Planning commission reviews broad general-plan changes; Sebastiani rezoning draws sustained public concern

The Sonoma Planning Commission received a detailed update from Community Development Director Jennifer Gates on proposed changes to the city's general plan and related zoning concepts, including new park and greenway designations, changes to commercial and residential density ranges, an affordable‑housing overlay and a site‑specific proposal to convert the Sebastiani winery property to a mixed‑use designation.

Gates said staff will begin environmental review, post draft general‑plan elements in stages and hold another community meeting on Jan. 30 at Vintage House to review the land‑use maps and accept public comment. "We're going to begin our environmental review, and we're going to begin drafting our general plan," Gates said. "My intent is to post sections of the draft elements as we get them completed and release them for comments."

The update focused on several substantive proposals the city council had directed staff to pursue. Staff recommended reclassifying the Mountain View Cemetery area to a park designation and explicitly allowing cemeteries as a park use to avoid creating nonconforming uses; creating a greenway/blue‑infrastructure overlay and adding creek‑corridor and trail policies for Bridal Creek, portions of Nathanson Creek and Sonoma Creek; and revising commercial zones so a residential component would be optional for commercial and gateway commercial zones while retaining required residential components for mixed‑use zones.

Gates also proposed increases in allowable densities in low‑ and Sonoma‑residential designations to allow up to fourplexes in some low‑density areas, while leaving Hillside and rural residential unchanged. To retain flexibility, Gates said the general plan would remove numerical height, lot coverage and FAR limits and leave those standards to the development code so zoning changes could be made without reopening the general plan. "We would be looking at allowing up to four units regardless of the density," Gates said regarding the low‑density allowance; she added development standards and objective design guidelines would be drafted to ensure new multiunit buildings "look like single‑family homes and fit within our existing community."

Sebastiani property draws sustained public comment

The most sustained public comment concerned a staff proposal to reclassify the Sebastiani property (often referred to in testimony as the Mission/Malbec vineyard area) from a wine‑production land‑use designation to a site‑specific mixed‑use designation that would allow a mix of agriculture/winery, visitor‑serving commercial uses, hotel and multiple housing types. Gates said the draft approach would pull historic Sebastiani homes out of the mixed area and retain them as single‑family lots.

Residents and property owners spoke for roughly an hour. Elizabeth Seeley, who identified herself as an owner of Seeley Mission Vineyard on Fourth Street East, asked directly whether the change would allow a developer to "bulldoze the Malbec Vineyard and build a mixed‑use structure." Gates replied that a land‑use map change is not an entitlement to build; future projects would still require planning‑commission review, site‑specific environmental review and any applicable permits. "Just because the zoning allowances change does not mean it's a right to do any development," Chair Barnett added during public comment.

Other speakers raised traffic, noise and infrastructure concerns. Jonathan Clark (speaking about state density bonus rules) warned that changes to the property's designation could enable developers to take advantage of state density bonus provisions that limit local discretion when a project provides specified affordable units. Lisa Martens urged commissioners to consider the capacity of the narrow bridge on Fourth Street East and the area's ability to absorb increased traffic in a fire‑response scenario.

Several commenters urged preservation of the vineyard as a community asset. Joe Cuneo described the property as numerous parcels totaling about 22 acres with roughly 16 acres historically used for wine production and told the commission the vineyard is registered as a state historical landmark. "16 acres is a lot," Cuneo said, and urged specific, quantified limits if the city proceeds with any rezoning proposal for that site.

Gates and commissioners acknowledged developers and other parties have submitted letters expressing interest in some parcels. Gates told the commission those letters are posted on the city's web site and confirmed at least one letter came from a party that described hotel development interest. "All the parcels that you saw where we're specifically looking at ... all have letters ... that are on our public" files, she said.

Commissioner and staff guidance to the public

Commissioners repeatedly encouraged neighbors who want specific protections or uses for the Sebastiani site to organize, prepare an alternative proposal and submit it in writing to staff and the commission. "If there's a group of people who are specifically interested in the Sebastiani property, sit down and talk about what you want there and then submit something to this body or to Jennifer in written form," Barnett said.

Housing element, affordable‑housing overlay and state rules

Gates also described how the city's housing‑element obligations are influencing some of the proposed map changes. She said that HCD (the California Department of Housing and Community Development) added language tied to certain sites that, if a parcel is zoned to allow at least 20% lower‑income units and the project is a ministerial housing application without a subdivision map, the site could be approved by right and be exempt from discretionary review and CEQA. Gates said staff will examine whether the proposed affordable‑housing overlay should be applied to those sites and how to attach a 20% affordable requirement to particular parcels so they meet HCD expectations.

Gates described the proposed affordable‑housing overlay as a tool to leave underlying zoning intact while allowing up to about 30 dwelling units per acre on overlay parcels that meet affordability requirements (staff suggested roughly 50% affordable to lower levels in the example presented). "The overlay zone is applicable and triggered" only if the affordability and objective‑design standards are met, she said.

Other map and code clarifications

Staff also proposed removing hospitals and medical centers from the public facility definition and moving them to commercial zones, while explicitly adding "outdoor commercial recreation" (including amphitheaters and athletic facilities that charge fees) to the public‑facility description so venues such as Transcendence Theater Company or an amphitheater would be allowed on public facility land. Gates said site‑specific creek setbacks remain a constraint (she noted a 30‑foot setback from the top of bank is the city's standard, effectively creating larger buffers on many sites) and that some parcels such as portions of Napa Road near Nathanson Creek remain limited by the creek setbacks.

Next steps and timing

Gates said staff will hold another community meeting on Jan. 30 at 6 p.m. at Vintage House, and that drafting and environmental review will continue in the coming months. "We're going to begin our environmental review, and we're going to begin drafting our general plan," she said. Commissioners indicated staff will return draft code and table text to the commission for review and that a formal rezoning or general‑plan adoption will follow planning‑commission recommendations and city‑council decisions.

Why it matters

The general‑plan and land‑use map changes under consideration affect how key parcels in town can be developed, how the city meets state housing obligations and how historic agricultural uses are preserved or changed. Several speakers urged early, specific protections for historic vineyard acreage and sharper, parcel‑level planning rather than a broad site designation. Commissioners and staff repeatedly told residents the general‑plan process is the place to propose preferred uses and that early engagement will have the greatest influence on final outcomes.