December 10, 2015

Agenda Item #3

MEMO
To:

Planning Commission

From:

David Goodison, Planning Director

Re:

Study session on a proposal for a mixed-use project at 216-254 First Street East and
273-299 Second Street East, including a hotel, commercial space, and residential units
with an allowance for use as vacation rentals (Applicant: Caymus Capital)

Site Description and Environs

The site consists of five parcels having a combined area of 3.4 acres. Three of the parcels,
formerly owned by the Peterson Family, are located on First Street East. These include two
smaller properties, each developed with a single-family residence (one of which is used as a
duplex), and a 2.07-acre parcel that was the former location of Peterson Mechanical. This
property is developed with a number of older industrial buildings currently occupied by a variety
of uses, including a taxi service and a sign company, along with paved and graveled parking
areas. The developed area of this property is on the south, while the northern half of the property,
which wraps around the two residences, is vacant. The two parcels on Second Street East are
occupied by a mixed-use development comprised of a 5,000 square office building fronting the
street and two duplexes at the rear, with shared access along the north edge of the site. There are
a number of trees scattered throughout the site, including several mature oak trees. Adjoining
uses include the following:
North: A single-family residence (adjoining First Street East) and multi-family development.
South: The Vintage House senior center.
East: An agricultural property and rural residential development (across Second Street East).
West: Playing fields and Depot Park (across First Street East).
All of the parcels that comprise the site have a General Plan land use designation and a zoning
designation of Mixed Use.
Proposed Development
The proposal involves redeveloping the 3.4-acre site with mixed-use project including a hotel
with restaurant and spa, a commercial space, and 35 residential units with a proposed allowance
for use as vacation rentals. The major components of the proposed development are as follows:

Residential Component: The projects residential component would provide 21 primary

units and 14 second units. The primary units consist of seven apartments (including four
affordable rental units), and fourteen ownership units. Each of the ownership units would
include a small second unit (480 square feet). The ownership units are divided between
nine detached units situated in the interior of the site (type C1 and C2 and five attached,

townhome units (type B) fronting First Street East. The townhomes provide a minimum
setback of 10 feet from the west property line and 14 feet from the back of sidewalk
(adjoining First Street East). All of the homes are two-story, with the Type B units having
a maximum height of 30 feet (excluding cupola which extends to 34 feet) and the Type
C1 and C2 units having a maximum height of 27 feet. The apartments, which range in
size from a 442-square foot studio to a 2,582-square foot 3-bedroom unit, would be
located on the second and third floor of the mixed-use building on First Street West. A
schedule of unit sizes and types is attached.

Vacation Rental Use: As stated in the project narrative, the applicants are requesting the
ability for the owners of the townhome units and the detached units to rent their primary
and second units as short-term vacation rentals for a limited (but unspecified)
percentage of time. The hotel staff would professionally manage the rental process and
owners would not be permitted to list their units by any other means. This allowance
would not apply to the rental units.

Hotel: The hotel would provide a total of 50 rooms/suites, including 7 casitas (within five
detached buildings near the pool), 9 suites on the second floor of the mixed-use building
on First Street East, 20 suites within the two Concept A buildings, and 13 suites within
the Concept B building. Excluding the casitas, the hotel buildings are three-story
structures ranging from 36 to 45 feet in height. The balconies/patios of the Concept B
building fronting Second Street East are setback 13 feet from the east property line
adjoining Second Street East (the building wall is setback 21 feet), adjoining Second
Street East. The Concept A buildings are setback 15 feet from the north property line (the
balconies/patios setback 7 feet) with a courtyard on the south side.

Amenities: A pool and clubhouse (featuring a caf and spa) are proposed at the interior of
the site, facilities presumably available for use by both hotel guests and residents. The
clubhouse is a two-story structure (6,000 square feet in area) with a maximum height of
32 feet containing the hotel reception area, offices, bar/caf, mini spa, yoga studio, and
bathrooms.

