A refuge postponed: Roseland divided over future of 20-acre open space eyed for Santa Rosa park

Today, brush and poison oak sprawl beneath the small oak grove in the middle of the property. Foundations from homes the city demolished for the park years ago remain in place.

Even if the opposing neighbors are placated, construction wouldn’t begin until at least mid-2024, and the project is likely to face funding constraints even after it clears environmental hurdles.

Lawsuit: Project could ‘jeopardize integrity’ of land

Santa Rosa began negotiating the purchase of land between Burbank and McMinn south of Hughes Avenue in 2009, eyeing the space for a community park.

Long before that, nearby residents had worked to clean the property, and for decades lobbied the city and county to preserve and rehabilitate the land.

They held regular cleanups, becoming stewards of the natural space as if it were their own.

When the park proposal was finally advanced many years later, some were disappointed that what they were promised decades ago would be preserved as a natural space was now going to be partly built out.

Longtime Roseland resident Duane De Witt, who has sought preservation of the creekside space for nearly 30 years and is a regular at the City Hall rostrum, accused the city of hijacking the preservation effort with its “roads and parking lot project,” during the September 2021 meeting where the council approved the park plan.

De Witt leads Roseland Action, the group behind the lawsuit.

The project is personal for De Witt, who grew up in his grandmother’s McMinn Avenue home, according to a 2012 Press Democrat profile. His advocacy for the park led to him being honored in 2011 by the Sonoma County Conservation Council as Outstanding Grassroots Environmentalist.

De Witt declined to comment on the record for this story.

Roseland Action contends in its lawsuit that the city’s plans for paved trails and other amenities, including parking, will harm existing habitat and detract from the rare, semi-wild experience they say the property affords in a developed part of town.

The group’s lawsuit sought to force the city to conduct an environmental impact report on potential effects of building out the park on wildlife, habitat, water and soil.

The group argued in legal filings that the property was within designated critical habitat for the endangered California tiger salamander and that a wildlife biologist found the presence of nearly 38 vertebrate wildlife species, including some that were considered “special-status species.”

The city’s project “may jeopardize the integrity of one of the few remaining natural spaces left in the area,” according to the lawsuit.

The city’s original analysis of the habitat was incomplete, according to the lawsuit, and the group argued the city violated CEQA, the state’s landmark environmental law, by not conducting a more thorough review and giving residents a chance to weigh in.

Roseland Action was started by a group of residents nearly 30 years ago to advocate for environmental and social justice, according to the lawsuit.

Its goal: To “empower and to give Roseland residents a voice in the public policy decision making processes of governmental agencies influencing Roseland.”

No members other than De Witt are identified in the suit.

Divide in the community

Elected officials and some residents, however, have questioned whose voices the group seeks to elevate, saying its wishes are out of step with neighbors who want more public amenities closer to home.

“We’re desperately trying to show Roseland that we do care about increasing quality of life,” Santa Rosa Mayor Chris Rogers said. “You have a very small but very vocal minority of folks who are pretty much opposed to anything we try to do. When I’m walking Roseland and talking to community members about what they need, it’s often very different than the needs and opinions expressed by that vocal minority.”

Marisol Angeles, with Grupo de Mujeres Unidas, or United Womens Group, an advocacy group in Roseland, said working-class families in the neighborhood have limited options for recreation. The property is a perfect place to both provide a natural space and park amenities.

She criticized the opponents and said though they’ve long enjoyed nearly exclusive access to it, the park belongs to the entire community.

“Everyone has a right to ask for what they need and what the community needs is more parks,” she said in Spanish.

Vice Mayor Eddie Alvarez, who in 2020 became the first directly elected lawmaker to represent Roseland, celebrated the council’s initial approval of the park as a step toward addressing inequities in a part of the city that has historically been shortchanged on community investment.

Rogers said the council chose to rescind its approval of the park plan and move forward with an environmental review rather than fight the lawsuit in court because it was less costly and less time consuming. A lawsuit could’ve taken years to settle, the mayor said.

Though he said the benefits of the California Environmental Quality Act far outweigh any abuses of the law, this was an instance of a select few using the law to “bogart development in the community.”

Rogers said part of the problem has been managing the expectations of residents involved in early preservation efforts who were promised a natural space decades ago before Roseland was part of the city. The needs and the demographics of Roseland have changed since, he said.

He criticized Roseland Action for obstructing the project.

