Santa Rosa board approves 50‑unit Lago Fresco project with conditions after traffic and design concerns

The Santa Rosa Design Review and Preservation Board on Tuesday voted 4–1 to approve design review for the Lago Fresco apartment project, a 50‑unit, four‑building development at 2445 Summerfield Road and 4744 Hoenn Avenue (file DR22‑037, PRJ22‑019). The board attached conditions aimed at improving building articulation, pedestrian access and grading after an extended public hearing that focused on traffic, parking and tree removal.

Monet, a city planner, summarized the proposal as a 1.31‑acre infill project that includes four buildings ranging from three to four stories, on‑site amenities and four deed‑restricted very‑low‑income units that qualify the project for a state density bonus and related concessions and waivers. Staff said the project received a Class 32 CEQA infill exemption and that the planning commission previously approved a major conditional use permit and the density‑bonus letter.

The applicant team, represented by architect John Anderson of Anderson Architecture and Planning, described site layout and design changes made in response to prior reviews: the tallest building (Building D) was set back from the street to provide common open space; the color palette and exterior articulation were expanded; bicycle parking and a small play area were added; and a tree mitigation program was proposed. Don McNair, the landscape architect, said replacement trees will be upsized beyond minimum required sizes and an in‑lieu fee would cover trees that cannot be mitigated on site.

Residents and nearby business owners raised repeated concerns about site safety and circulation. Multiple speakers told the board the single driveway on Hoenn Avenue, located roughly 150 feet from the Summerfield intersection, creates a risk for conflicts with queuing traffic and pedestrians; one speaker warned there would be accidents and said injured people’s lawyers would hold decision‑makers accountable. Several commenters stated the project’s traffic study used data from 2019 or an earlier pandemic period and asked for updated counts and a reconsideration of the driveway location. Steve Schwartz, who owns an office across Hoenn, requested a new traffic study and said the distance between the site entrance and the intersection could lead to blocked access during peak conditions.

Dailene Whitlock, the traffic engineer for the applicant, and city traffic staff responded that an addendum and updated materials were attached to the record; Whitlock said many operations‑related counts used 2019 pre‑COVID volumes (which are often higher than current counts) and that the addendum addressed CEQA‑relevant topics (pedestrian, bicycle and transit consistency, vehicle‑miles‑traveled, and emergency‑response access). Staff noted parking calculations differ by regulatory baseline: the city zoning code parking requirement adds to roughly 108 stalls; the state density bonus baseline would yield about 72 stalls; and the applicant requested a parking concession that results in 63 on‑site spaces in the current plan.

Board members largely praised design improvements since the project’s prior concept review but asked for more facade articulation and better pedestrian connections. Vice Chair Sharon and other members pressed the applicant to address two elevations that appear ‘‘monolithic’’ in the plans, to extend bay‑window massing to the ground on Building C to create a stronger pedestrian portal, and to add horizontal articulation at designated gridlines on Building A’s west elevation. The board also requested a defined pedestrian route from Hoenn Avenue into the site so residents can safely access interior public areas without walking through drive aisles or planter strips.

The board accepted a set of friendly amendments as conditions of approval: the applicant shall provide additional horizontal articulation on Building A’s west elevation (specified grid lines), shall extend the Building C bay‑window articulation to ground level, shall provide a designed pedestrian access from Hoenn to the site interior connecting to the public amenity area, and shall submit a preliminary grading plan; the board also asked the applicant to consider extending the masonry wall around the courtyard. Staff said it would review the meeting video to ensure the final conditions precisely reflect the board’s direction.

Board Member Ennis, Board Member Fajan and Vice Chair Sharon voted to approve; Board Member Weigel voted no; Chair Jones Carter voted to approve. The board’s decision is final unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 calendar days under zoning code section 20‑62‑030.

The project team and staff told the board they will return with revised plans that incorporate the conditions; the board noted that any further technical or code questions will be addressed as the project proceeds through plan‑check and building permit review.