Mixed-Use Building: In addition to accommodating hotel suites and apartments on the

second and third floors, the mixed use building centered on the First Street East frontage
includes a small parking garage intended to accommodate 15 vehicles (including 7 auto
lifts) and 2,100-square foot ground-floor commercial space identified for retail or yoga
studio. The mixed-use building has a maximum height of 42 feet and is setback a
minimum of 10 feet from the west property line and 15 feet from the back of sidewalk.

Circulation and Parking: Access to the site would be provided by a two-way driveway
located on the south side of the projects First Street East frontage. A second driveway is
also provided on First Street East accessing the small ground floor parking lot located
beneath a portion of the mixed-use building. Additional surface parking (some covered)
is provided behind the mixed-use building, along the entry drive into the site, and
adjacent to the pool and clubhouse area. The ownership units all feature 2-car garages. In
total, 88 parking spaces are provided on site, including garage spaces.

The project is proposed as a Planned Development to allow variation from many of the standard
zoning requirements. While lot lines are not shown on the conceptual plans, staff assumes that, at
minimum, the 14 ownership units (with second units) would be located on their own individual
parcels.
A number of structures would be demolished to accommodate the project including the two
detached homes at 216 and 226 First Street East, all commercial structures on the former
Peterson Mechanical property at 254 First Street East, the two interior duplexes at 273-275
Second Street East, and the office building at 277-299 Second Street East. Further details may be
found in the attached project narrative, unit tabulation, and accompanying drawings.
General Plan Policy Direction
As noted above, the site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use, a designation
intended to accommodate uses that provide a transition between commercial and residential
districts, to promote a pedestrian presence in adjacent commercial areas, and to provide
neighborhood commercial services to adjacent residential areas. The Mixed Use designation
allows a density up to 20 residential units per acre and a residential component equal to 50% of
the area of new construction is normally required in new development, unless a reduction or an
exemption is granted by the Planning Commission through the use permit review process.
Hotels, retail uses, and multi-family development are identified as a conditionally-allowed uses.
Community Development Element:
Encourage a variety of unit types in residential projects (CDE 4.2).
Require pedestrian and bicycle access and amenities in all development (CDE 4.4).
Promote higher density, infill development, while ensuring that building mass, scale and
form are compatible with neighborhood and town character (CDE 5.5).
Housing Element:
Provide a mix of housing types affordable to all income levels, allowing those who work
in Sonoma to also live in the community (HE Goal 1.0).
Encourage diversity in the type, size, price and tenure of residential development in
Sonoma, while maintaining quality of life (HE 1.1).
Utilize inclusionary zoning as a tool to integrate affordable units within market rate
developments, and increase the availability of affordable housing throughout the
community (HE 1.6).
Maintain and enhance the existing housing stock and ensure that new residential
development is consistent with Sonomas town character and neighborhood quality (HE
Goal 3).
Promote the use of sustainable construction techniques and environmentally sensitive
design for all housing, to include best practices in water conservation, low-impact
drainage, and greenhouse gas reduction (HE 6.3).
Local Economy Element:
Focus on the retention and attraction of businesses that reinforce Sonomas distinctive
qualitiessuch as agriculture, food and wine, history and artand that offer high-paying
jobs. (LE 1.1)
3

