Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Sebastiani topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on Sebastiani property: fire risk, density and land‑use protections urged
Summary
Several residents used a non‑agenda comment period to urge the City Council not to change agricultural land‑use designations for the roughly 22‑acre Sebastiani property, citing newly designated high fire hazard severity, a traffic study that showed evacuation-time concerns, and the lack of a final 'Sonoma mixed use' definition.
Multiple residents spoke during the non‑agenda public comment period about land‑use proposals for the roughly 22‑acre property commonly referred to as the Sebastiani site east of the plaza. Speakers raised safety, evacuation, density and community‑character concerns and asked the council to protect agricultural parcels and open space.
Janet Boyle, who said she lives across from the property on Brazil Street, focused on safety and fire risk and noted that surrounding parcels were recently reclassified to a "very high" fire hazard severity zone. Boyle cited a traffic study for a separate project that she said showed an additional four and a half hours could be required for evacuation in an emergency; she said that lengthened evacuation time is worrying and asked that the city not change the land‑use definition for the four parcels abutting the Sebastiani site. She suggested leaving two parcels as agricultural and turning two parcels designated for wine production into a public park, and asked if the council had engaged Bill Foley about a possible donation similar to one he made in Healdsburg.
Steve MacRostie and other speakers pressed for specific limits in any new "Sonoma mixed use" category. MacRostie said the range shown in prior presentations — 7 to 25 units per acre — would represent a dramatic increase from surrounding neighborhood density at the high end and said the draft language has changed over time without a final definition being posted. Others asked that any new land‑use category include a height limit (citing 36 feet as the current mixed‑use maximum), protections for existing grape‑growing agricultural acreage, preservation of green space percentage, restrictions on alterations to historically designated buildings, and application of the city’s formula‑business restrictions.
Bob Flanagan urged that the city apply the same protections used on the plaza to the Sebastiani site: a height ceiling, preservation of green space, protection of vineyard acreage, historic protections and a requirement that retail be "visitor‑serving" rather than unrestricted retail.
Resident Ken Stokes said neighbors have attended planning commission and council hearings since December and remain concerned that written definitions have not kept pace with oral presentations and slides. Alice May, who lives across from the property, urged the council to keep the agricultural zoning, warned against turning the area into high‑density commercial development and said preserving open green space is important to local tourism.
City Manager David Guin said staff would take the comments and determine whether the next appropriate forum for discussion is before a commission or returned to city council. Council members thanked the speakers and noted that more detailed language and draft policy definitions will be considered in the appropriate planning process.
Why this matters: residents cited recent CAL FIRE hazard mapping and a traffic study when asking the city to limit density and protect agricultural uses. The comments request specific protections — height limits, open space minimums, agricultural preservation and visitor‑serving retail requirements — that would have to be reflected in any general plan or zoning text amendments.
