for compatibility purposes. And then finally, these two properties are the ones I referenced which were inadvertently left out of the general plan update. They are located on Sebastopol Road. They've been developed since the fifties and sixties, formerly the site of Roseland University Prep.

One of the properties houses the Matote Food Park. The proposal would be to add the retail and business services stripe or overlay to the medium density land use which would allow for both types of land uses. The proposal would also be to change the zoning so that it implements the proposed land uses. In this case, it would be to neighborhood commercial with the missing middle housing small overlay which has already been applied to those two properties. I want to make a note that there is industrial property located on the southern portion of the site which is 100 Sebastopol Road, so there's no change proposed there that industrial land would remain with this proposed amendment.

Moving on to the general plan text amendment. As the commission knows, the general plan is comprised of multiple chapters which include multiple elements or topics. One of the elements is the city's circulation element which is closely aligned with the city's active transportation plan. Because staff was aware that there was sort of a simultaneous update effort occurring, we intentionally left out detailed bicycle and pedestrian network improvements because we wanted to be able to codify or include what came out of the active transportation plan. So, as I mentioned previously, this was adopted by council just a month after the general plan 2050 was and the focus of this plan is really looking at how people move about the city through walking and biking in particular.

So this slide here just shows one of the existing figures within the circulation element. It's relatively high level but you'll see that there are various different designations for transit use as well as the smart rail and larger areas where better connectivity is desired. The proposed figures to be added to this figure, so they would be figures three a and three b would further flush out those planned pedestrian and bicycle network improvements. And again, this is consistent with the the figures shown within the city's active transportation plan. So this is an important reference for planners and developers alike as they are reviewing projects as they're conceptual as well as when they move through the process.

I won't go through these zoning changes because I spoke about them previously, but I just want to acknowledge that even though there are land use changes proposed for 33 properties, we're only looking at zoning changes for 10 and that's because in many cases the zoning remained in place following the implementation effort. And so the Parker Drive neighborhood in particular makes up most of the properties that do not require a rezoning. There is a resolution before you which analyzes the environmental impacts of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act. This was done through an addendum to the general plan EIR. What this document looks at is what the general plan EIR concluded in terms of impacts of development related to land use and transportation in particular and then analyzes if there are any more significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed land use or zoning changes.

So the conclusion of that addendum is that there are no more significant impacts associated with this project, and so no additional environmental review would be required. This meeting was noticed as required by state law and the city zoning code in the press democrat and through additional sources like the project or I'm sorry the city web page and email noticing and no public comments have been received. We have received two questions just kind of clarifying matters, but no formal comments have been submitted. So it is with that that the Planning and Economic Development Department recommend that the Planning Commission by three resolutions recommend to the City Council adoption of the addendum to the general plan EIR, adoption of land use diagram and text amendment changes to the general plan 2050 as well as to the downtown station area specific plan land use figure and the adoption of zoning map amendments for consistency with the proposed land use changes. And I we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'll look to the commissioner. Are there any questions? Commissioner Horton?

Thank you so much for the presentation and all your work. Just two super quick clarifying questions. One is for the asphalt Maxwell situation. So the use on those parcels is already consistent with this kind of maker mixed use and that's what's happening all around and we're just aligning it right, if I understood that correctly?

The asphalt plant actually would would not be allowed or is not allowed under the existing neighborhood mixed use or the maker mixed use. So this because this property was was permitted years ago under different land use regulations, it it's able to continue but it would not be allowed with what's being proposed.

So sorry. What's happening today on the parcels that are being redesignated?

So the current use on those properties is the asphalt plant. But what I was answering is in the event that somebody wanted to put a new asphalt plant, say, that that would not be allowed under But it's just regulations or or what's proposed now.

Okay. Thanks. Sure. And then my only other tiny question, and maybe this is off the wall, but with the Janet Drive situation, if the it sounded like the neighboring property owner wants to do this missing middle housing on both properties potentially. Do we need to over whoops. Do we need to overlay the missing middle onto the adjacent property too or just the just the one?

So the property directly north already has the missing middle overlay, but we weren't able to apply it the back in the fall because there was no general plan land use. So this would apply both land use and zoning including missing metal to the properties of the south.

