Santa Rosa planning panel denies appeal of 15‑bed assisted‑living permit amid SB 9 dispute

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission on a 5–0 vote on the evening motion denied an appeal and upheld the zoning administrator’s approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow a 15‑bed residential care facility at 631 Benjamins Road (PLN25‑0206).

Appellant Jay Giles told the commission the SB 9 urban lot split that created the project parcel was invalid because, he said, the owner signed an owner‑occupancy affidavit but never intended to live in the original home. "An entitlement obtained through fraud or perjury is void from its inception," Giles said, urging the commission to deny the minor use permit because, he argued, a permit cannot rest on a parcel that exists only because of an allegedly fraudulent filing.

Applicants Kim Pham and her husband described the project as a family‑run residential care facility with professional experience in senior care. "This project is deeply personal to us," Kim Pham said, asking the commission to deny the appeal and let the minor use permit stand. The applicant’s representative emphasized that the SB 9 lot split "is not on the table" for this hearing and that staff had evaluated the MUP on standard residential‑use findings.

Planning staff summarized the project history and the five grounds of appeal, including claims about variance hardship criteria, special privilege, neighborhood compatibility, the use of a rear parcel created by the SB 9 split, and alleged missing findings under Government Code §65906. Staff told the commission the minor use permit was evaluated on residential‑use findings, noted that required frontage improvements were a condition of development, and recommended denying the appeal. Staff also said the matter qualified for CEQA categorical exemptions (CEQA Guidelines §§15303 and 15183).

Neighbors and other speakers were split. Some residents said the scale of a 15‑bed facility could produce more traffic and parking demand than the five on‑site parking spaces conditioned by the permit. Lindsey Lawson, who lives next door, said the proposal’s staffing and on‑site uses could occupy the majority of the five spaces, leaving no visitor parking. Other neighbors urged scaling the project back to six beds to avoid a minor use permit and keep it within ministerial review rules.

City traffic staff said the facility’s trip generation is expected to be low given the operator’s described model of limited staffing and visitation. "The trip generation from this facility would never reach a level to create an impact by any qualitative or objective measure that we would have," Dan Hennessy said, citing Institute of Transportation Engineers guidance and local data.

Fire department staff said evacuation planning and access would be reviewed and that the building would be sprinklered. "This home will have fire sprinklers, so those are upwards of 98% effective," Assistant Fire Marshal Mike Johnson said, adding that the site has multiple exit routes and that sprinklers typically reduce emergency responses.

Commissioner Sisco moved to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator’s approval; Vice Chair Duggan seconded. Commissioners Sisco, Horton, Sanders, Duggan and Chair Weeks all voted in favor. The resolution, as read into the record, cited the staff findings and made the required zoning findings to support the minor conditional use permit.

The commission’s action is final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk within 10 calendar days of the decision.

(Quotes and factual attributions in this article are drawn from the public record of the Planning Commission hearing on the matter.)