[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6677274,"mediaKeyId","2245740-c2d75754888bc7bb710a9eb198f2385b","parentId",2245740,"title","Design Review Board upholds zoning administrator, denies appeal of planned Tierra De Rosas public plaza","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",8581000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245740-c2d75754888bc7bb710a9eb198f2385b&start=8581&end=8581","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245740-c2d75754888bc7bb710a9eb198f2385b/thumbnail_8581000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6677274/Santa-Rosa-City/Sonoma-County/California/Design-Review-Board-upholds-zoning-administrator-denies-appeal-of-planned-Tierra-De-Rosas-public-plaza","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677274-9138b06a6e3ef84882271352541a5bec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771049979&Signature=A9zyth9A9G70E3Lr3uYCozN-8BOD8t-bgDWkJernniLXVJgd8n8eGtVh5Pt9hT~OilrQxu3OX~UQigMYU8HM3HjcP55ZrvHj1aUF-Lf8Gk5GjdkeLwjVC0SmVgsYvf2P6w52wYHxnmlsLM~d3pkNrmsPdT15iWWuMhkLgO90JmNGHRw8u4NUZJNNcpQZFyGk-vx4NRejepTpoPw1zvb9YOCUAjHKLmZ9vPf5xGSIEvILsI24FTwtH3PoZ6SObNfSSBEOOBXsyugx9YK5ZFJoH0sVuhej7yMy0O96g6xzC14uxEhBmECLUYDPQjyh5mNKxUtlnvBrZBEHkGCvzcjnRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Santa Rosa, CA","date","2025-02-07T04:36:33.31Z","article","The Santa Rosa Design Review Board voted 4–1 with one abstention on Feb. 12 to deny an appeal and uphold the zoning administrator’s approval of the Tierra De Rosas Public Plaza, a privately maintained public plaza that is part of a larger master development formerly known as Roseland Village.

The plaza design reviewed by the zoning administrator and appealed by neighbor John Paulson covers improvements the city described as totaling roughly 1.01 acres, including the plaza surface, pathways and adjacent sidewalks. Paulson, whose family helped develop the original Rosen Village shopping center, argued the approval conflicts with a recorded 1956 reciprocal access and parking easement and said removing surface parking would harm neighboring businesses and create a cloud on title. “How can anybody in their right mind think that they can build on a recorded easement?” Paulson said during his allotted presentation, also recounting disputes over a temporary food‑truck operation known locally as Matote.

City staff summarized the long project history: approvals and appeals since 2019, a previous temporary food‑park entitlement (Plaza Temporal / Matote Food Park), a planning commission record of actions and a zoning administrator action on Nov. 21, 2024 granting minor design review for the plaza. Staff said the project was not a new land‑use designation; it implements elements of an earlier approved tentative map and master plan. Staff also noted that, at entitlement stage, required technical studies and CEQA review would be applied as appropriate and referenced CEQA Guidelines sections cited in the report.

Public comment was extensive and predominantly from Roseland business owners and residents. Concerns focused on the plaza’s relationship to existing businesses along Sebastopol Road, the prior Matote operation and the potential for future food‑truck activity to displace paying customers and create traffic, trash and public‑safety issues. Local restaurateurs and small business owners said the temporary food‑park drew customers away from brick‑and‑mortar businesses and that the community had not been provided Spanish‑language notices and outreach opportunities to the degree needed.

Appellant Paulson said the original center had 272 parking spaces on the seven‑acre site and criticized the master plan’s proposed parking and street arrangements. City staff and the applicant emphasized the plaza replaces the temporary food‑truck configuration and that any future mobile food vendors or events would be subject to separate permitting or conditional use processes. Michelle Whitman of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission described the site’s long planning history and noted Roseland’s documented shortfall in parkland: “Roseland has 0.1 acres of open space per 1,000 persons,” she said, citing a U.S. EPA/Brownfields workplan summary.

Board members asked procedural and substantive questions. One board member requested clarification that the board was acting only on the design review appeal and not adjudicating the underlying legal easement dispute; staff and the board attorney’s office (unavailable during the meeting) advised that the administrative appeals process must be exhausted before any court remedies are pursued. The board framed its decision narrowly: it considered whether to uphold the zoning administrator’s design review approval. The final roll call recorded Board member Cook voting no; Board members Huang, Liptak, Weigel and Chair Jones Carter voting to deny the appeal; Vice Chair Adam Sharon recorded an abstention on the item. The board directed that the action is final from the Design Review Board level.

