Zoning administrator approves Tierra De Rosas 0.86-acre public plaza amid neighborhood concerns

The City of Santa Rosa zoning administrator approved a minor design review on Nov. 22, 2024, for a 0.86-acre public plaza in the Tierra De Rosas development, file number DR22-041, a project staff said is consistent with the Roseland Specific Plan and the General Plan.

Kristine Tunias, senior planner, presented the proposal, describing the plaza as part of a larger master plan that includes affordable and market-rate housing and a civic building site. Tunias said the plaza will be a private park open to the public and that the project qualifies for categorical exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act, citing CEQA Guidelines sections 15183 and 15182.

The zoning administrator said the design review request is limited to "zoning, site layout, architecture, materials, texture, color, neighborhood compatibility" and noted the review does not address land use. After hearing public comment, the administrator said, "I will be approving the project," and noted the decision is final unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 calendar days pursuant to zoning code section 20-62030 (the appeal deadline stated was Dec. 2, 2024).

Public commenters focused on open-space and infrastructure concerns tied to the broader Roseland redevelopment. Duane DeWitt, who identified himself as a Roseland resident, said residents were told the development would include a 1-acre park and said the current proposal "is 0.82" (0.86-acre in project materials), adding, "We specifically said green space. Kids in Roseland need parks. They need to have lawns." DeWitt urged that the civic building, when developed, should include a library branch and said he and other residents want the originally promised green space.

A separate speaker identifying themselves as the "property owner to the east" said the owner’s father, Hugh Codding, had recorded an easement granting parking and circulation rights across the site and argued those rights were being ignored. The speaker said county and MidPen actions had encroached on those rights and indicated intent to pursue litigation.

City staff responded to easement concerns during the hearing, saying Engineering Development Services reviewed recorded maps and did not find conflicts for the items under review. Staff also said prior appeals (noted in the project's history) were reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office and that the city was not a party to the recorded easements; staff characterized any dispute over private easements as a civil matter outside the city's land-use authority.

Tunias said MidPen does not yet own the property and that the county still owns the land; she said she had contacted the county about schedule but had not received a response. Asked who would maintain the plaza, Tunias said the plaza will be "privately maintained." She also noted the plaza site is intended to be open to the public.

The design review approval covers only the plaza concept and the project's design details shown in the plan set (landscaping, play features, lighting). The zoning administrator recorded that concerns about the civic building and broader infrastructure are outside the limited scope of the design review and encouraged continued public participation as future elements come forward.

The decision is subject to appeal within 10 calendar days to the city clerk; staff referenced zoning code section 20-62030 for appeal procedures.