Attachment 13 - Public Comment Packet — Santa Rosa City Council, November 4, 2025

Attachment 13: Public Correspondence

Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Re: A variation on missing middle housing
From Sonia Taylor
Date Mon 7/28/2025 8:13 PM
To Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]>
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfchronicle.com%2Frealestate%2Farticle%2Fbay-area-cheapest-homes- 20771034.php%3Futm_source%3Dmarketing%26utm_medium%3Dcopy-url- link%26utm_campaign%3Darticle-
share%26hash%3DaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2ZjaHJvbmljbGUuY29tL3JlYWxlc3RhdGUvYXJ0aWNsZS9iYXktYXJ lYS1jaGVhcGVzdC1ob21lcy0yMDc3MTAzNC5waHA%253D%26time%3DMTc1Mzc1ODc3MDY3MA%253D %253D%26rid%3DMjkyZGFiM2QtMWE3Ni00ZWExLWJjYjUtNTAwNTQwZjNlOTU1%26sharecount%3DMQ %253D%253D&data=05%7C02%7Canicholson%40srcity.org%7C24ce1fef43ac4659b23208ddce4df074%7 C0d511985462e4402a0b038e1dadf689e%7C1%7C0%7C638893556346355604%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjo yfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GNYR2bN4nIe1fuhQPwRwm4%2FiJW0lpdRqBNYE9i7wErc%3D& reserved=0
(Gift article)
Then go to all the links for the property: Here's the overall site plan and floor plans and historic report:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avmhc.org%2Flinks.html&data=05%7C02%7Canicholson%40srcity.org%7C24 ce1fef43ac4659b23208ddce4df074%7C0d511985462e4402a0b038e1dadf689e%7C1%7C0%7C63889355 6346376375%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAi OiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IKK29sjqrUYeJMcnS%2BW rexuUNqrIB4LdCtfrzmxSZ7w%3D&reserved=0
Homes for sale:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avmhc.org%2Fsale.html&data=05%7C02%7Canicholson%40srcity.org%7C24c e1fef43ac4659b23208ddce4df074%7C0d511985462e4402a0b038e1dadf689e%7C1%7C0%7C638893556 346392753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOi JXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fLa7Q36L%2F8GAKfuf8Dl%2 B2Eqp0fwSPslSqyiLcqPYrHA%3D&reserved=0
They're TINY. They're CHEAP. They're probably a WONDERFUL way to live. Cottage Court on steroids. But tiny steroids! I'm sure there are problems, but nothing is impossible to solve.

This is 15 units/acre (30 acres, 450 units, 162 buildings). Lots of

open space. Not high density, "just" medium density. But I think definitely worth doing. In my not at all humble opinion.

Sonia
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX F

C OMMENTS L ETTERS ON THE

D RAFT G ENERAL P LAN
Attachment 5
........................................................................................................................

Woltering, Nancy
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Good afternoon,
Laurel Chambers <
Friday, November 1, 2024 3:22 PM
Waitering, Nancy; Jones, Jessica; Nicholson, Amy

[EXTERNAL] Sonoma County Food System Alliance GP Engagement Food Equity Santa Rosa General Plan - Meeting Summary.pdf; Sign-in Sheet_8.22.23.pdf; Santa Rosa General Plan Revision Tracker.xlsx
I am writing on behalf of the Sonoma County Food System Alliance (SCFSA) regarding the General Plan draft released last month. We were surprised and disappointed to see that the new draft of the Food Access and Urban Agriculture has been significantly pared back and the language weakened. We complied the attached comparison spreadsheet to show how the draft policies changed over time alongside the feedback our group provided.

Santa Rosa City planners attended multiple SCFSA meetings and gathered our thoughts and feedback leading up to the first draft of the General plan released last summer. They assured us that they had reviewed the SCFSA's Food Action Plan and would incorporate its goals. We provided feedback on the draft concepts and helped shape the goals and actions that ended up in the draft. We then spent considerable time, effort, and our own funding to co-host a community engagement event on August 22nd, 2023. It was a wonderful collaboration and the planners were very appreciative of the feedback and the excellent turnout. About 50 people attended the event and 36 signed in on the sign-in sheet, but the Community Discussions Summary says there were only 17 participants and the document does not reflect the report that the facilitator prepared (see attached Meeting Summary).

Can you please explain why our input was not accurately reflected in the Community Discussions Summary and why actions were removed or changed in the most recent draft? Sincerely,
Laurel Chambers, on behalf of the Sonoma County Food System Alliance Laurel Chambers, MPH
Healthy Eating, Active Living Coordinator
Public Health Division
Cell: 408-204-0973
[email protected]
..,, sOnoma county,
!DEPARTMENT OF HE'.ALTB SERVICES
1 COMMENT LETTER GP1

SYSTEM

ALLIANCE

SONOMA COUNTY
noma FORWARD
Plan Our Future Together
Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan
Workshop
August 22, 2023 6:00 - 8:00 pm
Finley Community Center I Santa Rosa, CA
Overview
This document includes a summary of the Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Event. This event was a partnership between the Sonoma County Food System Alliance, the County of Sonoma Department of Health Services (OHS), and the City of Santa Rosa, with funding from the CalFresh Healthy Living program. Ag Innovations, a 501 c3 nonprofit based in Sonoma County facilitated the event. About 50 people participated in this workshop.

Acknowledgments
• Thank you to the City of Santa Rosa for partnering in the design of the workshop, and providing the meeting space, childcare, and for welcoming a community-led event. • Thank you to the Sonoma County Food System Alliance for volunteering time in providing input, convening this workshop. A special thank you to Laurel Chambers, OHS, for hosting; to Julia Van Soelen Kim, UC Cooperative Extension, and Laurel Chambers for presenting on behalf of the SC FSA, to Wendy Krupnick for providing local goodies during the event, Helen Myers for creating the outreach materials, and to the FSA Volunteers who hosted tables, studied the general plan, and supported the convening, including: Mimi Enright, Evan Wiig, Phina Borgeson, Christine Kuehn, and Suzi Grady. Special thanks to Jessyca Avalos from the Sonoma COAD who helped with translation and table hosting. • Thank you to OHS for providing funding to support facilitation by Ag Innovations, outreach support, and logistical support.

Ag Innovations Network J 708 Gravenstein Hwy N #10151 Sebastopol, CA 95472-2808 www.aginnovations.org Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop I August 22, 2023 About the Workshop
·-
Objectives • Participants understand the food-system-related sections of the Santa Rosa General Plan • Santa Rosa residents as well as other Sonoma County residents interested in the Santa Rosa .· General Plan feel heard and have a sense that their interests have been accurately captured and can influence policy making
• Santa Rosa city planners are well informed about the kind of food system policies that local residents, and in particular the FSA, want to see in the General Plan • The SCFSA has a clear understanding of next steps for following up with Santa Rosa city planners, .. workshop participants, and others, in order to carry forward the input gathered ...

Attendees There were about 50 attendees (including organizers), including 8 who participated in a Spanish-speaking breakout group.

Speakers 1. Laurel Chambers, Sonoma County & Julia Van Soelen Kim, UCCE (Presentation can be found here in English and Spanish.)

2. Genevieve Taylor, Ag Innovations (Facilitator)

3. Beatriz Guerrero Auna, City of Santa Rosa (Presentation can be found here in English and Sps1oi~h.)
.

Meeting • Link to food policy draft:

Materials https;LLwww.srcit~,konv~io,~QmLgeneral-plao-wpdi;Jte-2050-draftftparm=182 • Link to Food Action Plan: bttps:LLsonomacofus,!6!'.Qrgpress.CQOJlfQQQ-i;Jction-plirnL Summary
The following summary was developed at the end of the event, as each breakout group reported out its top three themes.

Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Event Themes

1. Healthy Food in Schools: **Note, Top Theme** - this theme was present in five out of six breakout groups.
o Strengthen the ability of schools to source locally
• Food hubs facilitate institutional purchasing from multiple producers and we need more of them
■ Need more education inside and outside of schools that is appropriate to culture and language.
■ Some suggested that schools could be hubs for community gardens (not only school gardens).

Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop I August 22, 2023 ■ Instead of restricting fast food by setting limits on how close together they can be, look at the density of fast food in neighborhoods-some neighborhoods have much higher density of fast food than others
■ It's not enough to mandate all small corner stores to sell healthy food, they have to do something to increase demand for that food so it doesn't go to waste and cost the store.
■ Support local food, such as tamales and local fruit.
o Support for edible landscaping, urban fruit trees, allowing people to grow food in as many places and ways as possible.
o Excited to see community gardens in general plan-but needs more support ■ Community gardens need a coordinator and resources to prevent them from falling into neglect.
• Community Healthworkers could be a resource for supporting community gardens. • Bayer Farm and Andy's Unity Garden are neighborhood hubs and important sources of healthy food, education and community-every neighborhood should have one ■ Allow/facilitate more community gardens in parks (example: Place to Play is huge and has space for a garden) And/or a farm.
o Food waste prevention-need repurposing kitchens to meet mandates in SB 1383 to reduce greenhouse gasses as a result of food waste.
o Support for food hubs, including distribution, aggregation, and processing, alongside support for micro businesses and home kitchens and small kitchens. Suggested food hub zoning. o City should come to the neighborhoods with services as much as possible-offer office space to Cal Fresh, other food assistance so it is easier for people to sign up for benefits

3. Consider the present and future of Farming. Climate change is happening now and we need to ensure access to water for farmers.

4. Recommendations for the Food System Alliance: A number of breakout groups gave advice directed specifically to the Sonoma County Food System Alliance, including: 1) The FSA should consider telling the FSA story more clearly and publicly, 2) Identify clear calls to action and ensure that the Food Action Plan is flexible in the face of a changing future, 3) supporting these Ideas by identifying funding, research and big policy ideas or initiatives, and supporting accountability for implementation of these policies, and 4) following up on supporting healthy food In schools through building a coalition where parents can get involved. Electeds, CDFA Rep would be interested, and potentially connect it to edible food recovery efforts in the county.

Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop I August 22, 2023 Breakout Group Notes
The following are "raw notes" developed from each breakout group. There are very specific and actionable ideas throughout these notes, including specific feedback on policy points in the General Plan draft. The groups were asked to review a summary of the Food Action Plan and a two page draft of the relevant section of the General Plan.

Each group was given 45 minutes to discuss in groups of 6 the following questions: 1) What resonates about the Food Action Plan and the Food System Alliance input? 2) Based on your interests and concerns about the Sonoma County Food System, what questions do you have? 3) What are you excited to see in the General Plan? 4) What do you see missing from the General Plan? 5) Anything else you want to make sure the city planners consider as they finalize the General Plan?
Breakout Group 1
• Inform everyone of the intention of the food action plan • Basic needs are human needs. This is where all human problems are connected - eating unhealthy foods. The children are our future and they are being poisoned from unhealthy food. • The title of the plan was noteworthy for some
• Participants would like to listen to what the city has to offer and share with the community • One of the participants is a local farmer and would like to share his land. Create space for community gardens and community kitchens.
• Need to have incentives to allow local farmers and restaurant workers affordable housing • Love the pillar to limit fast food restaurants
• Add to the checklist to offer vegetarian foods
• Information for nutrition to the community with cooking classes that are accessible for everyone and are culturally sensitive
• Information needs to be in indigenous languages too
• Want support for the tamale cart not to be harassed by the police • We need better food in the schools
• Local gardens that are accessible to the community
• Educate the community on what vegetation is for each season • No chemicals / pesticides
• Fresh food (i.e. non-frozen) that is full of nutrition • Less burgers, less last, and less chemicals
• Need housing with space for vegetation and gardening - green space - to cultivate and enjoy • Community gardens - currently Land Paths have rented spaces however people have had these spaces for many years. Can they cycle and allow more people or purchase more land and make it more accessible?
• Focus on the school system lunches for a better future • City should allow the raising of livestock (goats, cows, pigs) • Educate the community about different times to grow different types of vegetables - need to be culturally accessible and to learn how to maintain the community garden areas • Education in nutrition for all!
• Streets with fruit trees, like in the Barlow
• lncentivize developer to add vegetation and landscaping that is edible • Inform the community on how to get proper food
• Offer licensing so that they are not harassed by the police Breakout Group 2
FSA Actions
Food Equity in the Santa F-?osa General Plan Workshop I August 22, 2023 • There should be a forum for parents to advocate for healthy school food / Revisit forum done for school food
Other comments
• Add community based organizations as partners
• Organic and regenerative is missing from the SRGP
• 6-6.5 - too weak. Can we get to the root of the problem? Why can't we have stronger language and mandates for healthy food?
• Can we direct City to start canvassing CBOS and other partners to work on food system issues, specifically 6-6.6
• Hubs for food to support school food and small growers • Hubs for social services - more neighborhood resource centers where people can apply for food assistance programs
• Promote gleaning and food recovery to residences and businesses Breakout Group 3
Food Action Plan (FAP)
• Pillars 3&4 relate to current work
• Social equity important - domino effects on health
• Pillars 1 and 2 important preference for SoCo products - what's cheap now has costs • Clear call to action important. How to reach those not involved? Find ways to reach people where they're at.

