Sonoma Planning Commission approves two homes on hillside lots

Schocken Hill, which overlooks the northeast corner of the City of Sonoma, found itself enjoying more civic attention at last Thursday's Planning Commission meeting than it has since 1999. In that year, city voters rebuffed a large resort planned for the hill's western slope, above the Mountain Cemetery, by passing a measure forbidding such resort development.

No such resort is planned now, but a proposal to build three homes on private hillside lots that were on the Aug. 10 Planning Commission agenda evoked concern from many that the 'viewscape' would be marred by development on adjoining two- to three-acre parcels at the end of Fourth Street East.

The four lots (one of which already has a 60-year old residence on the property) currently owned by Sonoma resident Bill Jasper – an investor in Sonoma Media Investments, which owns the Index-Tribune – climb the southern flank of Schocken Hill. The measure of their visibility was one of several recurring questions about the proposed residences on the hillside properties, one at 149 Fourth St. E. and two on Brazil currently undeveloped and without street addresses.

Clare Walton, of Walton Architecture & Engineering which applied for the Use Permits to construct the residences and related structures on the three properties, opened her presentation with several digital images looking up Fourth Street East toward Schocken Hill, images which showed the proposed location of the structures hidden behind digital trees.

The properties are described in the project summary as 'undeveloped supporting open grassland, oak woodlands, and rock outcropping.' The lots are zoned Hillside Residential, and there was no significant concern by meeting attendees that Jasper has the legal right to build on the four lots.

The most controversial element of the Development Code pertaining to hillside development revolved around the code's limit on the size of 'lot pad grading' of structures on hillside properties – specifically what was intended as part of the 'lot pad,' which is limited to 5,000 square feet.

The Development Code states: 'Lot pad grading should be limited to the boundaries of the structure's foundation, vehicle parking space and a yard area as shown on the approved grading plan. Pads should not exceed 5,000 square feet in total area.'

Planning Commissioners, however, differed on the reading of that paragraph, in particular the meaning of 'total area.' Commission Chair James Cribb, and commissioners Mary Sek and Robert McDonald, accepted a reading of the paragraph that it might refer to the maximum allowed size of any given concrete pad on the lot, of which there could be multiple.

'There are probably different ways to read that sentence; the most conservative way to read it is that in total the building pads should not exceed 5,000 square feet,' said city Planning Director David Goodison in the meeting. 'I suppose it could be read that each pad should not exceed that size…'

Co-architect Walton, in answer to a question on the pad size, said that 5,000 square feet is approximately the size of one tennis court, implying such an area would be inadequate to any house construction. (A regulation doubles tennis court in fact is only 2,808 square feet.)

But several times Goodison made it clear that interpreting the meaning of the design guideline was up to the commission. 'It is just a guideline. It's suggestive,' said Goodison. 'The Planning Commission has a lot of latitude in how they make use of that guideline in their consideration of the project.'

Of the four commissioners present among the depleted ranks of the Planning Commission, only recently-named Jim Bohar seemed reluctant to sign off on the more liberal definition of '5,000 square feet in total.'

'I'm having a difficult time accepting this new definition very quickly,' he said. 'Guidelines are the result of a lot of negotiation… to change that in an evening meeting doesn't seem to respect the gravity of that change.'

Public discussion of the use permit applications largely took place for the first of the three measures on the agenda, as Cribb and Goodison made efforts to consolidate the presentations to avoid repetition. About a dozen people logged their opposition to the large-scale houses proposed for the lots; they were followed by a smaller number of proponents, which included Jasper, project engineer Chad Moll and the project's attorney, Michael Woods, who argued that the projects could not possibly be built under a 5,000 square foot in total restriction.

The residences proposed for each of the three properties before the commission are all more than 5,000 square feet. Additional structures in the proposals include detached garages and, in the case of 149 Fourth St. E., a 2,100-square foot 'accessory structure.' Each lot would also have a swimming pool.

Proponents itemized many of the changes and adjustments made to construction plans in response to public concerns at earlier hearings, including 'nestling' the constructions in the terrain's topography and reducing them all to one story, reducing the number of trees to be removed and adding vegetation 'shielding' for some of the buildings.

Ditty Vella was one who brought up the concern that while the proposed structures could be masked by current vegetation, a new owner might decide to remove trees to improve the view.

These concerns were recognized by McDonald, who proposed that the use permit include some covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to address their potential, and Goodison agreed to include those additions.

When the votes were called, Bohar remained the sole hold-out, still reluctant to cast a vote in favor of a project that could potentially be found at variance with the standing development code.

A similar line of discussion followed for Agenda Item 5, one of two Brazil Street properties, and an identical 3-1 vote resulted. But discussion of the third parcel and another agenda item, to review the city's vacation rental regulations, were stayed until the next Planning Commission meeting, scheduled for Sept. 14.

Note: The print version of this article incorrectly said that four homes were to be built on the property owned by Jasper; only three new homes will be constructed, the fourth lot already has a home on it.

Email Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.