Valley Forum: Sonoma can expand outward… and up

After eight years on the city Design Review and Historic Preservation Committee and five years on the Sonoma Planning Commission, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about ideas to improve housing opportunities in Sonoma.

As I read David Brigode’s Valley Forum piece (“Don’t Tie Sonoma’s Affordable Housing Hands,” Aug. 27) about housing and the need for “flexibility” in the upcoming renewal of the city Urban Growth Boundary, I was reminded of a letter to the editor from Carol Marcus two weeks earlier (“Keep UGB As It Is,” Aug. 13) that argued just as passionately to retain the current UGB for another 20 or 30 years. The sides have been drawn. At stake: affordable housing. One side insists expanding the growth boundary results in “suburban housing oozing out the edges,” the other that we’ve run out of infill opportunities and that retaining the current UGB results in “sharply higher” density that will be “bitterly opposed.”

Or is it possible that both sides are a little bit right and a little bit wrong?

My wife and I take a long walk through town almost every morning. The route typically is some variation of a figure-eight that takes us through the Plaza twice. We do this twice to see the ducks, particularly a grey Indian runner we call “Favorite” because, well, she/he is our favorite. We also see my favorite argument for higher density housing in Sonoma: The simple, yet attractive, 1930s mission-revival Cuneo Apartments that sit next to the Swiss Hotel. This four-story, mixed-use project is both taller (by a full story) and more than double the density – at 46 units to the acre – than anything that our current municipal code allows.

How nice would a twin sister look across the Plaza where the current Bank of America branch is? In today’s world of mobile banking and ATMs, the bank could occupy a small portion of the ground floor and happy residents could live above.

In the nearly two decades I’ve lived in Sonoma, I’ve never heard anyone complain about the scale and density of the Cuneo Apartments. As Ms. Marcus points out, we could add housing to some of our under-utilized existing built environment. While empty parcels may be nearly gone, we have plenty of existing buildings and asphalt paved parking lots that could be built above. And we have examples, like the Cuneo Apartments, of how this can be done with increased density in keeping with Sonoma’s character.

In time, there could be housing at such retail locations as the Marketplace, Safeway, Maxwell Village, and the post office to name a few. Such development could include small parks, recreation centers, plus the existing shops, restaurants, fitness centers and other services people use regularly. Adding new housing is simplified, as much of the necessary infrastructure (including parking!) is already in place. With the grocery store, Thai take-out, and a gym downstairs, imagine how many fewer car trips would be necessary.

Will this be enough? Not likely. To have the fullest possible impact on housing, some expansion of the UGB seems inevitable. A 2016 article in the Sonoma Valley Sun noted that expansion of the UGB to Eighth Street East could result in a 25 percent increase of developable land in Sonoma. Much of that land is already fronted by warehouse and light industrial development. Wouldn’t it make sense to put more housing near these workplaces?

The best news in any future scenario is that we as a community have the opportunity to define the outcome. We can vote a short extension of the Urban Grown Boundary to give us time to update the general plan to prioritize greater density and more affordable housing options, we can streamline the development process to get less-expensive housing sooner, and we can design an expansion of the UGB that doesn’t sacrifice green space without returning a benefit to the full community.

Or we can take sides and argue.

James Cribb is a Sonoma resident and former chair of the Sonoma Planning Commission.