Questions
• What will it take for society to understand the importance of food and the food system? Pandemic-like
• Flavor can be transformational
• How to increase education at all levels. Outside of schools, neighborhood hubs. More avenues for education on food, nutrition, and health are needed. Community health workers - federal funding.

Excited to see in the GP
• Community gardens!
• Paid community health workers
• Restrictions on fast food - need carrots and sticks
• Community garden coordinators
• School gardens can be community hubs and community gardens • 6-6.2 - Collaboration - organizational.

Breakout Group 4
• Healthy food in schools
• Urban agriculture - fence restrictions make it hard to make gardens • Right to grow food
• Right to sell local produce grown at home - like setting up market booth in a driveway • Barrier to better school food
o Small kitchens
Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop I August 22, 2023 o Short staffed
o Food safety
• Action 6-6.2: needs more than just requirements to stock fresh produce, or it will go to waste - they need support to sell it, show case it, promote it
• Action 6-6.8: instead of 300 ft requirement, it should be about overall neighborhood density of the fast food places
• Action 6-6.17: solid soil testing for homes and gardens too • Resources for coordination of community gardens to help them be maintained and prevented from falling into disrepair
• A method to ID vacant property for potential community gardens (addressed by 6-6.22?) • Action 6-6.2: need to assure that price points of grocery stores are varied, i.e. not just discount, not just high
• Need to keep regulations on growing/selling produce reasonable, but safe - not onerous with hoops to jump through
• lncentivize establishment of food hub and local farmers to aggregate, distribute food • Climate change impacts on farmers
• Anthropocen is shifting us away from ag - we see it happening today. We need more support for farming in the GP (water access, etc.) Prioritize water hierarchy for ag Breakout Group 5
Comments for Food System Alliance
• Connect the dots as in the Food Action Plan - reduce siloing • Access with education hand in hand with connecting the dots • Thanks to FSA for getting some of this language into the SRGP • Strengthening neighborhood connection with the local food system • How do we hold the City of Santa Rosa accountable in fulfilling the goals in the General Plan? • FSA can do more with school and parents
Group comments re: Santa Rosa General Plan
• Strengthen role of community-based organizations
• Missing language re: pesticide use and organics
• Strengthen language about people growing food in many different ways and places • Community gardens in "community parks" no just in "neighborhood parks" • Strengthen language regarding SR City, School District 6-6.5 • Review for policies that could strengthen the ability of school districts to source local food • Dedicate city space for one-stop shopping for food access help and other social services at the neighborhood level
Breakout Group 6
What resonates?
• Better definition needed on "healthy food"
• Urban ag in plan in a big way
e Community gardening is important and needs support
• Progressive but doesn't go far enough
• Language vague tp leave open for interpretation
• Creates "operating space"
• Understands healthy food access issues; affordable even better but how is it operationalized to make it affordable
• Affordability; accommodation for accessibility to fresh product; food deserts and fast food access
Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop I August 22, 2023 • Income potential from sugar sweetened beverages tax? How to direct it to further GP goals? Stake it to health ... revenue from unhealthy food should go to healthy food Questions
• Precautionary principle planning considered? FAP is by nature utopian. How can it consider adverse future issues?
• Schools - with independence of schools how can we connect with the General Plan or to foster support in schools?
• How do we connect state and local government with school policy (GP 6-6.5). o Weave in state programs language
• Gentrification: how can GP ensure affordable housing in the face of current pressures Breakout Group 7
• Update zoning codes
• Save local dairy processing
• Culturally appropriate food options
• More support bringing healthy food / new initiatives to Equity Priority Areas (EPAs) • Daily farmers market at Mitote Food Park
• SB1383!
• Transportation to healthy food options, including community bikes with baskets to carry food • Save Manzana! (apple processing)
• Mobile food pantries
• Providing access to land for agriculture particularly for underrepresented farmers and to combat generational wealth
• Leveraging SRJC (Shone Farm) to introduce program for local meat processing or apprenticeship program with local butchers
• Any urban ag should support BIPOC folks with things like fast tracking permits and other incentives
• Healthy food in local school system - procuring from local sources • Centralized location to store food/ food recovery with freezers (physical spaces) • Work with SRJC culinary program (or other culinary programs) to prep healthy food for school system
o Include the Ceres Model of training students to cook with farm grown ingredients o Outreach to underrepresented communities, including things like 11 Providing childcare at meetings like this
■ Hosting meetings in EPAs
■ Increasing awareness of food assistance programs
Urban Ag Points
• Any policy should maximize "operating space" to allow actors to resolve issues of urban food production
• Society regulates activities we want to suppress and de-regulates those we want to encourage. Urban Ag ordinance should be largely an act of de-regulation. • Two myths that should be discussed:
o Food production creates residential nuisances
o Food production is an economic endeavor, i.e. it is not economically viable at the small-scale, and therefore not affordable.
o Urban Ag can survive primarily by acting within in the informal and domestic economy Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop I August 22, 2023 • To meet household needs in EPAs, urban ag will need to include proteins and fats = animal husbandry
• Successful production and economic models can be found in history or nations that are monetarily poor or stressed
o Eastern Europe prior to 1990
o Balkans
o Southeast Asia
• Predicament: Good food is too expensive to buy. Food is too cheap to provide a livelihood to the farmer.
o Solution: shift production to the household and community garden level.

Miscellaneous Comments
Let's look at what's going right in other municipalities. • Santa Cruz - homeless garden projects
• Vermont - lntervale
• Detroit - farms and gardens within city limits
• Other??
• And can city employees call or write to the leaders of these projects to talk about how to implement or lay the foundations for implementation?
• And let's incentivize eerie high schooler getting out to SRJC's Shone Farm at least once before graduating
Tt1e following have interest in farm to school initiatives:
- Electeds
- CDFA Rep
- Edible food recovery
Registration--Food Equity Santa Rosa General Plan Event (Responses) Food Equity In the Santa Rosa General Plan Event 8/22/23 Amber Gonzales [email protected] ll'I
Anastacia Cruz [email protected] • t!_,
Andrea Pickett [email protected]
w
Blythe Young [email protected] •
Cathrine Wolf [email protected] t!_ 'r/
Cathryn Couch [email protected] t !(.Al
1-C_h_ri_st_in_a_D_a_v_ld ____ -+_D_av_id_c_n_11_1..;::@;,.;;g'-m_a_il._c_om ________ l--' .CC;a:1J,,.·;~ri.tiLJ·t;"' christlne Hoex [email protected] ~
David Wolterlng [email protected]
-- I
Dena Allen [email protected]
Diane Wheeler [email protected]
Elaine Walter [email protected]
Erica Llpanovlch [email protected]
Gabriela Hernandez [email protected]
Janeen Murray [email protected] ... " ...

Jasmine Hunt [email protected]
Jennie Schultz [email protected]
Jessica Rodriquez [email protected]
Jocelyn Mobley [email protected]
joey smith [email protected]
Karen Girard [email protected]
Kelly Conrad [email protected]
Kelly Smith [email protected]
-Kristen Sales [email protected]
Kyle LaRue [email protected]
.

Usa Ludwigsen [email protected]
Lori Houston [email protected]
Marisol Canchola [email protected]
Marlon Javier Montoya Mejia [email protected] MM
Morgan Meadows [email protected]
Morlna Sysouvanh [email protected]
Natasha Granoff [email protected]
Nichole Warwick [email protected]
Nicole Curreri [email protected]
Nohemf Palomino [email protected]
Paola Santos [email protected]
Rebekah [email protected]
Rocio Rodriguez rocio.rodriguezcasquete@sonoma•county.org fLL Shan Magnuson [email protected]
Steve Schwartz [email protected]
Wendy Kohatsu, MD [email protected]
Registration-~Food Equity Santa Rosa General Plan Event (Responses) L.-.-...... ___ _,__ ___ -.:;att,A;ftM.,.,_._t;,:;_~ • .--.,,1 "''t~fi>r~ccA-~ CK-.

Draft Concepts shared with SCFSA in Jan.
2023 (SCFSA additions in red}
Summer 2023 Draft
Food Access and Urban Agriculture
Access to fresh foods, whole grains, and other
unprocessed or minimally processed foods is
essential to people's health. In addition to
retail stores, Santa Rosa currently features five
active community gardens that help provide
healthy food options to community members.

Community gardens play a critical role in the
city, sometimes serving as the primary food
source when costs of and/or access to retail
stores are limiting factors.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture maps
census tracts where a significant number or
share of residents is more than a specified
distance from the nearest supermarket. Figure
6-3 shows the tracts in Santa Rosa where
residents are low income and a half mile or
more from the nearest supermarket. The City
designates such areas "Healthy Food Priority
SCFSA Feedback on 2023 draft, gathered
from event on 8[22123
Oct. 2024 Draft
Food Access and Urban
Agriculture
Access to fresh foods, whole grains, and other
unprocessed or minimally processed foods is
essential to people's health.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture maps
census
tracts where a significant number or share of
residents is more than a specified distance
from
the nearest supermarket. Figure 6-2 shows
the
tracts in Santa Rosa where residents are low
income and a half mile or more from the
nearest
supermarket, as identified by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. The City
designates
such areas "Healthy Food Priority Areas" to
target efforts to meet the nutritional needs of
Healthy food retail establishments. Promote Policy 6-6.1: Attract and support a range of Polley 6-6.1: Attract and support a range of improved access to healthy food options healthy food retailers, prioritizing EPAs and fresh food retailers, particularly that sell/serve culturally-relevant foods in Healthy Food Priority Areas, so that all in Equity Priority Areas and areas with a high concentration of less residents live within one mile of a full- Healthy Food Priority Areas, so healthy options, such as fast food chains, service grocery store, fresh produce market, that ail residents have access to liquor stores, and convenience stores. or others offering fresh produce. healthy foods within one mile of Ensure retail food establishments accept where they live. federal food benefits including CalFresh and
WIC. Action 6-6.l: Partner with Sonoma County City should come to the neighborhoods with Action 6-6.l: Encourage convenience stores, Health and Human Services to encourage services as much as possible-uffer office liquor stores, and neighborhood stores in Santa Rosa to participate in the space to Cal Fresh, other food assistance so it is markets to carry fresh produce Federal Food Assistance Program. easier for people to sign up for benefits and participate in programs such as Cal Fresh, especially in Equity
Action 6-6.2: Require convenience stores, Priority Areas and Healthy Food supermarkets, liquor stores, and neighborhood Priority Areas. and ethnic markets to carry fresh produce,
especially in EPAs and Healthy Food Priority
Areas.

Proposed farmers market policy: Identify Action 6-6.3: Update the Zoning Code to allow Action 6-62: Consider an update to the Zoning locations near city center and/or housing hubs farmers markets in all nonresidential zoning Code to allow farmers' markets in for a permanent farmers market (similar to city districts by right with standards. all nonresidential zoning districts of Davis' Central Park Farmers Market) by right with standards and where they will not be located on the
same parcel as an existing grocery
store.

Action 6-6.4: Consult with the local hospitals,
ciinics, local school districts, Santa Rosa
Community College, and the California State
University Extension to produce and provide
educational materials and programs aimed at
promoting and facilitating healthier lifestyles.

