Santa Rosa Planning Commission Regular Meeting – April 24, 2025

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission met on April 24, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. (called to order at 4:31 p.m.) in the City Hall Council Chamber. The primary agenda item was a public hearing to consider recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the General Plan 2050, along with associated specific plan amendments, for City Council consideration. The meeting included public comment on non-agenda matters, commissioner reports, and a department update on the Elm Tree Station project appeal. After presentations and deliberation, the commission voted unanimously (7-0) on two resolutions forwarding the General Plan 2050 to the City Council.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Non-agenda public comment: Janice Carmen (Santa Rosa District 3) objected to the appointment of Commissioner Terrence Sanders to the Planning Commission, stating that her district representative appointed someone from District 4 and that having a commissioner from the same district is important for local knowledge on planning, building, and zoning issues.
• Public hearing on General Plan 2050:
  • Ken McNab (KMAC Advising, representing property owners in unincorporated Santa Rosa) thanked staff for their hard work and expressed appreciation for the city's commitment to public engagement. He stated that while none of his suggestions were included, they were considered, and he supported staff's recommendation to forward the General Plan 2050 and EIR certification to City Council.
  • Pheena Borenson (Santa Rosa District 7, member of Sonoma County Food System Alliance) thanked the commission for including healthy food access in the general plan and for collaboration on an August 2023 forum. She expressed readiness to assist with developing an urban agriculture ordinance.
  • Ray Morgan (self-represented, Third Street resident) expressed strong opposition to the parking policies in the Station Area Plan, stating that zero parking requirements for apartments would lead to congestion and anxiety. He called the policy "lunacy" and argued that even low-income residents want cars for freedom and work access. He urged the commission not to approve the plan unless adequate parking is required.

Discussion Items

• Presentation and staff report: Supervising Planner Amy Nicholson, Senior Planner Nancy Woltering, and Terry McKracken from Placeworks presented the General Plan 2050 update, which began in March 2020 and involved extensive community engagement (over 4,700 community members, 90 groups, 12 virtual open houses, pop-up events, youth engagement). Key features include 21 identified “areas of change,” equity priority areas and populations, a greenhouse gas reduction strategy aiming for 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 85% by 2045, and a program-level EIR evaluating 18 environmental topics. Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified for agricultural resources, air quality, noise, and transportation due to the programmatic nature. Staff recommended certification of the EIR and adoption of the plan with a minor revision to Action 6.6-2 (adding farmers markets by right in non-residential zones without restriction) and Figure 6-2 correction, read into the record.
• Commissioner questions and feedback:
  • Commissioner Sanders questioned the selective use of phrases like "especially in equity priority areas" in some policies but not others, expressing concern that such language might unintentionally exclude or “other” communities. Staff and consultant explained that the phrasing was deliberate to prioritize historically underserved areas (per SB 1000 and a Kaiser healthy communities grant) and that policies using “all” already include everyone.
  • Commissioner Sanders also suggested adding language to waterway-related policies (Action 3-5.19) to encourage developers to consider habitat preservation and aesthetics (e.g., avoiding chain-link fences and razor wire along creeks).
  • Commissioner Carter asked whether Policy 3-5.3 should reference the Creek Master Plan at the policy level rather than only in actions. Staff noted that actions under that policy vary and the master plan is already referenced in applicable actions; using “if applicable” would be better placed in actions.
  • Chair Weeks noted the strong public support and thanked staff for their thorough work.

Key Outcomes

• Resolution PC-RES-2025-008 (recommending certification of the Final EIR and adoption of CEQA findings, mitigation monitoring, and statement of overriding considerations) was moved by Commissioner Cisco, seconded by Vice Chair Duggan, and passed unanimously (7–0). All commissioners confirmed they could make the required findings.
• Resolution PC-RES-2025-009 (recommending adoption of General Plan 2050 and specific plan amendments) was moved by Commissioner Cisco, seconded by Vice Chair Duggan, with the motion explicitly including the staff revisions read into the record (Action 6.6-2 and Figure 6-2 in Exhibit B). The motion passed unanimously (7–0). All commissioners confirmed they could make the required findings.
• The City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations at a public hearing scheduled for June 3, 2025. Following adoption, staff will return to the Planning Commission and City Council with zoning code and map amendments, including the missing middle housing initiative.