Neighbors raise fire, drainage and evacuation concerns over proposed 17‑home Montlair subdivision in Santa Rosa

A conceptual plan to subdivide 23.14 acres at 599 Montlair Drive into 17 single‑family lots drew sustained opposition from neighbors at a City of Santa Rosa neighborhood meeting on June 22, 2026.

Senior planner Hana Michaelelsson opened the meeting and emphasized that the proposal (file PLN260079) is at a conceptual stage and that "no decisions are made at these meetings," and that any formal application would trigger technical reviews and public notices. She described the concept as 17 detached single‑family lots with two parcels reserved as open space and said required studies — including traffic, drainage, fire, and geotechnical reports — would be reviewed if an application is submitted.

Dennis Dolby, the project's civil design consultant, summarized the applicant's concept: "we're proposing a development of 17 fairly large lot parcels, single family home," with two open‑space parcels and a private street extending St. Francis Road to provide emergency vehicle access. Dolby said preliminary architecture includes several lot layouts and that infrastructure would be designed during the entitlement process.

Residents repeatedly raised safety and environmental concerns. Andrew Smith asked why the city would "put houses in this area that could burn very easily," citing the 2020 Glass Fire. "Why would you put people in danger?" he said. Paul Loenthal, the division chief and fire marshal, replied the city's and state's mapping had changed in recent years and that the immediate project area is now mapped at "high" rather than "very high" risk in some nearby zones. He added that new homes "would be built to current wildland urban interface standards and building codes," citing Chapter 7A requirements to reduce vulnerability to ember ignition.

Neighbors pressed staff on evacuation and traffic capacity. Residents recalled lengthy evacuations during past fires and urged a cumulative evacuation analysis. The city's staff described changes since 2017 and 2020, including revised evacuation tactics and a targeted "flush East Santa Rosa" intersection plan and battery‑backed signals to help manage large outbound flows, and said planning and public‑works reviews take cumulative impacts into account during formal review.

Drainage, springs and hillside stability were another focus. Nancy Manning and other commenters said natural springs and existing private culverts drain toward the neighborhood and asked how grading and runoff would be handled. The deputy director of engineering, Cleave Gurnie, said a drainage report and analysis of downstream impacts "will be required as part of the submittal application package" and that the civil engineer must account for runoff and any easements identified in title reports. He added that on‑site construction and off‑site connections are paid by the developer, and that the city reviews capacity and requires mitigation if pipes are undersized.

Multiple residents asked whether geotechnical analysis has been done; staff said a geotechnical report, slope analysis and topographic survey are required for a hillside development permit and will be reviewed by building and engineering divisions. "A geotechnical report is a requirement," said Cleave Gurnie.

Other commenters alleged prior unpermitted work by the property owner and cited compliance concerns on the applicant's nearby projects. A resident who identified herself as formerly employed in stormwater enforcement said she had observed insufficient best‑management practices at a nearby site and urged vigilant review. David Cox turned in a petition of more than 90 signatures opposing the project.

On questions about legal status and open‑space dedications, Deputy Director of Planning Jessica Jones said the city was still investigating a past court case referenced in the design narrative and that the city holds a recorded easement the applicant would need to address; she said the city had not made a final determination and that the representation in the narrative "should be closely questioned." Staff repeatedly noted that a formal submission would be routed to all departments, including legal.

On insurance and affordability, resident Shaylen Gustoson said many neighbors rely on the California FAIR Plan or face rising premiums and argued that new development in wildfire‑prone areas has broader cost implications; planning staff replied that insurance availability and premiums are not part of the city's regulatory review.

Throughout the meeting, staff emphasized process limits at the conceptual stage: no application had been filed and the planning commission would be the decision body should an application proceed, with opportunities for written comments and public testimony. "If and when it is submitted," Michaelelsson said, "there will be a robust and comprehensive review process," including public notices to affected neighbors.

The meeting closed with staff collecting comments and reaffirming that technical documents — drainage reports, geotechnical investigations, traffic studies and CEQA review — would be required at application and evaluated by the relevant city departments before any approvals.

The city did not indicate a timeline for a formal application; neighbors were told to send written comments to Hana Michaelelsson at her email on the record.