Controversial Petaluma home approved

The city council this week struggled to unearth a decisive resolution for a complex and contentious battle over the impacts of a luxury home development in west Petaluma, irking a local couple that appears ready to extend the battle in court.

The elected board heard an appeal Monday over a proposed single-family residence that has stirred up the surrounding Woodridge neighbors on Olive Street, Raymond Heights, 6th Street and Branching Way. Residents near the vacant 1.2-acre lot, who were staunchly against the project at this week’s hearing, voiced concerns over environmental impacts and the potential loss of privacy that has affected one household in particular.

Renee and Bill Tomrose, Olive Street residents since 2003, appealed the planning commission’s March approvals of the site plans and changes to the development standards that govern the area, claiming key protections have been ignored throughout the review process.

As a result, they believe their pristine cityscape and panoramic views of Sonoma Mountain will be irreparably obstructed, and the height of the home will create potential sightlines onto their property, causing its value to depreciate by $200,000, according to an appraisal.

After a straw poll that resulted in a 3-3 stalemate, the council voted 5-1 to deny the appeal and approve the construction project, but only after adding a condition that the house is lowered by at least 40 inches to reduce the obstruction of the Tomroses’ views. Councilwoman Kathy Miller cast the dissenting vote.

“It’s a pretty big impact,” said Miller, who, along with council members D’Lynda Fischer and Mike Healy, was prepared to uphold the appeal and send the project back to the planning commission for more review.

“If we’re going to do infill development, which is what we’re talking about doing in this town, it’s important to be a good neighbor when you do that. I don’t think this is being a good neighbor.”

The project was proposed by Cailin and Scott Nelson, third-generation Petalumans pursuing a three-story residence with an attached three-car garage, pool and cabana in the empty lot north of the Tomrose property. The Nelsons did not attend the meeting due to a longstanding vacation.

The height concession instituted Monday night was previously offered by the Nelsons “multiple times,” according to their attorney, Martin Hirsch.

Bill Tomrose said they declined and then made a counteroffer, but received no response from the Nelson camp.

After the hearing, Tomrose said he was dismayed the council only discussed potential concessions with Hirsch, and left their representative, attorney Alex Myers, out of the conversation.

“We didn’t have an opportunity to raise those questions since they didn’t pose them to me during Q-and-A,” Myers said. “They got one-sided information that I think swung the decision.”

He declined to disclose any details about what their counteroffer was, saying the issue is “ongoing, and is not going to end (after this decision).”

The biggest point of contention for the Tomroses was the city’s application of the Woodridge Planned Unit District, or PUD, which dictates planning for the 2.7 acres of undeveloped land behind their home. Bill Tomrose said he and his wife were OK with development at the site, and bought their home knowing full well that they would eventually see construction next door.

In 2017, they welcomed an administrative amendment to the PUD that subdivided the lot to reduce the number of homes from four to two after the Nelsons and their lifelong friends Brienna and Tyler Doherty purchased the property.

The key protection in that modification was a 50-foot setback that would provide enough distance between homes to retain their views, Tomrose said.

Language in the PUD also says new construction has to avoid “view obstructions to neighboring properties.”

However, in the final design, the Nelson project reverted back to previous standards of the PUD adopted in 2007, when setbacks were 30 feet and the lot was envisioned for four properties. Including the back deck, the home is sited as close as 24 feet.

The Tomroses allege the encroaching footprint was done to accommodate a larger home of nearly 7,000 square feet, and circumvent additional costs from having to construct a longer access road to the property.

Numerous neighbors and friends of the Tomrose family spoke out against the project. A few lambasted city officials and accused planners of bias by omitting key details about perceived impacts of the project.

Some raised issues over the hydrological dangers of building a property at this scale on such a sloped gradient, and the impact it could have on the accumulating surface and groundwater during the rainier months. Although, planning officials said those mitigations would be addressed administratively before issuing building permits.

The portrait of cold-hearted, view obstructers was disputed by Hirsch and project engineer James Jenson, who said they made efforts to reduce any impacts. They pointed to the panoramic vistas of Sonoma Mountain that will remain, and showed the council renderings of how more homes on the lot could have been far more detrimental.

City staff addressed each concern raised by the Tomroses’ team in the staff report, and cited the general compliance of the project, holding firm on a recommendation to deny the appeal.

“The planning commission found that views to Sonoma Mountain appeared to be largely visible over the proposed house, and while a portion of city views were blocked, a larger portion remains,” said Planning Manager Heather Hines.

Councilman Gabe Kearney felt there wasn’t sufficient evidence to warrant a reversal of the planning commission’s decision on March 12, which took several hours of deliberating to reach. The final votes that night were not unanimous, and some commissioners said they were reluctant but voted the project forward since it complied with city guidelines.

Mayor Teresa Barrett echoed that sentiment.

“I don’t see a strong argument on either side why we should vote against the planning commission,” she said.

(Contact News Editor Yousef Baig at yousef.baig@arguscourier.com or 776-8461, and on Twitter @YousefBaig.)