 Promote and accommodate year-round tourism that is consistent with the historic, smalltown character of Sonoma. (LE 1.5)
Encourage a residential and pedestrian presence in commercial centers through mixed use
and multi-family development (LE 1.9).
Environmental Resources Element:
Require new development to provide adequate private and, where appropriate, public
open space (ERE 1.4).
Protect Sonoma Valley watershed resources, including surface and groundwater supplies
and quality (ERE 2.4).
Preserve existing trees and plant new trees (ERE 2.6).
Encourage construction, building maintenance, landscaping, and transportation practices
that promote energy and water conservation and reduce green-house gas emissions (ERE
3.2).
Circulation Element:
Incorporate bicycle facilities and amenities in new development (CE 2.5).
Encourage a mixture of uses and higher densities where appropriate to improve the
viability of transit and pedestrian and bicycle travel (CE 3.2).
Ensure that new development mitigates its traffic impacts (CE 3.7).
Public Safety Element:
Ensure that all development projects provide adequate fire protection (PSE 1.3).
Through the planning review process, there are several policy areas that will need to be
considered, including compatibility in terms of the proposed developments mass, form,
setbacks, and intensity of use.
Development Code Standards
Mixed Use Zone. The site is zoned Mixed Use (MX). The MX zone is intended to allow for
higher density housing types, such as apartments and condominiums, in conjunction with
commercial and office development, in order to increase housing opportunities, reduce
dependence on the automobile, and provide a pedestrian presence in commercial areas. Hotels,
retail uses, and multi-family dwellings are allowed in the MX zone, subject to review and
approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Note: Variations in the certain of the
normal development standards set forth below may be authorized by the Planning Commission if
the project is reviewed as a Planned Development (as has been proposed by the applicant) or
through consideration of applications for Exceptions or Variances.
Use: Multi-family dwellings, retail and service uses, fitness studios, restaurants, vacation rentals,
and hotels are allowed in the Mixed Use zone, subject to review and approval of a Use Permit by
the Planning Commission.
Consistency with Density Limitations: The site has a General Plan land use designation and
corresponding zoning of Mixed Use, which allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre.
Viewed as a whole, the site would have a residential density of 6 units per acre. Based on the
4

area of the Peterson property, the residential density amounts to 8 units per acre. Per State law,
second units are not counted when calculating density.
Residential Component: A residential component is normally required for new development in
the Mixed Use zone. As set forth in the Development Code, the expectation is that the residential
component will equal at least 50% of the building area within a new development, although the
Planning Commission may reduce or even waive this standard through the development review
process. As proposed, the residential component constitutes approximately 56% of the total new
building area, exceeding the 50% expectation. However, the Planning Commission needs to
consider the implications of the proposal to allow the ownership units and their associated
second units to be used by their owners as vacation rentals.
Setbacks: If this project is considered as a subdivision of five or more lots, the setbacks
requirements are as set forth in the table below. If the project is considered simply as infill,
then there are no specified setback standards and it would be up to the Planning Commission to
set them as part of the use permit process.
Setback
Front/Street-side

Side, 1-story
Side, 2-story
Rear

Garage, front

Setback Summary
Code Standard
Project Proposal
A variety of setbacks,
10 ft. along First Street
consistent with
21 ft. along Second Street
neighborhood conditions,
(balconies/patios setback
shall normally be required
13 feet)
at the discretion of the
Planning Commission.
3 feet
5 ft. minimum,
15 ft. total.
8 ft. minimum on two-story 10-20 feet
side
One-story: 15 ft.
N.A.
Two-story: 20 ft.

20 ft. from primary

structure

Met with townhomes.

Not met with detached
units.

Notes
Planning Commission
discretion.

Casita east of pool.

The standard is met.
Because this is a Planned
Development with an
internal orientation,
determining what
constitutes a rear yard is
tricky. E.g., if the east side
of the Peterson property is
considered to be a rear
yard condition, then the
standard is not met.
The detached units are
internal to the site and this
standard may be modified
through the PD process.

As discussed above, the applicants will apply for this project to be processed as a Planned
Development, which would allow for variations from the normal setback standards.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/Site Coverage: The maximum FAR in the MX zone is 0.6. The project
appears to comply with this limitation, although it is near the upper limit. Maximum building
coverage in the MX zone is 60% of the total lot area. The project clearly meets this standard.

Building Height: The maximum building height in the MX zone is 30 feet, except that within the
Commercial, Gateway Commercial, and Mixed Use zoning districts, a height of 36 feet may be
allowed in order to accommodate third-floor multifamily residential development. Proposed peak
building heights are as follows:

Townhomes: 30 feet, with an additional cupola element having a peak of 34 feet.