Healthy food options. Promote healthy food Action 6-6.5: Explore programs with the Santa Action 6-6.3: Support local programs that and beverage standards and procurement Rosa City School District, Sonoma County provide healthy foods in schools policies and practices in government buildings Public Health Division, community garden and other public institutions. and government-sponsored events. Include groups, and other advocates to provide healthy nutrition standards and local food preferences. foods in schools and other public institutions.

Promote access to culturally-relevant food.

Action 6-6.6: Distribute information and Action 6-6.4: Support the distribution of educate low-income families and people information about food assistance experiencing homelessness about food programs.
assistance proqrams
Policy 6-6.2: Encourage the establishment of How do we increase demand for and access Policy 6-6.2: Encourage the establishment of local restaurants and businesses that serve to local healthy food rather than cheap fast local restaurants and businesses that serve healthy food. food? Lets make sure healthy food is healthy food.

Action 6-6.7: Update the Zoning Code to available at a neighborhood by require conditional-use-permit review for any neighborhood scale. '""Note, Top Theme** - chain restaurant with more than five outlets in This theme was present in three of six the nine-countv Bav Area. breakout groups.

Action 6-6.8: Require at least 300 feet between . Instead of restricting fast food by setting any two fast-food chain operations. limits on how close together they can be, look at the densrt_,r of fast food in
Action 6-6.9: Seek resources to facilitate neighborhoods-some neighborhoods have establishment of "microenterprise home much higher density of fast food than others kitchen operations"-that is, restaurants Not enough to mandate all small corner operated out of a private residence-in EPAs, stores to sell healthy food, have to do as allowed bv Assemblv Bill 686. something to increase demand of that food so Action 6-6.10: Develop a program to provide Action 6-6.5: Consider streamlining permitting fast-track permitting for healthy food and it doesn't go to waste and cost the store. for full-service grocerY stores in grocerY stores in Healthy Food Priority Areas • Support local food, such as tamales and Healthy Food Priority Areas and and underserved areas, as well as areas local fruit. underserved areas, as well as identified for increased residential areas identified for increased development and mixed use. residential development and
mixed use.

GOAL X. Community Food Security & Urban Policy 6-6.3: Facilitate urban agriculture, Strong support for growing food in as many Policy 6-6.3: Facilitate urban agriculture, Agriculture. Maintain and facilitate the farming, gardening, and local food different ways as possible via urban ag. farming, gardening, and local development of new forms of urban production, especially in EPAs and Healthy -Note, Top Theme** - This theme was food production, especially in agriculture, urban farming, or urban Food Priority Areas. present in three of six breakout groups. Equity Priority Areas and gardening, and community food production Healthy Food Priority Areas. in Santa Rosa, including residential gardens, Consider the present and future of Farming. community and school gardens, urban Climate change is happening now and we farms, cooperatives, rooftop farms, or other need to ensure access to water for farmers. urban farming options that provide health,
social, environmental, and economic
benefits to residents, including access to
fresh vegetables and fruits, promoting
physical activity, activating and improving
green spaces, community building, creating
social connections, and providing nutritional
education, especially in food deserts and
equity priority communities.

Action 6-6.ll: Provide the necessarY resources Action 6-6.6: Support retention of the city's to retain the city's existing community existing community gardens and gardens. encourage development of new
communitv qardens.

Equitable access to safe food-growing Action 6-6.12: Support the creation of additional Excited to see community gardens in general Action 6-6.7: Support the creation of additional opportunities: Encourage the development of community gardens or other urban agriculture plan-but needs more support community gardens or other new urban agriculture sites in low income and opportunities, particularly in EPAs and Healthy •Community gardens need a coordinator and urban agriculture opportunities, underserved neighborhoods and coordinate Food Priority Areas. resources to prevent them from falling into particularly in Equity Priority Areas efforts with parks and open space neglect. and Healthy Food Priority Areas organizations. Combine programs on urban •Community Health Workers could be a agriculture with food production safety, food resource for supporting community gardens. literacy, and nutritional education. •Bayer Farm and Andy's Unity Garden are neighborhood hubs and important sources of
healthy food, education and
community-every neighborhood should have
one
·Allow/facilitate more community gardens in
parks (example: Place to Play is huge and has
space for a garden) And/or a farm.

Revise the Zoning Code to allow urban Action 6-6.13: Consider updating the Zoning Support for edible landscaping, urban fruit Action 6-6.8: Consider updating the Zoning agriculture, in its different forms, as permitted Code to allow all forms of urban agriculture by trees, allowing people to grow food in as many Code to allow urban agriculture uses in all zoning districts of Santa Rosa, right in all zoning districts where appropriate, places and ways as possible. where appropriate. inclusive of community food production (as including community, yard, rooftop, indoor, defined in AB 1990 and AB 234) and on-site and other gardens; community food sales. Revise Zoning Code to make community production (as defined by the State); and on- food production and urban agriculture an opt site exchanges and sales. out activity instead of opt in for all zones.

Develop Santa Rosa's Urban Agriculture Action 6-6.14: Develop an Urban Agriculture Action 6-6.9: Consider developing an Urban ordinance. This ordinance should include ordinance that includes strategies to increase Agriculture Ordinance that strategies to increase access to healthy food, access to healthy food-particularly in EPAs includes strategies to increase particularly in healthy food priority areas and and Healthy Food Priority Areas-and access to healthy food- equity priority communities; develop urban standards for operation and soil mitigation. particularly in Equity Priority Areas agriculture physical and operational standards; and Healthy Food Priority Areas- and mitigate soil hazards. and standards for operation and soil mitigation.

Offer incentives to developers to include a Action 6-6.15: Explore the feasibility of enacting Action 6-6.10: Explore the feasibility of small farm in the development in exchange for an Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone (per enacting allowing higher density housing units. Assembly Bill 551) to allow landowners to an Urban Agriculture Incentive receive tax incentives for putting land into Zone (per Government Code agricultural use. Section 51040) to allow
landowners to receive tax
incentives for putting land into
::::iririr-1 ilt"r rr-:::il 1 1c:i:::,.

POLICY X2 Partnerships for Urban Agriculture. Action 6-6.16: Partner with the County, Strengthen the ability of schools to source Action 6-6.ll: Evaluate ways to support urban Collaborate and partner with Sonoma County, nonprofits, school districts, neighborhood locally agriculture in schools, parks, non-profits, schools, neighborhood organizations, faith-based organizations, and •Some suggested that schools could be hubs hospitals, and other public land organizations, faith-based organizations, and others to identify and develop sites for urban for community gardens (not only school and spaces where appropriate advocates to identify and develop sites with agriculture potential, and support all urban gardens]. urban agriculture potential, especially in low agriculture types in schools, parks, hospitals, income and underserved neighborhoods. correction facilities, and other public land and Support urban agriculture in schools, parks, spaces suitable for urban agriculture hospitals, correction facilities, or other public development, inciuding public easements and land suitable for urban agriculture rights-of-way.
development, inciuding public easements and
rights-of-way, where appropriate, and not in
conflict with other uses, utility infrastructure, or
needs of property owners.

Evaluate contaminants that may be harmful to Action 6-6.17: Evaluate the potential presence Action 6-6.12: Encourage landowners to human health on land proposed for urban of contaminants that may be harmful to evaluate the potential presence of agriculture including site history assessments human health on land proposed for urban contaminants that may be and soil testing. Help provide financial agriculture, including by performing site harmful to human health on land resources for soil testing and remediation. history assessments and soil testing. proposed for urban agriculture, including by performing site
history assessments and soil
Toc:+inn
Action 6-6.18: Identify financial resources for Action 6-6.13: Identify financial resources for soil testing and remediation on identified sites soil
for urban agriculture. testing and remediation on
identified sites for urban
aoriculture
Proposed policy for food hubs: Direct staff to Action 6-6.19: Work with the County Strengthen the ability of schools to source partner with Ag and Open Space to establish Agricultural Preservation and Open Space locally food hubs throughout the city where residents District to establish food hubs throughout the Food hubs facilitate institutional can meet and exchange excess home-grown city where community members can meet and purchasing from multiple producers and we produce. This would help with food waste and exchange excess home-grown produce need more of them [this comment refers to recovery goals while increasing access to commercial food hubs, which is slightly healthy food and building community. different from the community food hubs in the draft policy]
oSupport for food hubs, including
distribution, aggregation, and processing,
alongside support for micro businesses and
home kitchens and small kitchens. Suggested
food hub zoning.

POLICY X.3 Community Education on Urban Action 6-6.20: Partner with the County Strengthen the ability of schools to source Action 6-6.14: Support partner agencies in Agriculture. Collaborate with Sonoma County Department of Health Services, local schools, locally providing education about the Department of Health Services, school districts and nonprofit organizations to provide Need more education inside and outside nutritional, social, economic, and in Santa Rosa, and non-profit organizations, education about the nutritional, social, of schools that is appropriate to culture and environmental benefits of urban particularly at schools, community centers, economic, and environmental benefits of language. farming and locally grown and farmers markets, and libraries, on efforts to urban farming and locally grown and ecologically sound foods; urban educate the community on the nutritional ecologically sound foods; urban agriculture oFood waste prevention-need repurposing agriculture opportunities; food health, social, economic, and environmental opportunities; food production safety; food kitchens to meet mandates in SB 1383 to production safety; food literacy; benefits of urban farming and consuming literacy; cooking; and food waste reduction. reduce greenhouse gasses as a result of food cooking; and food waste locally grown and ecologically sound foods. waste. reduction.

Collaborate with programs on food production
safety, food literacy, cooking, food waste
reduction and nutritional education.

Ensure the Neighborhood Food Act (AB 2561) is Action 6-6.21: In accordance with the recognized, removing barriers renters and Neighborhood Food Act (Assembly Bill 2561), members of homeowners' associations (HOAs) educate landowners, apartment complexes, face when trying to grow food for themselves and homeowners associations (HOA) about the at home. benefits of urban gardening and edible
Educate landowners including owners of landscaping, and work with them to remove apartment complexes and home-owners any barriers that renters and owners with an associations about the benefits of urban HOA face when trying to grow food for self- gardening and edible landscaping. consumption, exchange, or sale.

POLICY X.6 Urban agriculture on private Action 6-6.22: Establish incentives for private Ensuring BIPOC land access and ownership. Action 6-6.15: Encourage private property propertY. lncentivize private propertY owners property owners and developers to provide The group was very aware of the dynamics of owners and developers to provide to provide opportunities for residential opportunities for residential gardening and social equity and looked at the Food Action opportunities for residential gardening, urban agriculture, and cottage food urban agriculture, and similar opportunities to Plan goal of social equity from a number of gardening and urban agriculture, businesses on privately owned land including food producers who are emerging, have different angles. and similar opportunities to food leasing to new, beginning, limited resource, limited resources, and/or are people of color. producers who are emerging, and BIPOCfood producers. have limited resources, and/or are n0nnlo r,f r-nlnr
POLICYX.4 Urban Agriculture for Personal Action 6-6.23: Require public development Consumption. Allow urban agriculture projects to provide access to sustainable food opportunities such as yard, roof-top, indoor, for residents. and other gardens that produce ecologically
sound food and culturally appropriate food for
personal consumption. lncentivize developers
to incorporate gardens and edible landscaping
on new and existing residential, commercial,
and public development projects that produce
food for residents and workers.

POLICY X.5 Agricultural land protection.

Protect and enhance the agricultural land
base, including urban gardens and peri-urban
farms and ranches within Santa Rosa's sphere
of influence, that is not planned for
urbanization in the timeframe of the General
Plan. Partner with Community Land Trusts as a
means of increasing affordability of housing
and land for food production.

Action 6-6.24: Work with the County to protect
the agricultural land base in the Sphere of
Influence, including urban gardens, farms, and
ranches.

Action 6-6.16: Work with the County to protect
the agricultural land base in the
Sphere of Influence, including
urban gardens, farms, and
ranches.