Thank you so much. Any

other questions? Mister Sanders?

I'm going back to the Parker Drive area. I'm looking at the slide and can you just explain to me what the stars on the slide mean? A little confused as to what that represents.

Which page?

It's on page six. Sorry. Thank you.

Sure. I'll go ahead and pull that up and

I

apologize that that wasn't more clear. I can see why that would be confusing. So it's really just denoting there's orange boundary and so what I was trying to indicate there is everything contained within the orange boundary. The star is is trying to call your eye to the the four different islands that are surrounded in that orange. So anything within the orange line with the star, those four individual groupings are proposed for the land use changes. So that's 20 different properties.

And I guess the My my question is making sure that because I remember hearing this once before, that the properties on Parker remain residential. R one, is that what we're saying? So from Aldebroek down Parker to Doyle Park, those are residential. And then on Montgomery, from Aldebrook to Doyle Park, those are commercial. Is that correct?

The the properties fronting Parker Drive are proposed to be low density residential, that would be consistent with the existing single family housing that exists there. On Montgomery Drive, it's a bit more nuanced, so and I'm not sure if my let's see if I can turn it. Okay. I'm not sure if you can see this moving around. So as you move down Montgomery Drive, this pink shade indicates the current office land use

Mhmm.

Which is applied all the way down Montgomery Drive on both sides of Doyle Park down to Alderbrook. The proposed land use change would not apply to this block between Doyle Park Drive and Talbot Avenue, so that would remain office. This property here on the corner would remain office, and then the eastern portion along Montgomery Drive would change to low density residential.

And then of course the island between Aldebroek and California also low density residential. Correct?

Yes. I'm sorry. This mouse is not tracking very quickly. So these four properties here, if you look at the star all the way to the right, there are four properties there that would change to low density residential. Then immediately left there are several other properties. One wraps around, so that's actually a church which fronts on Montgomery. And then immediately to the left of that as you cross Talbot, there are five single family properties that would be changed. And then as you move across Doyle Park, two additional properties.

Thank you. Just want to clarify that. Appreciate it. Sure.

Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Okay. So with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you are in the chambers and wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium and state your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes. And, the timer is on the screen.

Thank you. Janice Carmen, and I just want to put up what I said earlier because that is in a neighborhood in an area that I travel very often, almost every day. And, for example, today it was extremely difficult to get here. The traffic is terrible. And I'm just coming back to however the zoning is incorporated in this, that it be Monday through Friday, not beyond 05:30, Saturday and Sunday free days so people can enjoy their properties, have a dip in the pool, invite the neighbors over for a barbecue, etcetera.

But today particularly, it was awful. School buses, school gets out around the time of this meeting, and the hospital is kind of complicated to traverse in front of the hospital. There's a lot of people getting off their shift around this time. You know, a lot of things are are going on. And I I just wanna be sure that the zoning stays compatible with neighborhoods so that they're not all screwed up.

And I'm going to other meetings where they are really screwed up. And I just wanna be sure and tell you, if you're not reading up on what's going on in Solano County with the 65,000 acres being purchased, And I was just reading earlier today, they wanna keep building for forty years. They figure that it's gonna be $25,000,000,000 project. That is not what the people of Santa Rosa want in their area, not anything close to it. We don't mind an occasional building that's courteous, but what I experienced was just pure harassment of people parking in my driveway.

When I was running for city council the day I was supposed to come and meet the city executives, I couldn't even get out of my driveway because of the stuff that was going on in front of my house. It's abusive and it's beyond anything. And people don't even know what to do about it when it's going on because at the time zoning was saying, well, we're not really enforcing this, you know. So I'm just saying, heads up. Look at it, you know. And those Oakmont people are really smart. So, you know, you're gonna have a lot of problems if you're gonna start doing this. And Oakmont's had a lot of building over there. But for the most part, it's been pretty copacetic with what's going on with our town. And a lot of people come here because of the bucolic nature and the beauty and the healthy living.