Detached Residences: 27.5 feet.
Mixed Use Building (First Street East): 41.5 feet. (This building includes a third-floor
residential component, but the second floor is a mix of hotel suites and residential
apartments.)
Club House: 32 feet.
Hotel Concept A Building: 42 feet.
Hotel Concept B Building (Second Street East): 36.5 feet 45 feet.

Several significant buildings within the project exceed the normal height limits. Height limits
cannot be changed though the Planned Development permit process.
On-Site Parking Requirements: Under the Development Code, the parking standards that apply
to the various uses within the project are as follows:
Parking Summary*
Use/Parking Standard
Hotel: One space for each guest room, plus one space for every
two employees on the largest shift.
Commercial: One space for every 300 square feet of building
area. (2,089 sq. ft.)
Restaurant: One space for every four seats. (38 seats)
Primary Units: 1.5 parking spaces per unit, plus 25% guest
parking.
Second Units: 1 space per unit.
Total Required:
Total Provided Onsite:
Difference:

Minimum Requirement
54
7
10
26
14
111
88
-23

* These calculations are based in part on the parking tabulation provided by the applicant and in part on the floor
plans, which differs from one another in some respects. Depending on how these discrepancies are resolved, the
parking shortfall may be greater or less than as shown in the table.

Based on a preliminary review of the parking requirements associated with the different uses
within the project, a total of 111 off-street parking spaces represents the normal minimum
requirement, compared to 88 spaces provided, resulting in a shortfall of 23 spaces. The
Development Code allows for the sharing of parking within a mixed-use project under certain
circumstances; however, in staffs view, the shortfall is significant. As a design note, it appears
that some of the stalls within the mixed-use building would be difficult to maneuver, as would
certain of the entry parking spaces on the south, the garage spaces on the east, and the two
compact spaces on the north.
Planned Development Findings: The project is proposed as a Planned Development to allow
flexibility from some of the normal zoning standards. As a Planned Development, a higher level
of quality, design and/or site amenities or the provision of additional affordable units are
6

expected to justify variations from the normal standards and the project must relate appropriately
to adjacent uses. The findings required for approval of a Planned Development represent a high
bar, which will be a significant issue that the Planning Commission would need to consider in
the future review of the application.
Inclusionary Units: Developments with five or more units must set aside at least 20% of the total
number of primary units as affordable to households in the low and moderate-income categories
(19.44.020.B). Accordingly, four affordable units are proposed. These units would be among
the seven apartment units.
Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking is required in all new multi-family and commercial
development subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Locations for bicycle
parking have not yet been specified, but the applicants are aware of the requirement.
Historic Overlay Zone: The site is located within the Historic Overlay Zone. At the time of site
design and architectural review, this means that the following additional findings must be made
in conjunction with design review approval:
A. The project will not impair the historic character of its surroundings;
B. The project substantially preserves the qualities of any significant historic structures or
other significant historic features on the site.
C. The project substantially complies with the applicable guidelines set forth in Chapter
19.42 SMC (Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone).
D. The project substantially complies with any applicable preservation plan or other
guidelines or requirements pertaining to a local historic district as designated through
SMC 19.42.020.
Not all of these findings may be relevant to the project. For example, while most of the buildings
on the site are older than 50 years, it is not clear that any of them are historically significant (this
assessment would be conducted as part of environmental review). However, finding A is always
applicable and the project would need to be evaluated carefully in that regard, especially given
the proposed building heights and on-street massing.
Housing Opportunity Site Designation: The Peterson properties are identified as a Housing
Opportunity site in the Housing Elements inventory of sites that are both available and suitable
for higher-density residential development. However, this designation does not mandate that the
site be developed with affordable housing or with housing of any particular type.
Design Guidelines for the Northeast Planning Area
In addition to quantified zoning requirements regarding setbacks, coverage, Floor Area Ratio
limitations, and so forth, the Development Code sets forth design guidelines tailored to each
Planning Area. The desired future of the Northeast Planning Area, as set forth in the Code is as
follows:

The general objective for this area, as expressed in Section 19.18.020 (Project Planning and
Design), is to preserve the quality and context of land uses and buildings. Remodeling or
additions to existing structures and infill development including intensification in mixed-use
areas, will require careful attention to surrounding building form, site design, and land uses to
preserve the quality of development in the Northeast planning area. The emphasis of mixed-use
development should be residential, with some small-scale office, bed and breakfast, or other
compatible commercial land uses allowed subject to use permit review.
Within the Northeast Planning Area, key guidelines applicable to the development include:

Building typesguidelines for residential structures. Proposed dwellings should be

placed on their sites so that the most narrow dimension of the structure is parallel to the
most narrow dimension of the parcel, and so that the primary entrance to the dwelling
faces the public street, or is accessible from a porch or other entry element which faces
the street.

Building Typesguidelines for commercial structures. Proposed commercial and mixeduse structures should be compatible in scale, massing height to residential development in
the vicinity. Building architecture and design details should maintain a low-key,
residential flavor.

Infill development should contribute to the established character of the area through the
use of varied setbacks and traditional building types.

In the design of new subdivisions, consideration should be given to the use of alleys as a
means of reducing driveway cuts, especially along collector streets.

Commercial and mixed-use development should be compatible to nearby residential

development in scale, massing, and height.

Staff would emphasize that these are guidelines, not requirements. That said, they do provide
context and direction with respect to evaluating the project for consistency with the overall
objectives for the Northeast Planning Area. Staff is concerned that, as proposed, the project
breaks from the established character of the area and that the commercial and mixed use
components may be incompatible with their surroundings in terms of height, massing, and
intensity.
Growth Management Ordinance
Under the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), the residential component of the project is
considered a Large Project as defined in the ordinance, making it subject to the annual
allocation process. Over the course of several years, the site has accumulated 53 allocations.
Project Issues
The review of this proposal by the Citys Project Advisory Committee was complicated by the
fact that the initial submittal did not include a hotel component and did not encompass the
Second Street East parcels. However, staff was able to add the revised proposal to a staff meeting
to obtain at least an abbreviated review. The following issues have been highlighted by staff in
order to generate discussion and feedback. This list does not represent a complete catalog of the
8

issues that will need to be evaluated in the course of the planning process, nor should it preclude
discussion of other topics of interest to the Planning Commission or interested members of the
public.
Type and Intensity of Uses: The project is a mixed-use proposal that exceeds the normally
required minimum proportion of residential use. All of the proposed uses are allowed in the
Mixed Use zone, subject to use permit review. That said, it staffs view that the basic premise of
the project, which includes a significant hotel component, seems at odds with vision for the
Northeast Planning Area expressed in the Development Code. This conflict is underscored by
building heights and massing that have no precedent in the neighborhood. A key question that
the Planning Commission should provide direction on is whether this is a suitable location for a
hotel. The appropriateness of the height and mass of certain buildings is another important
question. The project narrative refers to the citys vision for the downtown. In terms of
Development Code definitions, this area is not part of the downtown and in staffs view its
suitability for a relatively large-scale hotel use is questionable.
Building Height: The proposal includes several buildings that exceed the 30-foot height limit,
including the Mixed Use building on First Street East (41.5 feet), the clubhouse (32 feet), the
Concept A and B hotel buildings (42 feet and 45 feet). While the Mixed Use building arguably
qualifies for the 36 feet height available for third-floor residential, it exceeds even that allowance
by 5.5 feet. The clubhouse and the hotel buildings, of course, do not qualify for that allowance.
As noted above, adjustments to height are not allowed for in the Planned Development review
process. In some cases the proposed heights exceed what may be applied for through the
Exception process and there is no basis to support Variance findings to allow for an increase in
building height.
Vacation Rental Allowance: As part of the project, the applicants are requesting the ability for
the owners of the townhome units and the detached units to rent their primary and second units
as short-term vacation rentals for a limited (but unspecified) percentage of time. The hotel staff
would manage the rental process and owners would not be permitted to list their units by any
other means. The applicants view this both as a financial benefit to the future home-owners that
will ultimately improve the affordability of the residences and as a way of managing some of the
problems that arise with illegal vacation rentals. The Development Code does allow, subject to
use permit review, up to two vacation rentals on parcels within the Mixed Use zone. It is not
clear to staff that anyone anticipated that this allowance would be applied to a new development,
but it does appear to be an option. That said, a use permit is not a given and the Planning
Commission needs to decide whether the suggested benefits of the vacation rental allowance are
sufficient to warrant use permit approval.
In staffs view, the proposed allowance is problematic for several reasons. First, as discussed in
greater detail below, it is not clear that it is even possible to allow the primary units to be used in
that matter due to accessibility requirements. Second, the proposed allowance undercuts the use
of the units as residences, especially the second units. Second units are provided for under State
law as a means of increasing opportunities for a smaller, more affordable housing type and to
allow flexible living situations, such as an elderly relative or a long-term rental. In light of these
benefits, second units are not counted when calculating project density. However, if the second
units are allowed to be used as vacation rentals, staff is concerned that few if any will serve their
9