Woltering, Nancy
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Shan Magnuson
Saturday, November 2, 2024 10:57 AM
Laurel Chambers
Waitering, Nancy; Jones, Jessica; Nicholson, Amy; [email protected] [EXTERNAL] Re: [SCFSA GG] Sonoma County Food System Alliance GP Engagement Thank you, Laurel for sending this letter. I agree with all your concerns and strongly encourage the new draft of the Santa Rosa General Plan to include the language originally proposed which included recommendations from the Sonoma County Food Action Plan.

I hope the efforts of the Sonoma County Food System Alliance and the results of the Aug 22, 2023 convening, which I attended, will be accurately reflected in the draft plan.

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,
Shan Magnuson
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 3:21 PM 'Laurel Chambers' via Sonoma County Food System Alliance wrote:

Good afternoon,
I am writing on behalf of the Sonoma County Food System Alliance (SCFSA) regarding the General Plan draft released last month. We were surprised and disappointed to see that the new draft of the Food Access and Urban Agriculture has been significantly pared back and the language weakened. We complied the attached comparison spreadsheet to show how the draft policies changed over time alongside the feedback our group provided.

Santa Rosa City planners attended multiple SC FSA meetings and gathered our thoughts and feedback leading up to the first draft of the General plan released last summer. They assured us that they had reviewed the SCFSA's Food Action Plan and would incorporate its goals. We provided feedback on the draft concepts and helped shape the goals and actions that ended up in the draft. We then spent considerable time, effort, and our own funding to co-host a community engagement event on August 22 nd, 2023. It was a wonderful collaboration and the planners were very appreciative of the feedback and the excellent turnout. About 50 people attended the event and 36 signed in on the sign-in sheet, but the Community Discussions Summary says there were only 17 participants and the document does not reflect the report that the facilitator prepared (see attached Meeting Summary).

Can you please explain why our input was not accurately reflected in the Community Discussions Summary and why actions were removed or changed in the most recent draft? 1 Sincerely,
Laurel Chambers, on behalf of the Sonoma County Food System Alliance Laurel Chambers, MPH
Healthy Eating, Active Living Coordinator
Public Health Division
Cell: 408-204-0973
[email protected]
noma
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sonoma County Food System Alliance" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].

To view this discussion visit
https:ljgroups.google.com/d/msgid/SCFSA/PH0PR09MB8411B42D656127016F2CC8E1A4562%40PH0PR09MB8411.na mprd09.prod.outlook.com.
2 From: Shan Magnuson
To: Laurel Chambers
Cc: Woltering, Nancy; Jones, Jessica; Nicholson, Amy; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SCFSA GG] Sonoma County Food System Alliance GP Engagement Date: Saturday, November 2, 2024 10:57:17 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Thank you, Laurel for sending this letter. I agree with all your concerns and strongly encourage the new draft of the Santa Rosa General Plan to include the language originally proposed which included recommendations from the Sonoma County Food Action Plan.

I hope the efforts of the Sonoma County Food System Alliance and the results of the Aug 22 , 2023 convening, which I attended, will be accurately reflected in the draft plan.

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,
Shan Magnuson
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 3:21 PM 'Laurel Chambers' via Sonoma County Food System Alliance > wrote:

Santa Rosa City planners attended multiple SCFSA meetings and gathered our thoughts and feedback leading up to the first draft of the General plan released last summer. They assured us that they had reviewed the SCFSA’s Food Action Plan and would incorporate its goals. We provided
feedback on the draft concepts and helped shape the goals and actions that ended up in the draft. We then spent considerable time, effort, and our own funding to co-host a community engagement event on August 22nd, 2023. It was a wonderful collaboration and the planners were very appreciative of the feedback and the excellent turnout. About 50 people attended the event and 36 signed in on the sign-in sheet, but the Community Discussions Summary says there were only 17 participants and the document does not reflect the report that the facilitator prepared (see attached Meeting Summary).

Can you please explain why our input was not accurately reflected in the Community Discussions Summary and why actions were removed or changed in the most recent draft?
Sincerely,
Laurel Chambers, on behalf of the Sonoma County Food System Alliance Laurel Chambers, MPH
Healthy Eating, Active Living Coordinator
Public Health Division
Cell: 408-204-0973
[email protected]
DHS LOGO Color

COMMENT LETTER G
P2

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sonoma County Food System Alliance" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].

To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SCFSA/PH0PR09MB8411B42D656127016F2CC8E1A4562%40PH0PR09MB8411.namprd09.prod.outlook.com .

Woltering, Nancy
From:

Sent:

To:

Ken MacNab <
Tuesday, November 5, 2024 12:08 PM
Waitering, Nancy
Cc: Jones, Jessica; Nicholson, Amy
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Status of 2050 General Plan Update Thanks Nancy. I do have one over-arching question/ concern. In reviewing the updated Draft GP I did not see any mention or consideration of the South Santa Rosa Specific Plan process. I presume the same is true of the Draft EIR (I am just starting my review}. This is a little surprising given the scope/magnitude of the SSRSP planning effort. I am curious to know why this is and if there was any internal discussions about this during preparation of the updated draft.

Ken
Ken MacNab
KMac Advising
Sent from my mobile, please excuse typos
From: Waitering, Nancy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:47:18 AM
To: Ken MacNab
Cc: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>; Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Status of 2050 General Plan Update Hi Ken,
We are in the process of discussing whether to include the letters, or just provide a quick summary of the comments received to date. I will clarify once we have settled on our process.

Thanks,
Nancy
From: Ken MacNab
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 10:44 AM
To: Waitering, Nancy <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>; Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Status of 2050 General Plan Update Thank you Nancy! Will submitted letters go out in the PC agenda packet? If yes, what is the deadline for submitting something to Amy?
Ken
Ken MacNab
KMac Advising, LLC
From: Waitering, Nancy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 9:51 AM
1 COMMENT LETTER GP3

To: Ken MacNab
Cc: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>; Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Status of 2050 General Plan Update Hi Ken,
Please direct comments to Amy Nicholson, Supervising Planner. The General Plan 2050 Draft EIR will be going before the Planning Commission on November 14th • The focus of the meeting will be on the adequacy of the General Plan 2050 Draft EIR. If we receive comments on the General Plan, we will also forward them to Commissioners. Meetings on the General Plan 2050 and Final EIR will be in the Spring.

Thanks, Ken I
Best,
Nancy
Nancy Woltering, AICP CEP I Senior Planner - Advance Planning Planning & Economic Development I 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 I Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-4688 I Cell (707) 291-6197 I [email protected]

FORWARD
Pl•n Our fuM• TO!)lllhor
From: Ken MacNab
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 9:45 AM
To: Waitering, Nancy <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>; Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Status of 2050 General Plan Update Hi Nancy-
Hope this message finds you well. We are reviewing the October update to the Draft 2050 General Plan document and will likely have some comments. I am writing to ask who our comments should be directed to. I also wanted to ask if a meeting on the updated Draft GP document has been scheduled before the PC.
'
Please let me know when you get a chance.

Thanks-
Ken
2 1
From: Altamirano, Gino
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 5:49 PM
To: Woltering, Nancy <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Projections for Jobs
Nancy, I am interested in the 300 sq. Ō. per employee for commercial (see below taken from the October 2024 DraŌ General Plan update) and if this projecƟon/standard will regulate the number of employees a commercial business/operator can have in a commercial area?
Thank you,
Gino
COMMENT LETTER GP4

2 From: Woltering, Nancy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 5:38 PM
To: Altamirano, Gino
[EXTERNAL] Projections for Jobs
Hi Gino,
I received your phone message. The 2050 General Plan projecƟons for jobs are based on the square footage capacity* of diﬀerent uses mulƟplied by a jobs mulƟplier that is unique to each use. For example, the employee mulƟplier for new oﬃce space is 3.32 jobs per addiƟonal 1 ,000 square feet. These mulƟpliers are from the SCTA model. *The jobs mulƟplier for hotels is based on the number of hotel rooms and for educaƟonal faciliƟes is based on the number of students. st
Does that answer your quesƟon? Please let me know if you have further quesƟons.

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment from SRGP Website
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 9:48:31 AM
Comment Submitted by:

Name: Robin North
Organization: None Given
Email: [email protected]
Comment:

Comment: What this plan seems to ignore or put on the back-burner is that urban tree cover is in a very bad state. The last attention paid to it seems to be in the '90's. The approved tree list is outdated. Any trees planted around this time are at the end of their life span and are not being replaced. In fact, the city's policy is to fill in the planting wells with more concrete. The language of this policy does not reflect the urgency of this situation. The language of the policy does not convey that the authors understand that to get people out walking our streets and neighborhoods instead of driving the streets need to be shaded.

See all comments.
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.santarosaforward.com%2Fmail_forms%2Flisting&data=05% 7C02%7Cnwoltering%40srcity.org%7C5e2171b2c4d647da280608dd098b873c% 7C0d511985462e4402a0b038e1dadf689e%7C1%7C0%7C638677217106802247%7CUnknown %
7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4z MiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YT2Ht% 2Brbkrx8wSw8Tc9cEojcSvha%2F91MTadFjx9w7Ic%3D&reserved=0 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to info [email protected].

COMMENT LETTER GP5

Santa Rosa Planning Commission City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404 Via email: [email protected] Subject: Agenda Item 11.1 - Public Hearing - Santa Rosa General Plan 2050 Final EIR, General Plan

2050

and

Specific

Plan

Amendments
April 25, 2025 Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners, Thank you for the planning department’s willingness to hear our input regarding food and agriculture

policy

Sonoma

County.

appreciate

the

planning

staff

for

reviewing

our

Food

Action

Plan

and

incorporating

our

goal

“increase

equitable

access

healthy,

affordable,

safe

and

culturally

appropriate

food

and

beverage

choices.”
As a reminder, we co-hosted a community workshop with the City of Santa Rosa on environmental

justice

and

food

access

for

the

general

plan

August

2023

with

over

50 attendees.

report

was

published

summarizing

the

findings

(see

attached).

Our comments here are regarding Farmers Markets and Community Gardens. Farmers Markets Action Item 6.6.2 “Consider an update to the Zoning Code to allow farmers’ markets in all nonresidential

zoning

districts

right

with

standards

and

where

they

will

not

located

the

same

parcel

existing

grocery

store.”

Suggested

revision:

"Allow

farmers’

markets

all

nonresidential

zoning

districts

right

with

standards."

The proposed language does not change the owner’s ability to control the actions on their land or

language

their

leases.

merely

affirms

the

benefits

farmers

markets

for

healthy

food

access

and

can

streamline

the

permitting

process

establish

farmers

market,

all

parties

are

aligned.

This most recent version of Action 6.6.2 appears to be an over-reach and precludes all potential collaborations

between

grocers

and

farmers

markets

into

the

future.

The

suggested

language

also fails to define a grocery store and may be in direct opposition to Goal 6.6, Policy 6-6.1, and Action

6-6.1.

Furthermore,

farmers

markets

provide

important

economic

impact

our

local

economy

and

support

access

healthy

food.

Community Gardens & Urban Agriculture Community gardens are crucial resources for combating food insecurity, increasing access to culturally

relevant

foods,

well

increasing

community

resilience

the

case

natural

disasters,

particularly

equity

priority

areas.

our

stated

goal

support

existing

community

gardens

and

encourage

the

establishing

new

gardens,

especially

city

owned

properties.

Our

network

includes

potential

partners

who

are

available

help.

We feel strongly that the City of Santa Rosa should affirm its support of community gardens by “providing

necessary

resources

retain

existing

community

gardens

and

create

new

ones”

order

ensure

these

valuable

community

assets

flourish.

We are grateful to see the inclusion of active language regarding the development of an urban ag

ordinance.

would

welcome

the

opportunity

lend

our

support

and

expertise

this

endeavor.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Sonoma County Food System Alliance membership, Phina Borgeson Interfaith Sustainable Food Collaborative Suzi Grady Petaluma Bounty Wendy Krupnick Chiatri de Laguna Farm Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan
Workshop
August 22, 2023 6:00 - 8:00 pm
Finley Community Center | Santa Rosa, CA
Overview
This document includes a summary of the Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Event. This event was a partnership between the Sonoma County Food System Alliance, the County of Sonoma Department of Health Services (DHS), and the City of Santa Rosa, with funding from the CalFresh Healthy Living program. Ag Innovations, a 501c3 nonprofit based in Sonoma County facilitated the event. About 50 people participated in this workshop.

