From: Elaine Fraser
To: Sheikhali, Monet
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Apartment building 50 units
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 4:53:48 AM
I live on Summerfield . I hear cars all hours of the night inside my beautiful home.
Please.comsider the size of this project. Something smaller is doable. You taking the beauty away from our be better valley . . Please no on the project. Or atleast smaller complex. It's too big for this are. Anyone knows this. Stop it . Elaine Fraser No
From: Ken M
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Cc: Sheikhali, Monet
Subject: [EXTERNAL] My family supports the Hoen/Summerfield housing addition idea Date: Thursday, February 12, 2026 9:57:53 AM
Hello,
I'm the father of 3 teens and live in the Montgomery village area. We own our home and know how incredibly expensive it is to live in this area of SR. Someday, hopefully, my kids will want to move out of our house. It would be nice to have some more affordable options nearby.
I'm too am concerned about the increased traffic but also a big supporter of biking, busing, walking, etc. Maybe the city can increase the freq of bus stops near this planned housing? Thank you for listening to our community members and for working to bring more affordable housing to the Bennett Valley/Montgomery village area and to SR in general.
Thank you,
Ken M.
From: nferrick
To: Sheikhali, Monet; CityCouncilListPublic; Stapp, Mark; Fleming, Victoria; Okrepkie, Jeff; [email protected]; Rogers, Natalie; Okrepkie, Jeff
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Waiting for mayor/city council reply to specific concerns Re: Lago Fresca Apartments Project Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:31:28 AM
On Feb. 9 I replied to Monet's email. Please read it below. It has been over a week and I haven't heard whether my initial letter is also included in the packet, I sent two. Most importantly, I have not heard back from the mayor or city council members regarding my specific concerns noted in the second letter I sent. As a concerned citizen, I would appreciate having those safety concerns addressed prior to the meeting. The letter is also included in this email thread.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Nancy and Reed Ferrick
On Feb 9, 2026, at 5:34 PM, nferrick (null) < > wrote:
Monet,
Thank you for acknowledging receipt of my email and including it in the Council’s project folder for review. Are you able to include the initial letter I sent as well? In addition, given the seriousness of this issue and impact on our neighborhood, I would like a written response from one or more Council members addressing the concerns I’ve expressed. I look forward to hearing from them in the near future.
Sincerely,
Nancy and Reed Ferrick
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 9, 2026, at 10:22 AM, Sheikhali, Monet <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning, Ms. and Mr. Ferrick,
Thank you for your email regarding the proposed Lago Fresca Apartments project and for sharing your concerns regarding evacuation and traffic conditions on Hoen Ave and Summerfield Rd. This email is to confirm that the City has received your email. Your email will be included in the project folder along with other emails we have received and will be provided to the Council for their review and consideration.
Regards,
Monet Sheikhali | Supervising Planner
Planning and Economic Development |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Monday through Thursday: 8 a.m. – 4 p.m. and Friday: 8 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Tel. (707) 543- 4698| Fax (707) 543-3269 | [email protected]
Coming soon, 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.
”
From: nferrick (null) < >
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 9:13 PM
To: Sheikhali, Monet <[email protected]>; _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lago Fresca Apartments Project Concerns
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing for a second time regarding the proposed Lago Fresca Apartments to reiterate my ongoing concerns about public safety, emergency access, pedestrian safety, and overall neighborhood compatibility given the current plan. As a resident and constituent, I am paying close attention to how these issues are evaluated and addressed as this project moves forward.
Even under California’s Density Bonus Law, the City retains the responsibility to consider real and practical safety impacts. In this case, I remain concerned about several unresolved issues, including:
Emergency access and evacuation flow
Parking spillover that could narrow streets during emergencies The project’s single access point onto an already congested Hoen Avenue The gap between traffic study assumptions and real daily conditions Lack of parking for all residents
My concerns are informed by direct experience. Our neighborhood has lived through wildfire evacuations, and clear, unobstructed routes are critical. During past evacuations, Hoen Avenue and Summerfield Road were backed up for blocks, creating significant delays and additional stress during an already dangerous situation. Traffic studies do not always capture how people actually evacuate, nor how curbside parking and congestion affect emergency response in real time.
In addition, Hoen Avenue has already experienced
one tragic pedestrian fatality of
a beloved teenager as well as other serious injuries. Increased vehicle traffic associated with this project could further exacerbate these risks. Pedestrian and cyclist safety, particularly along already constrained and busy corridors, should be
a central consideration in evaluating this proposal.
Beyond these specific safety issues, I respectfully ask the City to consider whether this is the right project as it is currently slated for our community and neighborhood. Project scale, access limitations, existing traffic conditions, and infrastructure constraints all factor into whether a development can be safely and responsibly integrated into its surroundings.
Given these realities, I respectfully request further safety review and careful consideration before moving forward. Ensuring safe evacuation routes, reliable emergency access, pedestrian safety, and appropriate neighborhood fit should remain top priorities for both current and future residents.
Thank you for your time and for your consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Nancy and Reed Ferrick
, SR
Sent from my iPad
From: Kate E. Hutchins
To: Stapp, Mark
Cc: Les Perry; CityCouncilListPublic; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lago Fresco
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 4:02:14 PM
Attachments: 2026 02-18 Letter to Mayor Stapp.pdf
Dear Mayor Stapp,
Attached please find today’s correspondence from Les Perry. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kate Hutchins, Legal Administrator
Pronouns: she, her, hers
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street., 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: [email protected] Website www.perrylaw.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Mark Stapp, Mayor
Santa Rosa City Council
February 18, 2026
P
J
A
M
&
M
or render infeasible housing development projects
and emergency shelters.” (§ 65589.5, subd.
(a)(2)(K).) Reznitskiy v. Cnty. of Marin (2022) 79
Cal.App.5
th 1016, 1020.
In addition to the Housing Accountability Act, the state’s Density Bonus Law and your own zoning ordinances mandate project approval with the density increases that are calculated based on the level of affordability offered. As your staff has stated, the bonus here is thirty-two percent (32.%).
The state Density Bonus Law, Government Code §65915, specifically states that the applicable bonus “shall’ be granted. The limited exceptions are rare and not applicable here.
Beyond the density increase, the Density Bonus statute requires a city to grant a number of incentives or concessions, again, based on the level of affordability, here that number is two. The same is true with requested waivers of development standards. The Project is entitled to a waiver of any development standard that would, if imposed, preclude development at the density allowed, including normal project amenities.
An applicant is not required to demonstrate or prove that the incentives or waivers are necessary to render the project feasible. They are presumed to do so. To emphasize this point, a city is prevented from requiring proof that they are needed, and the burden falls to the city to prove otherwise. Here, of course, your staff has reviewed the request and concur with the applicant.
Recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act have expanded the mandate by making it clear that even though a project must be consistent with objective development standards and requirements, the adoption of incentives or the granting of concessions and waivers from the standards do not remove a project from the HAA mandate requiring project approval.
Based on the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that this Project requires approval at the proposed density and with the requested incentives and waivers.
Mark Stapp, Mayor
Santa Rosa City Council
February 18, 2026
P
J
A
M
&
M
Your attention and consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Leslie R. Perry
LRP:kh
cc: Santa Rosa City Council via email [email protected] City Clerk via email [email protected]