primary intended purpose of providing a relatively affordable housing option. As a related issue,
staff would note that a vacation rental must be a complete residential unit. The second unit
design provided does not appear to include a kitchen area. Lastly, while the applicants are
proposing that there would be a time limit on the use of residences as vacation rentals, it is not
clear how this would be enforced.
Accessibility Requirements: The Building Official has identified a number of accessibility
requirements applicable to the transient occupancy uses (hotels, vacation rentals, and supporting
facilities) that could significantly impact the proposal. With regard to the hotel component, it is
the Building Officials view that all floors in each building must be handicapped accessible,
which can only be accomplished with elevators. Accessibility requirements also apply to any
designated vacation rental, even if that only an occasional use. This may preclude the use of the
primary residences as vacation rentals, since handicapped parking would need to be provided for
each unit and the second floors cannot feasibly be made accessible. The second units could be
used as vacation rentals (at least with respect to meeting accessibility requirements), but only if
the primary unit is owner occupied.
Demolition Permit/Historic Evaluations: A number of structures slated for demolition are over
50 years old, and therefore subject to review and approval of a Demolition Permit by the Design
Review and Historic Preservation Commission. This process would require a Historic Resource
Evaluation of those structures to determine if any are historically significant. Although it seems
unlikely to staff that any of the buildings will be found to be significant, an evaluation by a
qualified professional will be required.
Loss of Existing Rental Units: Although four designated affordable units would be provided, as
required by the Inclusionary requirements of the Development Code, the project site currently
provides four rental housing units that would be demolished to accommodate the project.
Residential Component: The project features four residential unit types. The five townhouse
units each have a living area of 1,700 feet. Of the detached units, three have an area of 2,513
square feet and six have an area of 2,190 square feet. The apartment units include four with an
area of 640 square feet or less (including one studio unit), while the other three range in size
from 1,760 square feet to 2,582 square feet. While 14 second units are proposed, each with an
area of 479 square feet, the applicants are proposing that these be allowed to be used as vacation
rentals, which makes it unlikely that many of them would actually be used as long-term housing.
In size and design they appear to be guest rooms (and are labeled as such on the plans) rather
than self-contained second units. While there is certainly a diversity of housing types in the
proposal, the density is relatively low and the proposed vacation rental allowance reduces the
likelihood that the units, especially the second units, would be used as long-term residences. The
shared amenities with the hotel are nice features, but they contribute to the impression that the
residential component as a whole is aimed at the high end of the market, with the exception of
the four inclusionary units.
Fire Department Access: The height of the mixed-use building and the 3-story hotel buildings
triggers special requirements for fire protection an access. Utilities along both frontages of the
site will need to be placed underground and fire hydrants will be required within the interior of