Acknowledgments
● Thank you to the City of Santa Rosa for partnering in the design of the workshop, and providing the meeting space, childcare, and for welcoming a community-led event. ● Thank you to the Sonoma County Food System Alliance for volunteering time in providing input, convening this workshop. A special thank you to Laurel Chambers, DHS, for hosting; to Julia Van Soelen Kim, UC Cooperative Extension, and Laurel Chambers for presenting on behalf of the SCFSA, to Wendy Krupnick for providing local goodies during the event, Helen Myers for creating the outreach materials, and to the FSA Volunteers who hosted tables, studied the general plan, and supported the convening, including: Mimi Enright, Evan Wiig, Phina Borgeson, Christine Kuehn, and Suzi Grady. Special thanks to Jessyca Avalos from the Sonoma COAD who helped with translation and table hosting. ● Thank you to DHS for providing funding to support facilitation by Ag Innovations, outreach support, and logistical support.

Ag Innovations Network | 708 Gravenstein Hwy N #1015| Sebastopol, CA 95472-2808 www.aginnovations.org

Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop | August 22, 2023 About the Workshop
Objectives ● Participants understand the food-system-related sections of the Santa Rosa General Plan ● Santa Rosa residents as well as other Sonoma County residents interested in the Santa Rosa General Plan feel heard and have a sense that their interests have been accurately captured and can influence policy making
● Santa Rosa city planners are well informed about the kind of food system policies that local residents, and in particular the FSA, want to see in the General Plan ● The SCFSA has a clear understanding of next steps for following up with Santa Rosa city planners, workshop participants, and others, in order to carry forward the input gathered Attendees There were about 50 attendees (including organizers), including 8 who participated in a Spanish-speaking breakout group.

Speakers 1. Laurel Chambers, Sonoma County & Julia Van Soelen Kim, UCCE (Presentation can be found here in English and Spanish .)

2. Genevieve Taylor, Ag Innovations (Facilitator)

3. Beatriz Guerrero Auna, City of Santa Rosa (Presentation can be found here in English and Spanish .)
Meeting
Materials
● Link to food policy draft:
https://www.srcity.konveio.com/general-plan-update-2050-draft#page=182 ● Link to Food Action Plan: https://sonomacofsa.wordpress.com/food-action-plan/ Summary
The following summary was developed at the end of the event, as each breakout group reported out its top three themes.

Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Event Themes

1. Healthy Food in Schools: **Note, Top Theme** - this theme was present in five out of six breakout groups.
o Strengthen the ability of schools to source locally
▪ Food hubs facilitate institutional purchasing from multiple producers and we need more of them
▪ Need more education inside and outside of schools that is appropriate to culture and language.
▪ Some suggested that schools could be hubs for community gardens (not only school gardens).

2. Healthy Food Access
o Strong support for growing food in as many different ways as possible via urban ag. **Note, Top Theme** - This theme was present in three of six breakout groups. o Ensuring BIPOC land access and ownership. The group was very aware of the dynamics of social equity and looked at the Food Action Plan goal of social equity from a number of different angles.
o How do we increase demand for and access to local healthy food rather than cheap fast food? Lets make sure healthy food is available at a neighborhood by neighborhood scale. **Note, Top Theme** - This theme was present in three of six breakout groups. 2 Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop | August 22, 2023 ▪ Instead of restricting fast food by setting limits on how close together they can be, look at the density of fast food in neighborhoods—some neighborhoods have much higher density of fast food than others
▪ It's not enough to mandate all small corner stores to sell healthy food, they have to do something to increase demand for that food so it doesn’t go to waste and cost the store.
▪ Support local food, such as tamales and local fruit. o Support for edible landscaping, urban fruit trees, allowing people to grow food in as many places and ways as possible.
o Excited to see community gardens in general plan—but needs more support ▪ Community gardens need a coordinator and resources to prevent them from falling into neglect.
▪ Community Healthworkers could be a resource for supporting community gardens. ▪ Bayer Farm and Andy’s Unity Garden are neighborhood hubs and important sources of healthy food, education and community—every neighborhood should have one ▪ Allow/facilitate more community gardens in parks (example: Place to Play is huge and has space for a garden) And/or a farm.
o Food waste prevention—need repurposing kitchens to meet mandates in SB 1383 to reduce greenhouse gasses as a result of food waste.
o Support for food hubs, including distribution, aggregation, and processing, alongside support for micro businesses and home kitchens and small kitchens. Suggested food hub zoning. o City should come to the neighborhoods with services as much as possible—offer office space to CalFresh, other food assistance so it is easier for people to sign up for benefits

3. Consider the present and future of Farming. Climate change is happening now and we need to ensure access to water for farmers.

4. Recommendations for the Food System Alliance: A number of breakout groups gave advice directed specifically to the Sonoma County Food System Alliance, including: 1) The FSA should consider telling the FSA story more clearly and publicly, 2) Identify clear calls to action and ensure that the Food Action Plan is flexible in the face of a changing future, 3) supporting these ideas by identifying funding, research and big policy ideas or initiatives, and supporting accountability for implementation of these policies, and 4) following up on supporting healthy food in schools through building a coalition where parents can get involved. Electeds, CDFA Rep would be interested, and potentially connect it to edible food recovery efforts in the county.

Next Steps
1) Send the summary as a comment to the City of Santa Rosa General Plan, in order to support their EJ Element in the General Plan
2) Please comment online here:
https://www.srcity.konveio.com/general-plan-update-2050-draft#page=182 3) Start Healthy School Food Coalition meetings
4) Get involved in the FSA - please contact us here ! 5) Food System Alliance will review and reflect on what was learned and let it influence the future and present of the Food System Alliance.
3 Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop | August 22, 2023 Breakout Group Notes
The following are “raw notes” developed from each breakout group. There are very specific and actionable ideas throughout these notes, including specific feedback on policy points in the General Plan draft. The groups were asked to review a summary of the Food Action Plan and a two page draft of the relevant section of the General Plan.

Each group was given 45 minutes to discuss in groups of 6 the following questions: 1) What resonates about the Food Action Plan and the Food System Alliance input? 2) Based on your interests and concerns about the Sonoma County Food System, what questions do you have? 3) What are you excited to see in the General Plan? 4) What do you see missing from the General Plan? 5) Anything else you want to make sure the city planners consider as they finalize the General Plan?
Breakout Group 1
● Inform everyone of the intention of the food action plan ● Basic needs are human needs. This is where all human problems are connected - eating unhealthy foods. The children are our future and they are being poisoned from unhealthy food. ● The title of the plan was noteworthy for some
● Participants would like to listen to what the city has to offer and share with the community ● One of the participants is a local farmer and would like to share his land. Create space for community gardens and community kitchens.
● Need to have incentives to allow local farmers and restaurant workers affordable housing ● Love the pillar to limit fast food restaurants
● Add to the checklist to offer vegetarian foods
● Information for nutrition to the community with cooking classes that are accessible for everyone and are culturally sensitive
● Information needs to be in indigenous languages too
● Want support for the tamale cart not to be harassed by the police ● We need better food in the schools
● Local gardens that are accessible to the community
● Educate the community on what vegetation is for each season ● No chemicals / pesticides
● Fresh food (i.e. non-frozen) that is full of nutrition ● Less burgers, less last, and less chemicals
● Need housing with space for vegetation and gardening - green space - to cultivate and enjoy ● Community gardens - currently Land Paths have rented spaces however people have had these spaces for many years. Can they cycle and allow more people or purchase more land and make it more accessible?
● Focus on the school system lunches for a better future ● City should allow the raising of livestock (goats, cows, pigs) ● Educate the community about different times to grow different types of vegetables - need to be culturally accessible and to learn how to maintain the community garden areas ● Education in nutrition for all!
● Streets with fruit trees, like in the Barlow
● Incentivize developer to add vegetation and landscaping that is edible ● Inform the community on how to get proper food
● Offer licensing so that they are not harassed by the police 4 Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop | August 22, 2023 Breakout Group 2
FSA Actions
● There should be a forum for parents to advocate for healthy school food / Revisit forum done for school food
Other comments
● Add community based organizations as partners
● Organic and regenerative is missing from the SRGP
● 6-6.5 - too weak. Can we get to the root of the problem? Why can’t we have stronger language and mandates for healthy food?
● Can we direct City to start canvassing CBOS and other partners to work on food system issues, specifically 6-6.6
● Hubs for food to support school food and small growers ● Hubs for social services - more neighborhood resource centers where people can apply for food assistance programs
● Promote gleaning and food recovery to residences and businesses Breakout Group 3
Food Action Plan (FAP)
● Pillars 3&4 relate to current work
● Social equity important - domino effects on health
● Pillars 1 and 2 important preference for SoCo products - what’s cheap now has costs ● Clear call to action important. How to reach those not involved? Find ways to reach people where they’re at.

Questions
● What will it take for society to understand the importance of food and the food system? Pandemic-like
● Flavor can be transformational
● How to increase education at all levels. Outside of schools, neighborhood hubs. More avenues for education on food, nutrition, and health are needed. Community health workers - federal funding.

Excited to see in the GP
● Community gardens!
● Paid community health workers
● Restrictions on fast food - need carrots and sticks
● Community garden coordinators
● School gardens can be community hubs and community gardens ● 6-6.2 - Collaboration - organizational.

Breakout Group 4
● Healthy food in schools
● Urban agriculture - fence restrictions make it hard to make gardens ● Right to grow food
● Right to sell local produce grown at home - like setting up market booth in a driveway ● Barrier to better school food
○ Small kitchens
5 Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop | August 22, 2023 ○ Short staffed
○ Food safety
● Action 6-6.2: needs more than just requirements to stock fresh produce, or it will go to waste - they need support to sell it, show case it, promote it
● Action 6-6.8: instead of 300 ft requirement, it should be about overall neighborhood density of the fast food places
● Action 6-6.17: solid soil testing for homes and gardens too ● Resources for coordination of community gardens to help them be maintained and prevented from falling into disrepair
● A method to ID vacant property for potential community gardens (addressed by 6-6.22?) ● Action 6-6.2: need to assure that price points of grocery stores are varied, i.e. not just discount, not just high
● Need to keep regulations on growing/selling produce reasonable, but safe - not onerous with hoops to jump through
● Incentivize establishment of food hub and local farmers to aggregate, distribute food ● Climate change impacts on farmers
● Anthropocen is shifting us away from ag - we see it happening today. We need more support for farming in the GP (water access, etc.) Prioritize water hierarchy for ag Breakout Group 5
Comments for Food System Alliance
● Connect the dots as in the Food Action Plan - reduce siloing ● Access with education hand in hand with connecting the dots ● Thanks to FSA for getting some of this language into the SRGP ● Strengthening neighborhood connection with the local food system ● How do we hold the City of Santa Rosa accountable in fulfilling the goals in the General Plan? ● FSA can do more with school and parents
Group comments re: Santa Rosa General Plan
● Strengthen role of community-based organizations
● Missing language re: pesticide use and organics
● Strengthen language about people growing food in many different ways and places ● Community gardens in “community parks” no just in “neighborhood parks” ● Strengthen language regarding SR City, School District 6-6.5 ● Review for policies that could strengthen the ability of school districts to source local food ● Dedicate city space for one-stop shopping for food access help and other social services at the neighborhood level
Breakout Group 6
What resonates?
● Better definition needed on “healthy food”
● Urban ag in plan in a big way
● Community gardening is important and needs support
● Progressive but doesn’t go far enough
● Language vague to leave open for interpretation
● Creates “operating space”
● Understands healthy food access issues; affordable even better but how is it operationalized to make it affordable
● Affordability; accommodation for accessibility to fresh product; food deserts and fast food access
6 Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop | August 22, 2023 ● Income potential from sugar sweetened beverages tax? How to direct it to further GP goals? Stake it to health…revenue from unhealthy food should go to healthy food Questions
● Precautionary principle planning considered? FAP is by nature utopian. How can it consider adverse future issues?
● Schools - with independence of schools how can we connect with the General Plan or to foster support in schools?
● How do we connect state and local government with school policy (GP 6-6.5). ○ Weave in state programs language
● Gentrification: how can GP ensure affordable housing in the face of current pressures Breakout Group 7
● Update zoning codes
● Save local dairy processing
● Culturally appropriate food options
● More support bringing healthy food / new initiatives to Equity Priority Areas (EPAs) ● Daily farmers market at Mitote Food Park
● SB1383!
● Transportation to healthy food options, including community bikes with baskets to carry food ● Save Manzana! (apple processing)
● Mobile food pantries
● Providing access to land for agriculture particularly for underrepresented farmers and to combat generational wealth
● Leveraging SRJC (Shone Farm) to introduce program for local meat processing or apprenticeship program with local butchers
● Any urban ag should support BIPOC folks with things like fast tracking permits and other incentives
● Healthy food in local school system - procuring from local sources ● Centralized location to store food / food recovery with freezers (physical spaces) ● Work with SRJC culinary program (or other culinary programs) to prep healthy food for school system
○ Include the Ceres Model of training students to cook with farm grown ingredients ○ Outreach to underrepresented communities, including things like ■ Providing childcare at meetings like this
■ Hosting meetings in EPAs
■ Increasing awareness of food assistance programs
Urban Ag Points
● Any policy should maximize “operating space” to allow actors to resolve issues of urban food production
● Society regulates activities we want to suppress and de-regulates those we want to encourage. Urban Ag ordinance should be largely an act of de-regulation. ● Two myths that should be discussed:
○ Food production creates residential nuisances
○ Food production is an economic endeavor, i.e. it is not economically viable at the small-scale, and therefore not affordable.
● Urban Ag can survive primarily by acting within in the informal and domestic economy 7 Food Equity in the Santa Rosa General Plan Workshop | August 22, 2023 ● To meet household needs in EPAs, urban ag will need to include proteins and fats = animal husbandry
● Successful production and economic models can be found in history or nations that are monetarily poor or stressed
○ Eastern Europe prior to 1990
○ Balkans
○ Southeast Asia
● Predicament: Good food is too expensive to buy. Food is too cheap to provide a livelihood to the farmer.
○ Solution: shift production to the household and community garden level.

