Santa Rosa council rejects developer’s plan for Rincon Valley homes

The Santa Rosa City Council shot down the development of three new homes in Rincon Valley on Tuesday when it sided with a group of residents trying to protect their neighborhood’s semi-rural character.

Overturning the unanimous approval of its Planning Commission and the recommendations of planning staff, the council on a 4-3 vote upheld the appeal brought by residents of the Monte Verde Avenue neighborhood.

The area of about 40 homes on mostly 1-acre lots was annexed into the city in 1999 and largely has retained its rural flavor.

Vice Mayor Robin Swinth voted to uphold the appeal in part to clarify the principle in the city’s general plan that low-density parcels are not simply pieces of land waiting for more intensive development.

“Those are unique and charming parts of our community,” Swinth said.

Real estate agents Ted Hollen ?and Jeff Komar purchased a 1,600-square-foot home on 1 acre at 408 Calistoga Road. They proposed carving up the property up into four lots and building three new homes behind the existing one.

The problem is that the existing home, while it fronts Calistoga Road, is actually part of the Monte Verde Avenue neighborhood association established around 1951. The association’s rules made it clear that lots could not be subdivided into below-1-acre lots.

But those rules had been broken in the past, and city planners said the city has no obligation to restrict higher-density development because of them.

Under the general plan amendment and zoning change being sought, the maximum number of homes that could be built on the property would increase from two to eight.

City planners argued the lot was appropriate for an infill project because it is close to schools, transit and the commercial center at Highway 12 and Calistoga Road.

“Change is tough, but I do think this is an appropriate location for this increased density,” Mayor Scott Bartley said.

Councilman Ernesto Olivares, who lives north of the site on Calistoga Road, questioned whether three additional homes would add any significant traffic to the area.

He said he felt the council was “picking and choosing” which parts of the homeowners association’s original covenants, codes and restrictions to respect, noting that those rules also prevented “any person not of the white Caucasian race” from occupying homes there. Such rules now are legally invalid.

“A lot has changed since 1949,” Olivares said. “It does seem like we’re trying to throw things out to see what’s going to stick on this one.”

Resident Paul Bussard’s appeal was wide-ranging, lodging all manner of objections to the project. These included alleged violations of the general plan, increases in traffic, danger to schoolchildren, potential harm to oak trees and the need to preserve large lots for groundwater percolation.

But the majority of council members were swayed by the residents’ desire to preserve the rural character of their area.

Councilwoman Julie Combs framed the issue, which she called “a remarkably difficult one,” as a question of trust, citing the upcoming decision on the annexation of Roseland.

How could the city go back on its promises it made to residents of Rincon Valley in 1999 “and then expect the folks who are about to be annexed to believe us that we’re going to honor and respect their rural residential nature, too?”

Bartley, Olivares and Jake Ours voted against the appeal. Swinth, Combs, Erin Carlstrom and Gary Wysocky voted in favor.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. ?On Twitter @srcitybeat.