“Roseland needs parks. Period,” he said. “I get that the neighbors have thought of this land as their land because for so long they were the only ones that used it, but that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to stall any progress on it when you see a critical need in our community.”

Alvarez: Building the park ‘a must’

While Roseland Action and the city haggle over the environmental aspects of the park, there are other concerns that residents, particularly those with young children, say have gone unaddressed as well.

There’s no formal crosswalk connecting the park to the school and Arroyo, the mother who was walking her children to school, worries a child will get hurt crossing the street.

Building a trail from McMinn to Burbank and a crosswalk connecting the park to the school was supposed to be the first step in the development, but it’s on pause until the environmental review is complete.

As Arroyo, 52, and her two toddler grandchildren made their way back home from school in late September, they meandered through the oak woodland.

The noise of traffic and bustle from the nearby school seemed muted under the canopy of the trees. The crunch of footsteps and the sliding of Arroyo’s granddaughter’s stroller over fallen and dry leaves was the only sound.

Arroyo’s friend, Pazcuala Hernandez, 57, who joined the walk, said she enjoys being able to escape in nature just a few yards from her home.

“It’s as if we were out on the ranch,” she said.

But there’s issues that must be addressed before the space can be enjoyed, she said.

Fire crews responded to a fire in the park on Sept. 4 that appeared to start at an encampment. They quickly contained the flames to a quarter-acre, and city crews cleared the camps and cleaned the park after the fire, she said.

Hernandez, whose daughter attended Roseland Accelerated Middle School on Burbank, said they were once harassed by a homeless man yelling incoherently at them while they crossed the park to go to school. Her daughter, who often walked alone to class, became fearful of crossing through the open space.

Alvarez, who as vice mayor spearheaded a robust public campaign to transform the open space, said residents who spoke during meetings, participated in online discussions and responded to surveys largely favored conserving the park in its natural state and building trails.

Developing the park has been a priority for Alvarez since he was elected, he said in an interview.

“I looked at the park and thought now that we have one voice, let’s see if we can get this project through,” he said.

Rogers praised Alvarez for his work in bringing people together to find a compromise and described it as Alvarez’s biggest accomplishment during his time on council.

Jenn Fautley, 46, whose home on McMinn backs up into the park, said she would prefer native plants to a lawn but she supports the city’s plans.

“Sure the plan is not exactly what I would design but it is not supposed to be my personal park. It’s a community park and different members of our community want different things to be included,” she said in an email.

She said she hopes by having the city manage the space it can improve fire and public safety. The underbrush and poison oak need to be maintained and the creekbed cleared of debris to reduce flood risks, she said.

Fautley said she was “annoyed” building out the park has taken so long but was looking forward to enjoying it once completed.

Her neighbor Tamara Morgantini, 53, often walks and bikes through the open space.

Though she wants to see most of the park remain in its natural state, she acknowledged it needs to be restored and cleaned.

“Leaving it exactly the way it is doesn’t provide any amenities for the community,” she said.

Alvarez was more sympathetic to those opposed to the city’s plans.

As longtime residents of the area, De Witt and others know there has been generational disinvestment in the community and they want to see the city place greater emphasis on Roseland, Alvarez said.

“You have to take into account how many years they’ve been advocating for change and how jaded they must feel for not being heard for so long. I understand,” he said.

Still, he said the lawsuit to prevent the park is misguided. He wants to work to change the perspective of park opponents and show them that the city is genuine in its efforts to improve the southwestern portion of the city.

While residents don’t want a replica of nearby Southwest Community Park with large basketball courts, a baseball diamond and soccer field, Alvarez said, improved park management and development could address trash and the old infrastructure left from homes that once stood on the property.

“What I think they’re failing to see is what condition the park is currently in,” he said of those opposed. “This is currently housing tires, concrete, rubbish and that’s not the way nature should be preserved.”

“There’s a septic tank (from a demolished home) right in the dead middle of it. Nature is not a septic tank,” he said.

Officials estimated last year they could need $8 million to $12 million to install all the park amenities. Construction will occur as funding becomes available.

Alvarez said he welcomed the opportunity for additional feedback from residents, though he anticipates the environmental report will show there wasn’t a need for additional studies.

Will Roseland ultimately get its park? Alvarez said he hopes the city can move beyond the impasse and build it.

“It’s a must,” he said.

Staff Writer Andrew Graham and former Staff Writer Julie Johnson contributed to this story. You can reach Staff Writer Paulina Pineda at 707-521-5268 or paulina.pineda@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @paulinapineda22.