And now they found that Parkinson's is related to the pollution. And there's another word that I'm forgetting right now. But anyway, all of these things play into what you people are deciding down there, especially for other areas that you don't live in. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister McNabb.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Weeks, Planning Commissioners. My name is Ken McNabb, K Mac Advising representing the property owner of the Maxwell Drive properties that are part of your amendment package tonight. I've been asked by the owner to attend tonight's hearing to let you know that he supports the proposed changes to the designations of that property and asks that you support staff's recommendation to forward recommendation of approval to the city council. So that is my message. I'd also just like to take a quick second and thank Amy Nicholson for taking the time to talk about these proposed changes with us. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in the audience, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this and bring it back to the commission. Are there any additional questions of staff at this time? Okay. So we have three resolutions. Would somebody like to enter the first resolution?

Oh. Do it.

Vice chair? Yeah. I'd like to move move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to the city council adoption of an addendum to the general plan 2050 environmental impact report, e I r, for the first 2026 general plan amendment package, file number p l n 25 dash zero six five zero and waive further reading.

Thank you. And is there a second?

Second.

Okay. So, we'll start with commissioner Cisco for comments.

I'm in support of this. I can make all of the findings. Excellent job. I mean, really it's a, you know, a clean up to bring everything into consistency and you've done a wonderful job and I think you've made some neighborhoods happy which is a good thing. So I can make all of the findings and we'll be voting in favor.

Thank you. Vice chair Duggan?

I too can make all the required findings and I'm happy to see that Parker Avenue isn't included and I think it's the right thing to do.

So I've got no other further comments. Thank you. Commissioner Carter.

I Support the resolution I can make all the necessary findings and I have nothing further to add except. Thank you

for your work Thank you Commissioner Sanders.

I also can make all the required findings. Thank you for your work, and I will support the resolution

And Commissioner Horton?

Yep. Thank you for your work and I can make all the required findings.

And I also can make all the required findings. And I realize we probably should have made these comments on all the three resolutions. So anyway, sorry about that. So with that, it was moved by Vice Chair Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Sanders.

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Carter?

Aye.

Commissioner Sisco? Aye. Commissioner Horton? Aye. Commissioner Pardo is absent. Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan? Aye. Chair Weeks? Aye. Let the record reflect that that motion passes with six ayes.

Okay. So we have the second resolution. Commissioner vice chair Duggan. Sorry.

I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending approval to the city council of a general plan amendment to change the land use designation of 30 prop 33 properties, add two figures to the general plan circulation element, and an amendment to the downtown station area specific plan land use figure, file number PLN25Dash0650 and wait for the reading.

Thank you. And is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Commissioner Sanders. So we'll start with commissioner Cisco for

comments. And all the comments that I made previously for the prior resolution I can make all of the required findings and we'll be voting yes.

Thank you. Vice chair Duggan. I can make all the required findings. Commissioner Carter.

I too can make the required findings and will support the resolution.

Commissioner Sanders. I can make all the required findings. Commissioner Horton.

I am supportive and can make all the required findings.

Thanks. And I also can make all the required findings. Once again that was moved by Vice Chair Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Sanders.

Okay. Thank you so much. Commissioner Carter? Aye. Commissioner Sisco? Aye. Commissioner Horton? Aye. Commissioner Pardo is absent. Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice chair Duggan? Aye. Chair Weeks?

Aye.

Let the record reflect that that motion passes with six ayes.

Thank you. And we have the third resolution.

Okay. I'll move the resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa recommending to City Council rezoning of 10 properties to implement the general plan land use designation file number p l N two five Dash zero six five zero and waive further reading.

Thank you. Second?

Second.

Okay. Once again, moved by vice chair Duggan, seconded by commissioner Sanders. Comments? Commissioner Cisco.

I can make all of the required findings and we'll

be voting yes. Vice chair Duggan.

I can make all the required findings

and I'll be voting yes. Commissioner Carter.

I can make all the required findings and will support the resolution.

Commissioner Sanders.

I can make all the required findings.

And commissioner Horton.

I can make all the required findings and and support.

And I also can make all the required findings and will support this and thank you for all your hard work. So with that.

Thank you, chair. Commissioner Carter? Aye. Commissioner Sisco? Aye. Commissioner Horton? Aye. Commissioner Perto is absent. Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice chair Duggan?

Aye.

Chair Weeks?

Aye. Thank you. Let the record reflect that motion passes with six ayes.

Thank you. So with that I will go ahead and adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Is that better?