The Planning Commission voted 4-3 not to certify the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Mission Square development, a result that effectively halts the project at 213 East Spain St. after 10 years of planning.
The decision will be appealed to the city council, said Bill Willers, project architect and spokesman, immediately after Tuesday night’s meeting.
From a zoning and code standpoint, the plan for 16 apartments and 3,500 sq. ft. of office space conforms to all city guidelines. And although the lot sits within a federally designated historic area, and the city’s historic overlay district, neither designation prohibits development.
But the majority of the commission found the EIR document incomplete, particularly on issues of water, energy and the key point for the public, aesthetics.
“The project lacks character,” said Ernestine Evans, one of many speaking in opposition. “It adds nothing to the historic district.”
The decision puts the future of the project at risk. The EIR is the keystone document; without it, the project can’t proceed. Unless the city council certifies it on appeal, the project will have to be reconceived – again.
The initial plan for the 1.15 acre site, in 2002, called for a 34-room hotel and 10 apartments. It was widely opposed by neighbors and The Sonoma League for Historic Preservation, who felt the scale of that and the subsequent 2007 design would overwhelm and destroy the neighborhood’s historical ambience.
Willers said that to initiate a third attempt at developing the property his firm met with members of a league subcommittee to identify points of concern. The new, current design took those resulting factors – including bulk, density, historic context, open space and enhancement of historic district – into account, he said “Overall, the plan has mitigated earlier concerns,” said Rob Gjestland, the city’s senior planner.
The planning department recommended approval of the EIR, as it found “no environmental effects of the project that were potentially significant and unavoidable.”
Sonoma Planning Director David Goodison clarified for the commission that a vote to approve the document “is not an approval of the project per se.” The panel would have additional opportunities, as would other agencies, to make changes to the plan during the project approval process.
“Everything is on the table,” he said. “The commission can modify or disallow any element of the project.”
Susan Brandt-Hawley, the Glen Ellen attorney who specializes in historical preservation cases, was hired by the league to contest the EIR. She said the document was incomplete, inadequate and difficult to understand. She said she would not trust any future approval process to identify and address the league’s concerns.
“’We’ll study it later’ might work elsewhere, but it is not OK for a project near the Plaza,” Brandt-Hawley said. “The site is of statewide, of national importance. You don’t put standard mitigation procedures on it.”
Public comment was unanimously opposed to the project, predominantly on aesthetic grounds. “This is a historical setting,” said Deborah Black. The development “would be like shooting an arrow into the heart of Sonoma.”
However emotional, the general negative reaction to the project footprint and design footprint – one woman described the structures as “Army barracks” – were not quite to the legal point.
Goodison said issues were being raised “that clearly have nothing to do with the EIR.” Specific design detail “is a completely separate issue than if the EIR is an adequate document.”
Commissioner Mathew Tippell agreed. “It’s important to separate the project itself from the EIR.”
The land is designated as mixed-use and the project is of a type encouraged by the city’s general plan, said Commissioner Ray Gallian, who said he was frustrated by the bureaucratic mixed message. “We call for density to create centers of human activity, then prevent ourselves from building them.”
(Willers said it was the city that pushed for a housing element on the lot, which was rezoned as mixed-use to invite such a plan.)
Gallain voted to certify the EIR, along with Tippell and Mark Heneveld. As a group, they felt the report was adequate, and any problems that arose would be dealt with as the approval and permitting process moved forward.
Voting in the majority against the document were Gary Edwards, Robert Felder, Michael George and Chair Matt Howarth. The consensus among them was that the document was incomplete and lacked contingencies for water and energy supply, drainage and parking.
As with the public, the visual element was also a major concern. “I can’t imagine dropping an apartment into that historic setting,” George said.
