Santa Rosa zoning administrator approves design review for Pullman Love Phase 3, 69-unit building on Wilson Street

The Santa Rosa zoning administrator approved a design review permit on the Pullman Love Phase 3 project, authorizing a six‑story, 69‑unit apartment building at 70720 and 726 Wilson Street in the downtown Railroad Square area.

The decision, recorded in resolution DR24‑36, includes conditions added by staff and the design review board that prohibit chain‑link fencing on the project frontage, require screening of outdoor mechanical equipment, add detailed stucco/finish submission requirements for building‑permit documents and direct planning staff to perform site visits and a pre‑installation mock‑up for exterior plaster application. The zoning administrator said the action is final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk within 10 calendar days.

The project site occupies parcels within the downtown station area specific plan. Staff said the site’s maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 3.0 and the project’s FAR is 2.9. The applicant proposed a building with 69 residential units and a total of about 73 parking spaces (staff noted 21 garage/parcel spaces and 52 surface spaces on separate parcels; the applicant’s slides listed 73 spaces). The presentation indicated shared amenities with earlier phases, bike storage, a fitness center and indoor/outdoor resident spaces.

Senior planner Sheikh Holly presented the planning and economic development department analysis, describing the parcels to be merged for surface parking, and saying some existing structures would be demolished to make way for the new building. Holly told the zoning administrator that 10 trees on site would be removed and the applicant proposed replacement plantings: nine trees in the parking lot, two trees on the corner lot, five small‑scale trees facing Wilson Street and additional street trees and frontage improvements.

The department determined the project qualified under two environmental exemptions cited in the staff report: a statutory exemption referenced as "15182" consistent with the downtown station area specific plan and a categorical exemption under section 15332. The staff recommendation was approval of the design review permit with conditions; the zoning administrator said the findings required by the zoning code were met and signed the resolution.

Applicant representative Jay Luchetti described the Phoenix development team, the building materials and palette, unit mix (studios, one‑ and two‑bedrooms) and interior and rooftop amenity programming. During review board concept feedback, board members raised three substantive issues: bedroom egress and building type compliance with the building code, ADA accessible parking space compliance, and the inclusion and configuration of service parking. The applicant and building‑department review changed the building typology from what had been shown on early plans (noted in the record as a change from Type 3B to Type 3A) to address egress concerns; staff said the building department would ultimately confirm code compliance.

A design review board member (recorded in the transcript as Weigel) recommended changes to the parking‑frontage fencing to better match adjacent Pullman development fencing and requested additional landscaping to soften the parking area. Staff added a condition prohibiting chain‑link fencing for the surface parking frontage along Pilsen Street (allowing other fencing on non‑frontage sides) and added a condition that all exterior mechanical equipment be screened. The board member also requested covered parking be considered where design guidelines apply, but staff noted the downtown station area specific plan does not require minimum parking.

The zoning administrator and staff also refined several conditions to ensure constructability and clarity: they added language requiring exterior plaster/stucco to follow California Building Code requirements and ASTM standards when veneer or facing materials alter application requirements; required building permit construction documents to show transitions between exterior plaster and openings and to include manufacturers’ installation specifications; and added language to require planning staff to inspect exterior plaster application with at least a pre‑installation mock‑up and additional site visits prior to final coat/application to avoid rework.

Staff recorded one public comment received by phone and an email from a James Lloyd urging the city to follow state law and CEQA and to support the project. The planning staff said most public comments received during notification were supportive; some comments expressed concern about parking and building height, and staff responded that the site is in the downtown station area specific plan where no minimum parking is required and that the project meets the applicable FAR standard.

The zoning administrator noted that the action may be appealed to the city council (appeal to city clerk) within 10 calendar days. The resolution text and conditions as approved are part of the administrative record for DR24‑36.