Miscellaneous Comments
Let’s look at what’s going right in other municipalities. ● Santa Cruz - homeless garden projects
● Vermont - Intervale
● Detroit - farms and gardens within city limits
● Other??
● And can city employees call or write to the leaders of these projects to talk about how to implement or lay the foundations for implementation?
● And let’s incentivize eerie high schooler getting out to SRJC’s Shone Farm at least once before graduating
The following have interest in farm to school initiatives:
- Electeds
- CDFA Rep
- Edible food recovery
8 Agricultural Community Events Farmers' Markets PO Box 113, Kenwood, CA 95452 415-999-5635 * [email protected] * www.ilovefarmersmarket.org Santa Rosa Planning Commission City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404 Via email: [email protected] Subject: Agenda Item 11.1 - Public Hearing - Santa Rosa General Plan 2050 Final EIR, General Plan

2050

and

Specific

Plan

Amendments
April 24, 2025 Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners, We begin by expressing our thanks for the planning department’s willingness to hear our input regarding

food

and

agriculture

policy

Sonoma

County.

appreciate

the

planning

staff

for

reviewing

our

Food

Action

Plan

and

incorporating

our

goal

“increase

equitable

access

healthy,

affordable,

safe

and

culturally

appropriate

food

and

beverage

choices.”
Our comments here are regarding farmers' Markets and Community Gardens. Farmers' Markets Action Item 6.6.2 “Consider an update to the Zoning Code to allow farmers' markets in all nonresidential

zoning

districts

right

with

standards

and

where

they

will

not

located

the

same

parcel

existing

grocery

store.”

Suggested

revision:

"Allow

farmers'

markets

all

nonresidential

zoning

districts

right

with

standards."

The proposed language does not change the owner’s ability to control the actions on their land or

language

their

leases.

merely

affirms

the

benefits

farmers'

markets

for

healthy

food

access

and

can

streamline

the

permitting

process

establish

farmers'

market,

all

parties

are

aligned.

This most recent version of Action 6.6.2 appears to be an over-reach and precludes all potential collaborations

between

grocers

and

farmers'

markets

into

the

future.

The

suggested

language

also

fails

define

grocery

store

and

may

direct

opposition

Goal

6.6,

Policy

6-6.1,

and

Action

6-6.1.

Furthermore,

farmers'

markets

provide

important

economic

impact

our

local

economy.

Data

from

our

organization,

Agricultural

Community

Events

farmers'

Market

(ACEFM),

which operates the farmers' market located in the parking lot Farmers Lane Plaza indicates this farmers’

market

brings

~1,500

customers

per

market

day.

These

customers

state

that

they

spend

average

$60.17

with

market

vendors

and

average

$86.43

additional

money

neighboring

businesses

(ACEFM,

Farm2Facts,

University

Wisconsin

Madison,

2025).

Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully,
Kelly Smith Executive Director Agricultural Community EventsFarmers’ Markets

1 Nicholson, Amy
From: Sher Ennis
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 9:13 AM
To: Woltering, Nancy
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Comment/recommendation on General Plan 2050 Hello,

I didn't get your address right when I sent this the first time, so I'm trying again!

Thanks,
~Sher

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sher Ennis
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 at 08:59:00 AM PDT
Subject: Comment/recommendation on General Plan 2050

Hello,

I recommend the General Plan 2050 document be revised to clarify that the Cultural Heritage Board is defunct and their duties are now under the purview of The Design Review and Preservation Board.

Thank you,
~Sher Ennis
~Resident of the West End Historic District

The General Plan should be revised to clarify that the duties of the Cultural Heritage Board are now under the purview of the Design Review Preservation Board

• Page 4-10, under the bullet points discussing Historic Resources: With Cultural Heritage Board guidance, the City has prepared inventories to document historic buildings and neighborhoods. The resulting Cultural Heritage Survey, prepared by Architectural Historian Ann Bloomﬁeld, is not just a list but also a narrative and pictorial summary of the city’s past that documents the architectural style of each building and historic features by neighborhood. The Cultural Heritage Board has designated especially signiﬁcant buildings and sites that have a speciﬁc historic, archaeological, cultural, or architectural value as Landmarks, and key historic neighborhoods as Preservation Districts. The district’s designation officially recognizes these places as key components of the city’s heritage.

Preservation Districts are shown in Figure 4-3. Santa Rosa has 21 Landmarks and 8 designated historic Preservation Districts, which are Burbank Gardens, Cherry Street, McDonald, Olive Park, Railroad Square, Ridgway, St. Rose, and West End. In February 2025, the Cultural Heritage Board and the Design Review Board were combined into a new board, the Design Review Preservation Board, charged with reviewing both Design Review and Landmark Alteration Agreement Permit applications.

How will the City ensure adequate water supply availability to the new developments included in GP 2050?

During average and even below average rainfall years, the City has more than adequate water supply to meet the growing needs of our urban community. Careful planning, policy, and programmatic efforts have been essential to Santa Rosa’s long range water supply management over the past three decades.

Since the 1990s, the City has been an early adopter of standards and building codes to ensure new development is more water efficient. Over the years, the City has progressively instituted stricter requirements for plumbing fixtures (faucets, showerheads, toilets), appliances, and landscapes.

Development in Santa Rosa today must achieve much higher efficiency standards than in the past. In addition, new development must also include “Low Impact Development” features for capturing stormwater so that it soaks into the ground instead of running off the site. More information is available here: https://srcity.org/1255/Low-Impact-Development
.

The City also offers free water use efficiency assistance and a wide range of rebates and incentives to help existing water customers use water wisely. For example, the City has supported the replacement of over 56,000 toilets with ultra-low-flow and high-efficiency toilets and conversion of over 4.3 million square feet of high-water use turf grass to low water use landscaping. The City’s Water Use Efficiency programs begin in 1991 and have been consistently funded and staffed since that time (in wet years and dry).

City standards for new development and water use efficiency programs for existing sites have achieved significant sustained reductions in water use. From 1990 to 2024, total water consumption citywide decreased 14% despite a 53% increase in population, and per capita water use declined 50% citywide and in the residential sector.

If the City were to experience a Stage 5 (30% shortage) or worse water emergency, new development would be required to offset its water demand to achieve a net zero impact. Santa Rosa City Council adopted the Water Demand Offset (WDO) Policy on March 29, 2022. This will allow development to continue in Santa Rosa during severe water shortage Stages 5-8 (30% or greater shortage) provided development offsets its water demand to achieve a net zero impact. More information about the demand offset program can be found at www.srcity.org/WaterDemandOffset .

If you’re interested in existing water plans, the City prepares an updated long-range (25-year) water supply plan every five years. The City’s most current plan is the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The 2020 UWMP details the City's water needs and water supplies out to 2045 for normal and dry year scenarios. The analysis includes population growth projections and new development, additional housing, increased density, and climate change assumptions. The Urban Water Management Plan is available online here: www.srcity.org/uwmp
.

Additionally, for the developments included in the General Plan 2050, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was completed in July 2023. A WSA evaluates the water needs of the development and confirm s that sufficient water supplies are available to meet the projected demand s at buildout of the General Plan 2050, given potential future drought and climate change impacts. The WSA concludes that the City’s existing and projected water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the General Plan 2050, in addition to current uses, for the 20 -year projection, with implementation of demand management measures in dry years as needed . To view the full document please visit:
https://www.santarosaforward.com/WSA
.

How will the City provide infrastructure of new roads to support the traffic? General Plan 2050
Chapter 3.0 of the General Plan notes that the Plan combines land uses changes and transportation improvements to work to achieve reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by people using private automobiles. Figure 3 -3 shows the major circulation network improvements in the General Plan 2050 that together, with its policies and actions, support more walking, wheeling, and transit use as well as the comfort and safety of all modes of travel.

Some relevant General Plan 2050 actions include:

Action 3-1.1: For all projects with the potential to increase VMT based on the City’s VMT screening criteria, the City shall require a qualified transportation engineer to prepare an analysis of projected VMT and mitigation consistent with the City’s VMT guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented or replaced.

Action 3 -1.2: Work with SCTA and other local and regional partners to explore developing a VMT mitigation bank alternative for eligible projects to fund VMT reduction efforts.

Action 3-2.6: Ensure that major arterials have active transportation infrastructure that accommodates all road users and does not present a barrier to regional travel for any mode.

Action 3 -4.1: Require all traffic studies for development projects that may have an impact on the circulation system and use traffic study findings to define improvements that would also support active and public transportation.

All new developments proposed within the City must include some level of traffic analysis. Projects expected to generate more than 50 new vehicle trips per day are required to submit a Traffic Operational Analysis report. This report evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed development on nearby roadways and intersections within the designated impact area.

By identifying these impacts and recommending appropriate mitigation measures, the City can assess and plan for the safety, performance, maintenance, and capacity of the current and future roadway system.

During the review process, the City's traffic engineering staff examine the anticipated effects on the transportation network and require that any identified impacts be addressed as a condition of project approval.

General Plan 2050 Draft EIR
Section 4.15 of the Draft Environmental Impact report (p. 4.15-30) notes that the proposed project would increase arterial lane miles in Santa Rosa by 17.3 miles. The changes in Arterial Lane Miles associated with the General Plan 2050 are identified in Table 4.15-3 below:

(https://www.santarosaforward.com/files/managed/Document/973/4.15_Transportation.pdf)

The City of Santa Rosa - Bulletin Detail Report
Subject: City of Santa Rosa General Plan Update / Actualización del Plan General de la Ciudad de Santa Rosa
Sent: 04/14/2025 04:53 PM PDT
Sent By: [email protected]
Sent T o: Subscribers of General Plan Update
432
Recipients
Email
SMS
Facebook
T witter
RSS
98%Delivered
0% Pending
2% Bounced
58% Open Rate
6% Click Rate
Minutes Cumulative
Attempted
3 98%
5 98%
10 99%
30 99%
60 99%
120 99%
Email Delivery Stats
432 T otal Sent
422 (98%) Delivered
0 (0%) Pending
10 (2%) Bounced
0 (0%) Unsubscribed
Delivery Metrics - Details
458 T otal Opens
246 (58%) Unique Opens
29 T otal Clicks
24 (6%) Unique Clicks
10 # of Links
Bulletin Analytics
These figures represent all data since the bulletin was first sent to present time.

