Santa Rosa Planning Commission Meeting - May 11, 2023: STR Appeal Decision, Montecito Extension, Housing Code Amendments
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Santa Rosa Planning Commission Regular Meeting - May 11, 2023\n\nThe Santa Rosa Planning Commission met on May 11, 2023, at 4:30 PM in a regular session. The meeting included a report item on an appeal of a short-term rental permit denial, three public hearings (one continued, one approved, one recommended to City Council), election of a Vice Chair, and public comments. All votes were 6-0 with Vice Chair Peterson absent.\n\n### Consent Calendar\nNone.\n\n### Public Comments & Testimony\n- Duane Dewitt (Roseland resident) commented on housing statistics: he noted that 481 housing units were built last year with 83 affordable (18%), and expressed concern about a lack of affordable rental units and the need for more priority. He also mentioned the Roseland Village Shopping Center redevelopment and an overlay zone.\n- Rigo Bolardo (NORCAL Carpenters Union 751) spoke in support of area labor standards including livable wage, healthcare, apprenticeship, and local hire, and asked what the city is doing to implement these in upcoming housing projects.\n\n### Discussion Items\n\n#### 4.3 Other – Vice Chair Election\n- Commissioner Patti Cisco nominated Commissioner Vicki Duggan as Vice Chair, seconded by Commissioner Terrence Sanders. Commissioner Duggan accepted. The commission voted 6-0 to elect Duggan as Vice Chair (effective next meeting).\n\n#### 8.1 Report – Appeal of Short-Term Rental Permit Denial – 6241 Bridgewood Drive (SVR22-020)\n- Background: Appeal of the Planning & Economic Development Director's denial of a non-hosted short-term rental permit based on location within 1,000 feet of another non-hosted STR (2220 Fremont Drive), prohibited by Zoning Code 20-48.040(B)(3). The property is approximately 870 feet away.\n- Appellant Carrie Richie argued she was an operator in good standing since 2019, that the 1,000-foot rule does not apply to operators in good standing under the urgency ordinance, and that the rule is arbitrary. She also raised concerns about the other property's compliance and ownership structure.\n- Staff (Planner Sachnoor Bisla & Deputy City Attorney Crocker) responded that the appellant did not apply by the December 3, 2021 deadline, making her a new operator subject to the 1,000-foot rule. They noted adequate notification via letters and the Press Democrat. The attorney stated there is no vested right to operate an STR and recent case law supports the city's actions.\n- Public comment: Eric Frazier spoke in opposition to the STR urgency ordinance and supported the appeal.\n- Commissioners discussed that notice was given, the role was narrow, and the 1,000-foot rule is a standard zoning tool. They voted 6-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the denial.\n\n#### 9.1 Public Hearing – Montecito Townhomes Time Extension (EXT22-0003)\n- Request for a one-year extension of a tentative map for an 8-lot small lot subdivision at 0 Montecito Blvd. The original approval was in 2018, automatically extended to May 29, 2022 via AB 1561. The extension would move expiration to May 29, 2023. The applicant is working on final map submittal.\n- No public comments. Commission voted 6-0 to approve the resolution granting the extension.\n\n#### 9.2 Public Hearing – 7-Eleven Conditional Use Permit (CUP19-097) – Continued\n- Senior Planner Kristinae Toomians requested continuation to a date uncertain to gather additional information in response to late public correspondence. Commission voted 6-0 to continue.\n\n#### 9.3 Public Hearing – Housing Legislation Zoning Code Text Amendment\n- Senior Planner Nancy Woltering and Supervising Planner Amy Lyle presented a package of zoning code amendments to comply with 2022 state housing laws, including AB 2097 (parking near transit), AB 2244 (religious institution housing), AB 2334 (density bonus for 100% affordable in very low vehicle travel areas), AB 2011 and SB 6 (by-right housing on commercial land), and AB 2295 (educational agency lands). The city's supplemental density bonus ordinance was also updated for consistency.\n- No public comments. Commission voted 6-0 to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of the amendments.\n\n### Key Outcomes\n- Vice Chair Election: Commissioner Duggan elected.\n- Short-Term Rental Appeal: Denied (6-0), upholding the director's denial.\n- Montecito Townhomes Extension: Approved (6-0).\n- 7-Eleven Conditional Use Permit: Continued to date uncertain (6-0).\n- Housing Legislation Zoning Code Amendments: Approved for recommendation to City Council (6-0).
Meeting Transcript
Chair Weeks, we have about a minute left, and we can start whenever you're ready. Thank you. So with that, I will go ahead and call to order the May eleventh, twenty twenty-three meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. Can we have roll call, please? Commissioner Carter. Here. Commissioner Sisko? Here. Commissioner Duggan. Here. Commissioner Holton. Here. Commissioner Sanders. Present. Vice Chair Peterson is absent. Chair Weeks? Here. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Vice Chair Peterson. Thank you. And I wanted to make a note that we will be reordering the agenda to take the item nine point two, the conditional use permit for the seven eleven at Forty-Tree Middle Rink and Road first under the public hearings, and that city staff at that time will be recommending that the item be continued to a date uncertain. So uh before you start, uh Mr. DeWitt, I did want to mention that if there are any uh in if there are any people on Zoom that want to make a comment, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute once called upon, and we will do the Zoom public comments after the in-person. So with that, uh Mr. DeWitt. Hello. May I use the overhead projector, please? Do you know how to do that? Uh Chair Weeks, I'm gonna have to reach out to our IT team for this one. I'm not familiar with how to use the go forward and uh I'll ask you folks to refer to page 115 of yesterday's Santa Rosa City budget discussions. My name is Duane DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. The planning and economic development department put forward uh some information that was curious to me. Oh, there you go. Now you have it. So basically, it said that 481 housing units last year and 83 affordable units were put in. That comes to 18 percent of all the housing units last year. Then it said the permits issued for last year. And I was curious, does that include those housing units mentioned in the line before? And then it has the granted land use approvals for housing units. And it doesn't say a year for that specifically, if that's for next year, the fiscal year. So I just did a back of the envelope kind of approach here looking at these units that are mentioned here, and this would show that Santa Rosa is getting 16.5 percent of the units that are here being affordable. One of the dilemmas that we face in Santa Rosa is there's a dearth of affordable residential rental units. Those aren't being built. Uh I'll rephrase that. Some are being built, but not nearly enough for the need. And that has always been the need since the housing authority was first formulated 60 years ago because we needed residential rentals. And we're basically in this continuing approach of funding a lot of money. It's not just tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars over the years through the housing authority for housing vouchers for different situations, and we're not solving this problem of affordable residential rentals. So I come to you pointing out that this is an important thing that you should make a priority in your discussions.
openpublica.com