Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors tell Sonoma Planning Commission: don’t treat Sebastiani site as a default hotel
Summary
Multiple neighbors urged the commission to broaden the General Plan designation for the Sebastiani property and not to treat a hotel as the default use, proposing alternatives such as senior housing, a community center, winery education programs and other lower‑impact uses.
Residents of the neighborhood around the Sebastiani property used the public‑comment period at the March 19 Planning Commission meeting to press the commission and staff to broaden the General Plan’s language so that a hotel is not the presumptive exemplar for future development.
"A hotel in the Sebastian property is not a popular proposal and yet it continues to be used as a prime example for future use," said Steve McCrosty, who identified himself as a Sebastiani neighbor and longtime commenter. McCrosty urged the commission to explicitly include alternatives—community center, an arts collective or a residential retirement development—so developers know the city is open to more than a hotel.
Other neighbors voiced similar concerns. Victor Confory (Conford) said the General Plan should either remove the word 'hotel' or narrow it—suggesting a boutique limit or a 25‑room cap—to avoid a large, resort‑style facility that would increase noise and traffic. Tom Graves cited a community workshop where participants repeatedly identified evacuation and density as top concerns and warned against rushing the decision.
Supporters of alternatives noted potential benefits of senior housing (stable population with lower impacts) and suggested the city consider partnerships with experienced operators; McCrosty said he and neighbors have spoken with a CEO of a firm called Wellquest Living about interest in the site. Several residents also urged the commission to preserve the Sebastiani name and wine‑making legacy through educational or small‑scale winery uses.
Staff clarified that the Sebastiani matter had been discussed at a prior publicly noticed hearing and was not on the current agenda; the commission heard the comments and said it would fold public input into the General Plan review process.
What happens next: Because the commission was reviewing General Plan land‑use language, staff will consolidate public comments into the draft and present revised language and code amendments for future hearings. The commission and the public emphasized they want clarity in the General Plan so the city and developers understand acceptable uses before site‑level entitlements move forward.
This article attributes all quotes to speakers who identified themselves on the record.