Progress % Delivered Recipients # Delivered Opened Unique Bounced/Failed Unsubscribes Email Bulletin Delivered 97.5% 398 388 228 / 58.8% 10 0 Digest n/a n/a 34 34 18 / 52.9% 0 0
SMS Message Delivered 0.0% 0 0 n/a 0 n/a
Delivery and performance
Link URL Unique
Clicks
Total
Clicks
http://www.santarosaforward.com 12 15
https://www.srcity.org/1339/Planning-Commission 4 5
http://www.zoom.us/join 3 4
https://subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com/ 1 1
https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/CASANTA/subscriber/edit?p references=true#tab1
1 1
http://srcity.org/Pages/default.aspx 1 1
http://srcity.org/2370 1 1
http://www.SantaRosaForward.com 1 1
From: Irene Flack
To: PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on Missing Middle Housing
Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 4:35:54 PM
Good afternoon, I have the following comments on the proposal for missing middle housing in Santa Rosa. I am a resident of the South Park neighborhood in Santa Rosa.

Irene Flack
Comments:

My comments are in support of missing middle housing, but questioning the process used for selection of ‘walkable’ neighborhoods. The primary concern I have is with the equity of the result from using walkability as a primary selection tool.

The bulk of the parcels selected for missing middle housing seem to be in or near downtown Santa Rosa. Per Santa Rosa’s 2019 countywide assessment of fair housing, the median income in downtown Santa Rosa is roughly 64% of countywide income levels. Whether intended or not, the impact of missing middle housing will be absorbed largely by lower income residents. Additionally, at least two of the neighborhoods with significant missing middle housing designations are either majority non-white, or the most diverse neighborhoods in Santa Rosa.

Walkability is not defined in the General Plan Implementation, but based on my limited research it appears to be something along the lines of being within 15-20 minutes walk to shopping, schools, transit and other amenities. However, in viewing the parcels designated in the proposal, it is not clear how some parcels are ‘walkable’ yet those in the next block are not.

To reiterate, I am in favor of
the plan to accommodate and encourage developm
ent of missing
middle housing. However, I would like to see it distributed more equitably than the result from the
proposed designations. I have two key concerns.

Inability to take advantage of the opportunity
In order to be able to fund, or obtain financing for, additional units on a parcel, the owner will need to have access to financing, which will depend in part on the owner having some savings and on having enough income to support a loan request to develop additional units. This likely creates an insurmountable barrier for many households from participating in an opportunity to increase their property value and the rental income additional units would bring.

Reduced opportunity for home ownership and the impact
Added units to a parcel will also inevitably increase the cost to acquire an already improved property and to some extent, any property with this designation, which will tend to favor investors rather than homeowners as future buyers. This in turn leads to a lower percentage of home ownership in the affected neighborhoods.

Habitat for Humanity has authored an evidence brief that describes some of the benefits of home ownership, including greater economic stability, increased civic engagement, reduced environmental footprint, better test scores and higher rates of high school graduation, and better health.

Home ownership is also a known catalyst to wealth building, especially generationally - an avenue that has historically been a challenge to access for Black and Latinx families.

I urge you to consider the inequity of the currently planned distribution of missing middle housing, and to incorporate it more broadly throughout the city, including in neighborhoods that are at or above the median income levels.

From: Kate Kain
To: Nicholson, Amy
Cc: Nancy O. Kain
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Missing Middle Housing Email Updates please Date: Friday, September 19, 2025 5:36:55 PM
Hello: please send us updates on this exciting project! Kate and Nancy Kain
owners

From: Chris Matteson
To: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Missing Middle Housing Upzoning notice Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 4:58:28 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image002.jpg
Thank you. I probably should have mentioned that I'm a homeowner in the area being upzoned.

Chris Matteson
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 4:56 PM Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your email. I’ve included it in the late correspondence materials for the Planning Commission. The late public correspondence will be published tomorrow, and I will also summarize public comments during my staff presentation.

Amy

Coming soon in 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here
. More information will be coming soon!

From: Chris Matteson

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 4:37 PM
To: Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Missing Middle Housing Upzoning notice

Amy,

Thank you for the letter regarding the upzoning. I won't be able to make the planning commission meeting, but I wanted to voice my support for any upzoning. Ideally, I want much, much more of this.

Expand the area, make it by right, and eliminate side setbacks so existing lots can be converted into townhouses one at a time.

Chris Matteson

From: Chris Matteson
To: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Missing Middle Housing Upzoning notice Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 4:58:27 PM
Thank you. I probably should have mentioned that I'm a homeowner in the area being upzoned.

Chris Matteson
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 4:56 PM Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Chris,

Amy

From: Chris Matteson
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 4:37 PM

To: Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Missing Middle Housing Upzoning notice

Amy,

Thank you for the letter regarding the upzoning. I won't be able to make the planning commission meeting, but I wanted to voice my support for any upzoning. Ideally, I want much, much more of this.

Expand the area, make it by right, and eliminate side setbacks so existing lots can be converted into townhouses one at a time.

Chris Matteson

From: Adeline Espinasse
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rezoning 3406 Lake Park Ct and
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2025 10:16:05 PM
Dear Mrs Nicholson
I received a notice regarding rezoning of my property. I reviewed the plan and it appears that the property will be rezoned to very low density residential. Is this correct? Regarding the rezoning around my neighborhood and the plan for the future, the number of housing units has exploded around Mendocino ave and Fountaingrove parkway. Even as the construction has not been completed, traffic has become increasingly difficult and the noise level at my property has
significantly increased which makes enjoying my backyard difficult.

This crossroad is not designed to sustain that many cars so I hope that the city will plan to address this issue.

I chose to live in San Rosa due to the charm of the downtown including the 4th street with its old buildings such as the art deco Barnes and Nobles and the low rise old-style buildings. I am surprised that the city is planning to allow high-rises in the city center as it will destroy its attractiveness and the small mom and pops businesses. Petaluma or Healdsburg have bet on developing their old downtowns which makes them enjoyable to walk around and shop. Santa Rosa should think about improving the already existing structures, support small business to settle in the downtown area, and limit any new buildings to 3-4 stories. New buildings are not pleasant and their first floor business areas have no appeal. Additionally, sunlight will disappear from downtown as it is already the case due to the new building at 5th street & Mendocino ave.

Thank you for considering my comments
Best,
Adeline Espinasse

From: Matt Mullan
To: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Santa Rosa Planning Commission Public Comments on 9-25-25 Agenda Item 11.1 Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 5:42:01 PM
Re: Public Hearing Item 11.1
General Plan 2050 Implementation Package PLN25-001
Submitted by:

James Matthew Mullan
1420 Parker Drive
Santa Rosa, CA
95405
(APN 009-153-008)
Dear Chair Weeks and Members of Planning Commission:

My wife and I are 40+ year residents of Santa Rosa and have lived in our current home at 1420 Parker Drive
(APN 009-153-008). since 2003. Our home like most of homes in the Doyle Park Talbot neighborhood were built in the early 1940s,

long before Providence SR Memorial Hospital (PSRMH) was opened.

No one in our neighborhood is opposed to the hospital as it provides essential medical services for all of us. However, in last 15 years the opening of the Type II Trauma Center has expanded operations dramatically resulting in increases in medical helicopter flights over the residential neighborhoods 600% and an expansion of medical support facilities on a piecemeal basis with little or no CEQA review as the City Attorney determined that PSRMH is exempt from CEQA review since it is an essential service to the community.

I share
this because the proposed change in zoning of mine and many of my neighbors lots from R1 single family residential to Commercial- Office Zoning is yet another negative impact from the massive expansion of the PSRMH campus into a sprawling medical center campus the size of campuses found in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, San Rafael and many others.

I share this
background to lead into my written comments and suggestions moving forward.

I am submitting written comments because I am unable to attend the Commission meeting on 9-25-25 as I will be attending a funeral in San Francisco.

I spoke at length with Supervising Planner, Amy Nicholson, to fully understand the impacts of the proposed rezoning of our lot to Commercial -Office.

Here are my comments:

1. The proposed zoning change for the south side only of 80+ year residential lots on Parker Drive from Doyle Park to Alderbrook Drive appears to be flawed. These properties have co-existed with the expanding commercial offices on Montgomery Drive for decades with most, not all, respecting the residential homes and quality of life that are separated by a shared fences.

2. If the proposed rezoning is approved it is yet one more action that threatens the quality of life and property values of the affected residential
homes for years to come, resulting from the
continuous expansion of PSRMH and the related medical offices and centers that support them.

3. Some could argue that this proposed rezoning action is "reverse eminent domain" as it strips away the basic use and rights the owners in these residential homes have enjoyed for over 80 years.

This proposed new zoning action may also result in onerous new requirements to comply with new and complex planning regulations such as conditional use permits (CUP). Such action could also adversely affect the current residents, heirs or new owners and negatively impact the ability to sell their propoerty in the future.

4. This proposed action could have a long term negative impact on other residential properties on the north side of Parker Drive and the surrounding streets on Doyle Park, Talbot and other streets in the neighborhood.

With the new zoning to Commerial Office, lots
could be developed into large operations with employee and patrons daily parking spilling onto residential city streets in front of these surrounding homes.

Can you imagine a new 35 foot building being
built in the near term on several lots on Montgomery Drive combined with several on the south side of Parker Drive into a sprawling medical office complex with large buildings looking down on mine and other residents backyard or across the street from residential homes that were not rezoned and continue to be zoned R-1?
That is a shocking visual that makes no sense or reason.

5. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and City Council instead adopt a two-pronged approach for the proposed rezoning of the south side of Parker Drive from Doyle Park to Alderbrook.

Option #1: Retain the current R-1 zoning on all the current parcels on the south side of Parker Drive from Doyle Park to Alderbrook Drive and retain that zoning for as long as the

Planning and Economic Development |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Mobile (707) 321-0935 | Tel. (707) 543-3258 | [email protected]

From: waitingtohear
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 2:03 AM
To: Nicholson, Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: re-zoning idea in santa rosa neighborhoods just checking to see if you have returned and will be re-sending me those zoning diagrams etc.

On Tuesday, May 6th, 2025 at 5:33 PM, waitingtohear
wrote:

Hi Amy,
we had talked on the phone about the new zoning ideas for certain neighborhoods and I was telling you about Tammy Way area where I live and how this brings up various concerns.

You said to send an email that covered my thoughts on this.

The Tammy way neighborhood is not well suited for additional residential units.

The parking is already less than ideal with the amount of current residents in this area. It's overly crowded already within this 2 block area. There is no where to find parking ( aside from the daytime when everyone goes to work) But it becomes a nightmare after 5pm and weekends. It's like living in a busy area of San Francisco. Wall to wall cars down each side of the road.

The neighborhood is also no where near any transportation or markets.

Vehicles are needed to get to places, which explains why it's so hard to find parking.

Also the homes on this street are at the minimum spacing of 10 ft. apart which gives it the feel of being more like condominiums rather than stand alone housing. It's a very crowed looking neighborhood.

I'm not sure how this area got on the list as a possible re-zoning area, to somehow create more residential space, but this street lacks any real privacy and already gives off the feeling of being too crowded. A simple drive around this area would be all that is needed to understand what I have described here.

It would also make selling any property on this street even that more difficult than it is already with the crowded look and lack of parking.

Could you also please re-send me the mapping and the site pages about this topic. I somehow lost the paperwork I had
and can't find my
way back to the site pages about this zoning idea.
.

Thanks,
David T.

Tammy Way Home Owner
From:

To: PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: [EXTERNAL] URGENT Santa Rosa Planning Commission Public Comments on 9-25-25 Agenda Item 11.1 Date: Thursday, September 25, 2025 9:14:08 AM

Submitted by:

Mitchell and Danyale Jones
1415 Parker Drive
Santa Rosa, CA
95405
APN 009-152-011-000

Dear Chair Weeks and Members of Planning Commission:

I understand this may be late; however, we learned about this meeting last night, not through a notice, but from our neighbors. I guess our letter got lost in the mail.

