Santa Rosa Planning Commission Meeting - May 28, 2026

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission met on May 28, 2026, to consider two major agenda items: a conditional use permit and hillside development permit for the Stonehouse Hotel expansion, and a consistency determination for the Fiscal Year 2026–2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with the General Plan 2050. The meeting included staff presentations, public testimony, and commission deliberations.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The draft minutes from the previous meeting were approved as submitted with no corrections.
• Commissioner Reports: Staff acknowledged Assistant City Attorney Ashley Crocker, who is transitioning to City Attorney; she has provided legal support to the Planning Commission since 2017 and previously served as a commission member.

Public Comments & Testimony

Stonehouse Hotel (CUP & HDP)

• Fred Olibach (neighbor): Expressed neutrality but urged the commission to secure workforce housing fees and a community workforce agreement for union wages; also raised concerns about Sunridge Drive traffic.
• Deb Grabian (255 Brush Creek resident): Opposed, citing severe traffic congestion on Highway 12, dangerous single ingress/egress across a pedestrian walkway, noise from a rooftop terrace/pool, and lack of architectural compatibility with the historic Stonehouse.
• Carolyn Kohlschweiser (120 Massimo Circle): Raised concerns about noise from the pool and bar area, lack of on-site management, and past events (fireworks, food trucks); also criticized the new building's design as not matching the historic stone house.
• Greg Hamblin (128 Massimo Circle): Opposed, emphasizing noise from pool, fire pits, and bar; requested a solid eight-foot sound wall (precast or cement block) for security and noise mitigation.
• Roy Tashera (124 Massimo Circle): Strongly opposed, citing 42 years of quiet neighborhood, potential property value loss ($100k–$200k), dangerous right-turn onto Highway 12 at 40 mph, and inadequate noise/visual barriers.
• Helgi Toshera (124 Massimo Circle): Opposed, stating the project would negatively impact their property 20 feet away; noise from the existing hotel’s 10 rooms is already heard; asked commissioners to consider if they would want this behind their own homes.
• Nicole Shannard (173 Wailupa Circle): Criticized aesthetics, stating the 70-room design is too large for the location and does not relate to the historic Stonehouse.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

• No public comments were submitted.

Discussion Items

Stonehouse Hotel – Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Hillside Development Permit (HDP)

• Staff Presentation (Suzanne Hartman): The project proposes a new 70-room hotel building and renovation of the existing Stonehouse Hotel into five boutique rooms, totaling 75 rooms on a two-acre site at 331 & 355 Highway 12. Parking: 77 spaces (2 over minimum). Height: max 34 feet (elevator tower 36 feet). Setbacks comply with hillside standards. Tree replacement: 66 on-site plus in-lieu fee for 42 trees. CEQA: Class 32 categorical exemption for infill. Traffic: Transportation & Public Works waived a full operational study because projected daily trips (under 400 vehicles/day) are considered low volume; the submitted traffic letter addresses operational issues. Noise study found compliance with city standards (ambient +5 dB). Conditions prohibit public food/beverage service without further review.
• Applicant Presentation (Randy Figueroa, Tierney Ferrito Architects): Described site design – new building stepped up hillside, partially recessed parking garage, preservation of existing stone house, and provision of an eight-foot sound wall along some property boundaries. Pool and bar are hotel guest amenities only, not public. The rooftop “terrace” is an interior courtyard atop the parking garage surrounded by rooms, not a high-activity area.
• Commission Deliberation:
  • Commissioner Sisko: Supported, noting adequate studies and ability to make all findings.
  • Commissioner Horton: Supported, aligned with Sisko.
  • Commissioner Sanders: Opposed, citing insufficient assurance that the pool/bar would not be a nuisance given lack of defined operating hours and potential large events; could not make finding D.
  • Commissioner Carter: Opposed, stating traffic analysis was insufficient (no operational study despite potentially >250 trips/day), grading appeared aggressive, and site plan might not be compatible with residential uses.
  • Acting Vice Chair Duggan: Supported, noting that pool hours could be conditioned and that city traffic staff approved the studies.
• Vote on CUP: Motion passed 3–2 (Sisko, Horton, Duggan yes; Carter, Sanders no).
• Vote on HDP: Motion passed 4–1 (Carter, Sisko, Horton, Duggan yes; Sanders no).

The commission noted that the final decision is appealable within 10 calendar days to the City Clerk.

Fiscal Year 2026–2027 Capital Improvement Program – General Plan Consistency

• Staff Presentation (Sash Narbisla): Six new projects proposed:
  1. Use of downtown parks development fees for downtown parks projects.
  2. Transportation improvements on Bennett Valley Road and Maple Avenue (crosswalks, bike lanes, intersection safety).
  3. Update of the Citywide Creek Master Plan (initial funding, likely needing additional fiscal year).
  4. Stormwater capture and aquifer recharge feasibility studies.
  5. Rehabilitation of ~11,700 linear feet of trunk sewer and 31 manholes south of Ludwig Avenue.
  6. (Not specifically detailed but included in list) The commission's consistency determination is not a CEQA project; each project will undergo individual environmental review later.
• Commission Questions: Clarified that parks funding is limited to downtown zone; Creek Master Plan funding is initial; staff will follow up on why other zones aren't included.
• Vote: Unanimous approval (5–0) with all members affirming that the six projects are consistent with General Plan 2050.

Key Outcomes

• Stonehouse Hotel Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Approved by a vote of 3–2. Conditions include no public food/beverage service without further review, noise mitigation measures (eight-foot sound wall), and likely operational hours for pool/bar (to be set by conditions).
• Stonehouse Hotel Hillside Development Permit (HDP): Approved by a vote of 4–1.
• CIP Consistency Determination: Unanimously approved (5–0) for the six new projects.
• Next Steps: The Stonehouse Hotel decision becomes final unless appealed within 10 calendar days. The design review will be heard by the Design Review and Preservation Board next Thursday. The CIP projects will proceed to environmental review individually.