The decision allows the approved minor design review to stand; any future operational uses (for example, mobile vending or special events) would require separate permits and are subject to other city, county and state regulations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Santa Rosa Design Review Board February 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After hours of public comment, the Design Review Board denied an appeal and upheld the zoning administrator’s approval of a 1.01‑acre Tierra De Rosas public plaza, a decision opponents said could affect parking and local businesses.","taxTitle","Santa Rosa City, Sonoma County, California","taxId",3913,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6677278,"Neighbors press parking, height and environmental concerns at concept review for 103‑unit Piner Apartments",7300,1302000,8602000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245740-c2d75754888bc7bb710a9eb198f2385b&start=1302&end=8602","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245740-c2d75754888bc7bb710a9eb198f2385b/thumbnail_1302000.jpg","/articles/6677278/Santa-Rosa-City/Sonoma-County/California/Neighbors-press-parking-height-and-environmental-concerns-at-concept-review-for-103unit-Piner-Apartments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677278-95b13038119918771190d645c5758a62/orig.mp4?Expires=1771049979&Signature=TpYQ4jLXioK6648-SX-x2mUbO1ZsbzU5GnGn-1PaV~cFehFzha4jdGI4zK8kMB-eBL5xS2nogFNGEPSu05CtXdH0RzEhSX36UiaAgR1GIficBRhUdKM22SvXcAE18DlxuCNjoR8cs91G-5CFIUpDfk7hY19rKEX4588rE04Y599x2dvt-BBxsgLADBJgqS9n66gUUXx6slYa8c1uhYQkHrnYVm96hM8kXfcvsXanCDXHAlTc-AdgXebMLiwvXr3QxtR59BvdSvpL0SqVMPTWkRqmZhnvH1L9gJpzIUE8wifqKGGMrwq7YOc08XpCHjKpMIuIVlVrZdliceiLt~xfDA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers seeking feedback on the concept design for the Piner Apartments, a proposed 103‑unit, four‑story mixed‑use complex at 2000 Piner Road, fielded sustained questions from neighbors and board members about parking, building height, stormwater and wildlife impacts, and emergency access during the Design Review Board meeting on Feb. 12.

Senior planner Kristine Toomeyen told the board the 3.64‑acre site is designated in the general plan for mixed retail and medium‑density residential uses and that recent state law allows housing that conforms to general plan density to proceed without rezoning. The applicant proposes 28.29 dwelling units per acre; Toomeyen said the general plan allows up to 30 units per acre. At concept review stage the city said the submittal is not yet a final project under CEQA and that environmental and traffic studies would be required with a formal entitlement application.

Architect Jim Henderson and the project team described three, four‑story buildings over semi‑recessed parking, about 6,900 square feet of ground‑floor retail and a landscaped central plaza with pool and common building. Henderson said the design places taller buildings toward the northeast of the site, nearest existing taller housing, and locates a single‑story commons building and pool to the south to buffer adjacent single‑family homes.

Residents who live along Bay Meadow Drive and nearby streets urged the board to reconsider the four‑story height and density. “If you were to say it was going to be a two‑story apartment complex, I would be totally fine with that,” said Anton Cohen, who said street parking is already constrained. Multiple commenters — including Dave Freund, Ryan (last name not stated), Chris Mata and Dan Mola — said existing neighborhood streets are frequently full, cited past problems with trash and homeless encampments, and warned that adding 100-plus units could worsen congestion and local flooding.

Parking and access figures were a focal point. The applicant’s team told the board the technical parking requirement calculation yields about 203 required spaces under zoning, and that the current conceptual design provides about 182 spaces; with a parking reduction the applicant said a required total of about 153 spaces would be permitted. “203 required; 182 provided; with a parking reduction we would need 153,” Henderson said. Board members and neighbors questioned whether those counts and reductions would be adequate given likely vehicle ownership patterns.