My husband, Mitchell and I have lived at 1415 Parker for over 25 years.

Our son was born while we have lived here, and our street has become our community and family. I get we live near a major hospital, and while some of our neighbors complain about the growth and helicopters, we find it comforting to know that our neighborhood is probably the safest in any natural disaster in the city of Santa Rosa. I love the helicopters, because they bring back memories of running out to watch them land with my son as he was growing up.

I am submitting written comments because I am unable to attend the Commission meeting on 9-25-25 as I will be participating in my son’s SRHS Panther football team dinner. Another family-oriented community event. An event that is still around after a year of my fighting to keep the schools standing; but that’s another sorry Santa Rosa issue.

I researched the purpose of the proposed rezoning, I think I have a general understanding, which I am opposed to since the re-zoning would be directly affect my home and street. Here are my comments:

1. The proposed zoning change for the south side only of 80+ year residential lots on Parker Drive from Doyle Park to Alderbrook

Drive appears to be flawed. These properties have co-existed with the expanding commercial offices on Montgomery Drive for decades, with most, not all, respecting the residential homes and quality of life that are separated by
shared fences. Currently,
those commercial buildings are vacant. If businesses can’t fill the current commercial offices, why would the city designate more?

2. If the proposed rezoning is approved, it is yet one more action that threatens the quality of life and property values of the affected residential homes for years to come, resulting from the continuous expansion of PSRMH and the related medical offices and centers that support them.

3. Changing the zoning takes away long-standing residential rights neighbors have had for over 80 years. It could add confusing new permit requirements and make it harder for families to keep or sell their homes in the future.

4. This rezoning could hurt the whole neighborhood in the long run.

If lots are converted to Commercial Office Space, significant developments could move in, bringing traffic and parking problems to our residential streets.

5. I ask the Planning Commission and City Council to take a two-part approach for the south side of Parker Drive between Doyle Park and Alderbrook:

Option 1: Keep the current R-1 zoning as long as the
properties remain residential. This could be noted in the 2025 General Plan with an overlay map.

Option 2: Create a second overlay for Commercial Office zoning to guide future development, with clear rules that any project must fully address CEQA impacts and protect the quality of life for nearby homes.

In closing, I respect the hard work that goes into updating the General Plan, and I thank the Council, Commission, and City staff for their time and dedication. I also want to note that our entire neighborhood should have received notice of this proposal, since these decisions affect all our lives — it’s vital for us to trust that our city is being open and transparent.

Thank you for considering my comments, and I look forward to seeing the City’s final decision on this matter.

Danyale Hambly-Jones and Mitchell Jones

DANYALE HAMBLY-JONES
Corporate Retail Account Manager
M: (707) 888-3104
O: (415) 492-2035
Toll Free: (800) 542-0736

I understand this may be late; however, we learned about this meeting last night, not through a notice, but from our
neighbors. I guess our letter got lost in the mail.

My husband, Mitchell and I have lived at 1415 Parker for over 25 years. Our son was born while we have lived here, and our street has become our community and family. I get we live near a major hospital, and while some of our neighbors
complain about the growth and helicopters, we find it
comforting to know that our neighborhood is probably the safest in any natural disaster in the city of Santa Rosa. I love the helicopters, because they bring back memories of running out to watch them land with my son as he was growing up.

I am submitting written comments because I am unable to attend the Commission meeting on 9-25-25 as I will be
participating in my son’s SRHS Panther football team dinner.

Another family-oriented community event. An event that is still around after a year of my fighting to keep the schools
standing; but that’s another sorry Santa Rosa issue.

I researched the purpose of the proposed rezoning, I think I have a general understanding, which I am opposed to since the re-zoning would be directly affect my home and street.

Here are my comments:
1. The proposed zoning change for the south side only of 80+ year residential
lots on Parker Drive from Doyle Park to Alderbrook
Drive appears to be flawed.

These properties have co-
existed with the expanding commercial offices on
Montgomery Drive for decades, with most, not all,
respecting the residential homes and quality of life that are separated by
shared fences. Currently, those
commercial buildings are vacant. If businesses can’t fill the current commercial offices, why would the city
designate more?
2. If the proposed rezoning is approved, it is yet one more action that threatens the
quality of life and property values of the affected
residential homes for years to come, resulting from the continuous expansion of PSRMH and the related
medical offices and centers that support them.
3. Changing the zoning takes away long-standing residential rights neighbors have
had for over 80 years. It could add confusing new
permit requirements and make it harder for families to
keep or sell their homes in the future.
4. This rezoning could hurt the whole neighborhood in the long run. If lots are
converted to Commercial Office Space, significant
developments could move in, bringing traffic and
parking problems to our residential streets.
5. I ask the Planning Commission and City Council to take a two-part
approach for the south side of Parker Drive between
Doyle Park and Alderbrook:

Option 1: Keep the current R-1 zoning as long
as the properties remain residential. This could
be noted in the 2025 General Plan with an
overlay map.

Option 2: Create a second overlay for
Commercial Office zoning to guide future
development, with clear rules that any project
must fully address CEQA impacts and protect
the quality of life for nearby homes.

Thank you for considering my comments, and I look forward to seeing the City’s final decision on this matter.

Danyale Hambly-Jones and Mitchell Jones

DANYALE HAMBLY-JONES
Corporate Retail Account Manager
M: (707) 888-3104
O: (415) 492-2035
Toll Free: (800) 542-0736

Submi&ed by:

Dennis Frasca
303 Talbot Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
To Members of the Planning Commission :

Our home at 303 Talbot Ave was purchased in 1992, our family has had 3 generaKons in this house built in 1939.

The proposed zoning change makes aﬀects a legacy neighborhood of homes built in the 1930’s & 1940’s. Actual reasons for this change or jusKﬁcaKon have been diﬃcult to ﬁnd other than it is part of the General Plan.

Montgomery Ave has commercial acKvity, Parker St. does not and never has.

Examples of Commercial/Oﬃce zoning are front and center on Montgomery, what was Dr.’s & DenKst’s oﬃces or Medical Services businesses have gradually migrated to Massage businesses in this medical district. There are 2 massage businesses at the corner of Talbot and Montgomery, another 1 at Doyle Park and Montgomery along with 2 more at Talbot and 4th st. which are in residenKal type buildings.

This presents a realisKc picture of what this zoning change will do over Kme.

There are several commercial vacancies in the few blocks east of Memorial Hospital, both for sale and for lease. There is substanKal vacant commercial property all over town and close to Memorial.

This neighborhood lives with and accepts, emergency vehicles & sirens and helicopters constantly. Changing zoning is an addiKonal detriment to the neighborhood that will most certainly eﬀect property values and for what? More commercial space that is already available?
We believe the negaKve impact on our neighborhood property values can be documented and veriﬁed.

Commercial/Oﬃce space on Montgomery & Doyle Park has coexisted successfully with residenKal on Parker Ave and Talbot Ave for decades.

Who is driving this unnecessary change?
Thank you for considering my comments,
Dennis Frasca
From: Cody Field
To: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Middle Class housing Santa Rosa
Date: Thursday, September 25, 2025 5:43:05 PM
Amy-
I applaud your efforts to increase density in infill locations. I own a property that is in the St.

Rose district, that is usually rented to ‘middle market’ tenants. I support your efforts to increasing housing in this infill space, and I hope to build additional units in the near future.

Good luck getting this through.

Thank you,
Cody
From: Michele Silver
To: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE Santa Rosa Planning Commission Public Comments 9-25-25 Agenda item 11.1 Date: Thursday, September 25, 2025 5:05:04 PM
Dear Ms NIcholson,
This note may be late nonetheless I would like it included with comments regarding the Planning and Development Department commission passing of comments of the 9-25-25 agenda Item 11.1.

I am firmly against the passing of this new zoning addition.

I’ve been a neighbor of the hospital for 19 years on the 1400 block of Parker Drive. I am a staunch supporter of the Helicopter service, and I have been a patient of the hospital many times, and previously volunteered there for seven years.

However, I want to keep my neighborhood intact, and do not believe that increasing the amount of commercial development will allow that to happen.

Sincerely
Michele Silver
1416 Parker Dr
Santa Rosa CA 95405

From: Jones, Jessica
To: Guasco, Cher; Osburn, Gabe
Cc: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Objection to proposed zoning change on south side of Parker Drive Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 8:44:09 AM
Attachments: image002.jpg
image003.jpg
Received, thank you. For others that come in, can you please copy Amy Nicholson as well? She’s bringing this item to Council.

Thanks,
Jess

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 8:11 AM
To: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; Jones, Jessica <[email protected]> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Objection to proposed zoning change on south side of Parker Drive

FYI

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: Sarah Botz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 5:35 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objection to proposed zoning change on south side of Parker Drive

Dear City Council,

I understand that there is a proposal to change the zoning on the south side of Parker Drive from residential to commercial, and that you will address the matter at a meeting on November 4. The proposed change is a terrible idea that has foreseeable negative impacts for residents of Parker Drive and the surrounding residential neighborhood.

My husband and I have lived on the north side of Parker for 17 years. Our household includes two minor children. We likely would not have bought our house had there been businesses or the potential for businesses directly across the street.

We are particularly concerned about the proposed change because of the proliferation of illicit massage businesses in our area. There are two on Montgomery within a block of our house. We have seen former residential single family homes rented out to these businesses along Third Street and other nearby streets zoned mixed use or commercial. Such a business on a historically residential street among neighbors who never bargained for it would be devastating.

Even if illicit massage businesses were somehow excluded (which is very difficult to do), any commercial use of the houses on Parker would change the character of our neighborhood in ways that we do not want and that we were not warned to expect. The simple lack of a residential neighbor in one or more of the houses would alter how we experience our neighborhood, not to mention street parking impact and an influx of unknown people.

It would be a callous and harmful mistake to zone the south side of Parker commercial simply because there is a discrepancy between the general plan and the zoning map. Far better to change the general plan to reflect the residential nature of Parker Drive and thus protect a residential community worth caring about.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Sarah Botz
275 Talbot Avenue
(Corner lot with frontage on Talbot and Parker)
From: Jones, Jessica
To: Osburn, Gabe
Cc: Nicholson, Amy
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Rezoning in the Talbot Ave and Park Drive area of Santa Rosa Date: Friday, September 26, 2025 2:03:20 PM
Attachments: image002.jpg
image003.png
image004.jpg
Got it, thanks Gabe.

Amy – See comment below.

Jess

From: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 1:56 PM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Rezoning in the Talbot Ave and Park Drive area of Santa Rosa

Hi Jess,

FYI.

Image

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, September 26, 2025 at 1:47 PM
To: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Rezoning in the Talbot Ave and Park Drive area of Santa Rosa Hello Gabe,

Please be sure to include me in any response you send to Michael Tavis.

Thank you,

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: Michael Tavis <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 12:42 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rezoning in the Talbot Ave and Park Drive area of Santa Rosa

Good afternoon,

My wife and I have lived on California Ave for the past 10 years. We are both self employed and have commercial buildings on 4th street. While our primary residence would not be directly affected by these proposed changes I believe the entire neighborhood we have grown to love would be. We live directly across the street from the First United Methodist Church.

We are opposed to any changes to the zoning in this area.

Being a real estate broker and small business owner I see lots of commercial space available throughout Santa Rosa and do not see what needs these proposed changes serve.

We would be worried about potential land values should these changes be approved.

This area of Santa Rosa is well established with long roots and ties to Santa Rosa and is one of the most highly desirable neighborhoods in all of Santa Rosa. I fear that might change down the road if these rezoning suggestions were to be made.

Please do not affect our property values and potentially destroy one of Santa Rosa's finest neighborhoods.

Michael & Michelle Tavis
304 California Ave
Santa Rosa CA 95404

Thank you,

Michael Tavis
®, RMP
Broker/Owner
Redwood Residential PM
www.redwoodrpm.com
707-543-1516 Phone
707-543-1575 Fax
CalBRE Lic#01764756

Santa Rosa City CouncilNovember 4, 2025

Santa Rosa City Council
November 4, 2025