The City of Sonoma Development Code governs the type of development and uses that are permitted within differing zoning areas, of which there are many; commercial, mixed-use, medium density residential, high-density residential and gateway are but a few, and to them are added areas like the Historic Overlay Zone. It’s all laid out clearly in the City’s planning documents and General Plan.
Exceptions to zoning limitations are allowed, but they require special hearings and permits, for example, allowing a commercial use in a residential zone. Property owners may apply for uses which require an exception or variance. These hearings are open to the public, and like any decision of the Planning Commission the outcome can be appealed to the City Council for a final determination. The City Council can uphold or deny an appeal or add new conditions of approval. Once the City Council has made a decision, the only remaining alternative for those who object to the decision resides in the Courts of Law. If the courts find the City has ignored the provisions of its own General Plan, or has acted without making proper findings, it can impose its own solution. Going to court is of course, time-consuming, expensive and uncertain, thus it happens rarely.
Despite the zoning, hearings and appeals, some residentially-zoned streets adjacent to the Plaza are slowly morphing into commercial areas. Happening slowly over the course of years, one property after another is granted a variance or an exception to the zoning limitations; over time, the majority of parcels on a street become commercial. Some call this process “commercial creep” and a current example of this can be seen in the 100 block of West Spain Street. Whether this is the natural evolution of a street adjacent to the Plaza or an unfortunate case of commercial creep is clearly a matter of opinion. (See Map).
The Role of the Planning Commission
The Sun sat down with Bill Willers, Chair of the City of Sonoma Planning Commission to discuss this topic and gain his perspective. Willers is a licensed architect and as such is intimately familiar with the provisions of the Development Code, and without getting into the particulars of any specific parcel, spoke about how he felt about the type of change seen on West Spain Street.
“Nobody wants change,” he offered, “but change is inevitable and is often a point of friction.” Willers sees the challenge ultimately as one of balance. “Tourist serving activity, for example, is an important topic. It provides benefits but risks erosion of the historical qualities we value,” he added. He continued, “Imposing Vacation Rental regulations has been and continues to be very important.”
In making decisions, the Planning Commission relies on our Development Code, which Chair Willers feels is “Sonoma centric” and supports an “organic process” of development. He stressed the great importance of understanding Sonoma’s historical patterns which are outlined and enumerated within the Town Design Guidelines and General Plan. “An analysis of actual uses shows more variation than is simply indicated on a zoning map,” he noted, “and this variation represents Sonoma’s historical development pattern. Much of this happened before Sonoma had a zoning ordinance of any kind.”
In recognition of the force of development pressure, Willers added, “If anything, our policies need to be more ‘fine grained’ going forward to provide greater clarity. For example, if the Mixed Use designation was and is intended to stimulate the creation of worker housing, then that should be more explicitly noted.” As for changes in zoning, he plainly stated that zoning intensity is a matter of City Council policy. Pertaining to the kinds of changes that have happened on West Spain Street and other streets adjacent to the Plaza, he concluded, “Our guiding documents bring with them limitations, but property owners can always ‘ask’ and thus the public process is available.”
His greatest concern is to continue having an engaged public involved in the planning process. “When the hot projects come up people participate. The commissioners listen and the process works best when the public is engaged.”
A The eastern tip of West Spain, where it intersects the Plaza, has been commercially zoned for a long time. Both the buildings housing the El Dorado (403-407 1st Street West) and Sonoma Hotel (110 W. Spain) have occupied their locations well before Sonoma had a zoning ordinance. Both buildings have frontage on the Plaza, a fully commercial zone.
B The Casteneda Adobe (143 W. Spain), one of the oldest Adobe structures in the City (1842), has been remodeled as the office and tasting room (by appointment) for Three Sticks Winery. Previously the Jones’ residence, the original garden has been replaced with a new building and the empty lot at the rear repurposed as a parking lot; a high wall encloses the lot and the sides of the property. The commercial use permit and exception to the residential zoning was granted in 2012 though a provision of the “reuse of historic buildings” language in the development code.
C Across the street sits the Roche Winery tasting room (122 W. Spain), again in a former residential home built in 1920. The location features an outdoor “bar’ space and serves wine and some food, both inside and out. This use was first approved for office/retail and then changed to wine tasting in 2004. No on site parking is provided. It is located within the medium-density residential zone.
D West of the Roche Winery tasting room is a single family residential property (132 W. Spain) built in 1900, and west of that are condominium/residential units built in 1962 (144 W. Spain) and the driveway into a large multi-unit development (154 W. Spain) built in 1982.
E The property west of An Inn to Remember (181 W. Spain) remains in residential use, as does the house next to it at the corner of 2nd Street West (195 W. Spain), which contains multiple housing units.
F To the West of the Wyle House are three residential properties (172, 180, 190 W. Spain) built in 1956, 1889 and 1978, respectively.
G The small home at the end of the block (196 W. Spain) next to the empty field of the State Park has been an approved Vacation Rental since 1999. It is also in the medium-density residential zone.
H Across the street from An Inn 2 Remember is the Wyle house (162-166 W. Spain), also an historic structure dating to 1880. This two story structure has had two residential apartments on the ground floor, and some office space on the upper floor created in 1996. It was recently (2014) approved (on an appeal to the City Council after denial by the Planning Commission) for use as two vacation rentals. Again, the historic “reuse” provisions provided the justification and its designation will be “vacation rental” within the medium-density residential zone.
I The home west of the Casteneda Adobe is the former residence of Dorothy Blonder (157 W. Spain) built in 1919. When she died the house was sold, and the new owners applied for permits to use the property for a vacation rental; this happened in 2003. A new single-family home has recently been built on the rear of the lot. Both houses are within the medium-density residential zone.
J West of the former Blonder house is An Inn 2 Remember, a licensed Bed and Breakfast (171 W. Spain). It received permit approval in 1981 under the name Thistle Dew Inn. It’s permitted use is governed by its designation as a “legal non-conforming use” which means it can operate as commercial use within the medium-density residential zone. It’s original approval predates the Bed and Breakfast zoning regulations.
With the addition of another store in the Pet Express chain soon to open near the intersection of Napa St. and 5th Street West, Sonoma slowly, but seemingly inexorably becomes another small town dominated by, if not taken over by, chain stores. Two recent additions—Peet’s Coffee and Williams-Sonoma—add to the Staples within the past 2-3 years as additions to Sonoma’s retail shops.
Are there no local entrepreneurs or other local citizens interested in operating a business in our fair community? Do the taxes and whatever other economic benefits accruing from the raising of another chain store in our fair town worth the “price” paid for them to exist here? What does a McDonald’s add with its minimum wage and less than a living wage operation here bring to Sonoma?
I dislike the chain commercialization of a community. It feels like a little bit of Sonoma’s individuality and distinctiveness is lost with each chain store addition. I’m am also less inclined to remain here.