This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Proposed Sonoma Mission Square Development Flap Grows

Opponents of the proposed development question the independence of researchers commissioned by the city to conduct an EIR. City officials stand by the study's integrity.

Opponents of a proposed downtown Sonoma development are ratcheting up their rhetoric in the aftermath of an Environmental Impact Report released earlier this year that they say doesn't get their concerns.

The EIR released in May as a 423-page PDF document will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council as the developer and opponents dig in for what figures to be a protracted fight over the proposed Mission Square development.

The city paid more than $100,000 to commission a study that took more than three years to prepare. The developer has reimbursed the city for the full cost of the EIR.  

Find out what's happening in Sonoma Valleywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The report is based on an amended proposal after the city rejected a 2007 development plan.

Developers Marcus and David Detert want to build 16 housing units and 2,434 square feet of office space on the1.13-acre parcel on East Spain Street that opponents say abuts historic architecture that is integral to Sonoma's character.

Find out what's happening in Sonoma Valleywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The project was designed by Marcus and Willers Architects.

Opponents say the modern development doesn't fit the milieu of a historic neighborhood that was once an Indian village featuring 19th Century structures including some Gold Rush-era buildings from the 1850s.

Ned Forrest, one of the project's most vocal opponents, says the development doesn't fit an area that "has a lot of heritage and stature."

"The big deal is should mass-market housing be (built) here," he said.

So far, opponents don't like what they've seen of the proposal.

"These buildings are about as cheap as they could possibly be, they're like all stucco and they're  going to paint the stucco thin columns to look like wood," Forrest said.

"These things exist everywhere and people are happy with them, but this is right smack in the middle of a jewel."

The proposal has stirred intense emotions, with some opponents openly questioning the independence of the group commissioned by the city to conduct the EIR.

City officials stand by The Planning Center,  a Berkeley-based company, that conducted the EIR.

"I have not personally overseen the process but I fully support the management team that did oversee the process,"  City Manager Carol Giovanatto said.

Planning Director David Goodison echoed those sentiments, saying the developers "had nothing to do with the selection process and the preparation of the EIR."

Karla Noyes, an opponent of the development, is among those who question's the independence of researchers who prepared the report.

"The people who do the report say the what the developer wants them to say, this happens all the time," she said.

For his part, Forrest said he believes that although the researchers intended to be fair about the report, their work had an inherent pro-development slant.

"Without a doubt, if the authors of EIR were paid to say that it did impact cultural resources they could say that just as easily - maybe more easily," he said.

More importantly, Forrest said he believes the report more accurately reflects a study of the development's impact on the physical environment. He said opponents of the Mission Square proposal are more concerned about its affect on Sonoma's cultural environment.  

"A community determines its cultural resources, not anybody else," Forrest said.

"My urging of the planning commission is to remember this and that no matter how many art historians and engineers say everything's cool here that it's really up to the planning commission and it's really up to us to make that decision."

Goodison insists that community concerns about the development's potential cultural impact will factor in the Planning Commission's decision.

"We're going to be reviewing EIR and the project itself," he said.

"We will address those issues in the staff report. We need to address those issues head on."

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?