Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Santa Rosa Planning Commission held a regular meeting on October 8, 2026. The central action was a public hearing and vote on an appeal contesting the director's approval of a tree removal permit for a heritage Coast Redwood at 721 Spring Street, known to supporters as "Rosie the Redwood." The vote on the motion to grant the appeal resulted in a tie (2-2), but the Chair declared the motion passed, overturning the director's decision. An item regarding the Santa Rosa City Hall Development Agreement Draft Supplemental EIR was continued to the October 22, 2026 meeting without public testimony or deliberation.
This item considered an appeal filed by Tom Murphy ("Friends of Rosie the Redwood") challenging the Planning and Economic Development Director's approval of a permit to remove one Coast Redwood, a heritage tree approximately 70 feet tall and 53 inches in diameter.
Staff Presentation: Staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the permit. The property received code enforcement notices since 2021 regarding sidewalk damage from the tree roots. The current owners, Shelby and Andrew Milenez, applied for removal in April 2026, which the director approved in June 2026. Staff argued the applicant's arborist report showed root damage to infrastructure, and cutting roots for a sidewalk repair could destabilize the tree. Staff stated the city code does not require the director to evaluate alternative sidewalk designs, and public opposition is not a standalone criterion for denial.
Applicant Presentation (Property Owners): Shelby and Andrew Milenez stated they value trees but inherited a public safety and property damage problem. They argued a proposed sidewalk bulbout does not resolve the driveway damage, proximity to overhead PG&E utility lines (which they said PG&E would not relocate), drainage concerns, or long-term liability given the tree could grow to 120 feet. They requested the commission deny the appeal to allow them to address the hazards responsibly.
Appellant Presentation (Tom Murphy / Tree Supporters): Tom Murphy argued the permit was based on a flawed arborist report containing false claims about overhead wires (stating PG&E confirmed no risk) and root damage. He presented photos showing a void under the concrete slab with no roots, arguing the sidewalk was poured too close to the tree. He proposed a simple, low-cost (under $10,000) sidewalk realignment or bulbout. He noted the city had offered to build a bulbout for the previous owner, proving its feasibility. Murphy argued the removal was "unnecessary" under the tree ordinance, which bars unnecessary removal of heritage trees. He reported over 400 petition signatures and over 140 written comments favoring preservation, running 28 to 2 in favor of saving the tree.
Public Testimony (Over 25 speakers):
Commission Deliberation: Commissioners questioned staff on the process for evaluating alternatives. Deputy Director Cleve Gurney confirmed no engineered design for a bulbout had been submitted, and the code does not require the Director to evaluate alternatives. Commissioners Sisko, Pardo, and Carter stated they could not make the required findings to support the director's decision, citing the tree's health and the insufficient record regarding alternatives. Commissioners Horton and Weeks stated they could make the findings to deny the appeal.
Okay, everyone, I'd like to call the October eighth, twenty twenty-six meeting of the planning commission to order. And if we could please have roll call. Commissioner Sisko. Here. Commissioner Horton. Here. Commissioner Pardo. Here. Commissioner Sanders. Vice Chair Dugan is absent. Chair Weeks. Here. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Vice Chair Duggan. Thank you. We'll move on to item number two, remote participation, of which we have none. We have one set of minutes from September Tenth. Are there any changes, corrections? Okay, so those will stand as submitted. And with that, we'll go on to the public comment. And this is public comment on non-agenda matters. So items that are not on the agenda today. This is a time for any person may address the commission on matters not listed on the agenda, but which you are but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee. If you are in chambers and wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium. We are using both the east and the west side today. And state your name for the record if you so choose. You will have a period of up to three minutes for your comment and a countdown timer will alert you at the conclusion of the period. This Santa Rosa City Hall Development Agreement, draft supplemental EIR is continued to October 22nd. So if you are wishing to make a comment on that item tonight, now is the time for that. So with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing, and I see Mr. DeWitt up there. Hello, my name is Dwayne DeWitt. I'm from Roseland. Fifteen years ago, the city of Santa Rosa was deeded some land by the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District along Roseland Creek with a stipulation that there would be a bike path to the south side of the creek. Nothing has happened since. And one of the dilemmas about all this is we actually first heard about this in 1994 during the Southwest Area Plan, where the City of Santa Rosa did a draft EIR, and a project was proposed at this site. And it was said there would be a bike path. There's also recognition that there's a cemetery had been in this area. Nothing has been done to verify the need for any type of uh anthropological or historical survey of that cemetery, which was said to be from 1860. And the Native American assets that were there in that area also, because those that study this thing tell me that Native Americans lived along waterways in the Roseland Creek was a vibrant waterway back in the day before we started to destroy it for flood control. So basically I've come here again today to bring up this idea that you folks should pay as much attention to the other side of the tracks as you do to everything here on the east side. You give a lot of attention to way out there at Oakmont, up there at Skyhawk, over at Fountain Grove, and you ignore Roseland, which has now been in the city for nine full years, the last portion after you caused a county island to occur 30 full years ago. One of the worst things that could happen in city planning. So I know that you folks don't actually get to make the big 35,000 foot in the air decision about how our city will actually lay out and where it will go. But right now it has a footprint almost as big as San Francisco, with a population of just about a fifth of that, and we are definitely a sprawled out, difficult place. As a matter of fact, I'd say Santa Rosa is overwhelmed with what it already has. So you're now doing a South Santa Rosa specific area plan. And there's talk you may try to annex a bunch more land which you can't handle.