Board members pressed site‑layout and circulation issues. Board member Drew (first name only) asked why the design includes two access points onto Bay Meadow Drive; Henderson said one southern access is needed for fire vehicle turning radii. Fire and emergency access also were discussed: the architect said ladder‑truck access requirements drive 26‑foot minimum road widths and noted that Santa Rosa’s ladder trucks are not stationed in some outlying districts — an issue several neighbors raised as a public‑safety concern for upper‑floor residents.

Other technical and design questions included subsurface water and vernal pond conditions on the vacant lot, possible presence of endangered plant species, and whether large trees and additional landscaping could reduce perceived bulk. Henderson said geotechnical work indicates groundwater may be encountered about six feet below grade — a reason the design uses semi‑recessed rather than fully below‑grade parking — and acknowledged further studies are needed. The city reminded the public that if the applicant files for entitlements it must supply traffic, biological and CEQA analyses.

Board members offered direction and detailed comments: several suggested stepping down building heights toward adjacent single‑family lots, breaking up massing and roofs to reduce perceived bulk, increasing perimeter landscaping, rethinking the raised plaza forecourt along Piner Road that separates retail from sidewalk, and reconsidering trash collection locations. Several members complimented the unit mix (including senior units and three‑bedroom units) but said the project should better respond to the residential context along Bay Meadow Drive.

The project team said they will hold a neighborhood meeting, refine the design based on comments and either pursue parking reductions or other entitlement paths. No formal action or vote was taken at concept review; the board provided guidance for changes the applicant should consider before submitting a formal entitlement package that will include required environmental and parking studies.","Developers presented a 103‑unit, 4‑story mixed‑use apartment complex at 2000 Piner Road; neighbors raised parking, traffic, height, environmental and public‑safety concerns during the Design Review Board concept review.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6677282,"Design Review Board elects Adam Sharon as vice chair",189,865000,1054000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245740-c2d75754888bc7bb710a9eb198f2385b&start=865&end=1054","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245740-c2d75754888bc7bb710a9eb198f2385b/thumbnail_865000.jpg","/articles/6677282/Santa-Rosa-City/Sonoma-County/California/Design-Review-Board-elects-Adam-Sharon-as-vice-chair","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677282-b2d53442a9c148d162b8fb20a21ea1d7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771049979&Signature=MMRnqCUsBIFEan8Ar~4r0B333nREgdoJQbVCk-18SdKzk8g6z94X3I9a~b7JpWZJ5yvo86Z2yfaE9yFq5UhW2G7z7iXWY21crq8LqtAyBfm5u-vBc31X63vWpUGfEfMQhOnkBvjmUWhO1NMsOkotDAulNcjxrdFOjOPNFyxLyZm6JDXhM5kvLJ1JNdqJNabnUKZCPxWpTyQgG~OxKd1qtT3EQt~gtZQaKYRjtR9CIRXF5gGLFXyBR2FzrZxsAekGUyOucB7xitRtfXgYW9HUtCsk0YmcvQX2Rcci~W3slgjTVvtVT47sIzhPzrpYabptjL7TdonMnwngLNQ8Ioh8EA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Santa Rosa Design Review Board unanimously elected Adam Sharon as vice chair during its Feb. 12 meeting.

The board nominated Sharon during the board-business portion of the meeting and, after a brief public comment period, took a roll-call vote. Recording secretary roll call shows Cook, Wong, Liptak, and Weigel voting “I” or “I/aye,” with Sharon and Chair Jones Carter also voting in favor; the motion passed unanimously.

The election followed a brief period for public comment in which Roseland resident Dwayne DeWitt praised the board’s outreach and urged continued “authentic community engagement.” DeWitt told the board, “Let folks have a voice in the public policy decision making process so that it actually matters.”

The vice chair will serve in the board leadership alongside Chair Jones Carter as the board moves toward implementation of recently council-supported changes to design review and preservation procedures described later in the meeting.","The Santa Rosa Design Review Board unanimously elected board member Adam Sharon as vice chair during its Feb. 12 meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Board upholds zoning administrator, denies appeal of planned Tierra De Rosas public plaza

Neighbors press parking, height and environmental concerns at concept review for 103‑unit Piner Apartments

Design Review Board elects Adam Sharon as vice chair