10

the site. In addition, ladder truck access (including a turn-around) is required from Second Street
East. The applicants have recently updated the site plan to reflect these requirements.
Parking: A preliminary parking analysis indicates a shortfall of 23 spaces, which represents 20%
of the normal requirement based on the proposed mix of uses within the site. The Development
Code allows for reducing the amount of required parking within a mixed-use project, when it can
be demonstrated that different uses will experience differing periods of peak parking demand.
However, staff is concerned about the magnitude of the shortfall leading to parking impacts in
the neighborhood.
Hazardous Materials: A Phase 1 evaluation of the Peterson property will be required in order to
assess whether any hazardous materials are present on the site as a result of the previous
industrial use.
Operational Issues: Garbage/recycling storage and pick-up need needs to be addressed, as well
as the management of commercial deliveries.
Stormwater: Addressing storm water retention and filtration requirements can be a challenging
issue that will need to be addressed early on in the project design.
Utilities. The adequacy of water and sewer availability will need to be confirmed as part of the
environmental review process. A water demand analysis, prepared by a qualified engineer, will
need to be provided.
Environmental Review
The proposal is a discretionary project subject to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The scope of environmental review will be a key issue in
the evaluation of the project. Information and analysis will be needed in a number of areas in
order to fully evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development,
including:

Visual compatibility.
Traffic, circulation, and parking.
Water and sewer.
Stormwater filtration and retention.
Potential presence of environmental hazards on Peterson property.
Potential presence of historic or other cultural resources.

Further analysis will ultimately be needed in each of those areas (and potentially others) in order
to determine the scope and level of environmental review.
Next Steps
The applicant is before the Planning Commission in a study session to obtain feedback from the
Commission and receive comments from the public. In terms of next steps, after a formal
application is filed, the City would need to prepare an environmental review addressing issues of
11

concern identified by the Planning Commission. After the completion of environmental review,
the project would return to the Planning Commission for consideration of the Use Permit,
Planned Development Permit, and Tentative Map, and any Exceptions or Variances that may be
applied for. The project would also be subject to review by the Design Review and Historic
Preservation Commission with regard to building design, landscaping, and demolition review.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant on the issues
identified in the staff report, and any other issues raised by the application.

Attachments
1.
Vicinity Map
2.
Project Narrative/Tabulations
3.
Correspondence
4.
Site Plan, Floor Plans, Building Elevations

cc:

Cloisters mailing list (via email)

12

GUADAL
U

PE

Vicinity Map

PADRE D

RIVE

R-R

MX
RE E T E A
FIRST S
T

SECOND

Pk
ST

DEPOT PARK

S T R E ET E

AS T

Subject Property

Zoning Designations
Project Summary
Project Name:

Mixed-Use Project

Property Address:

216-254 First Street East and

273-299 Second Street East

Applicant:

Caymus Capital

Property Owner:

Same

General Plan Land Use: Mixed Use

Zoning - Base:

Mixed Use

Zoning - Overlay:

Historic

Summary:
Study session on a proposal for a mixed-use project
including a hotel, retail space, residential units, and
vacation rentals.

95

190

1 inch = 200 feet

380 Feet

R-HS Hillside Residential (1 D.U./10acres, maximum)

R-R
Rural Residential (2 D.U./acre, maximum)
R-L
Low Density Residential (2-5 D.U./acre)
R-S
Sonoma Residential (3-8 D.U./acre)
R-M
Medium Denisty Residential (6-10 D.U./acre)
R-H
High Density (9-12 D.U./acre)
R-O
Housing Opportunity (15-20 D.U./acre)
R-P
Mobile Home Park (7 D.U./acre, maximum)
MX
Mixed Use (12 D.U./acre, maximum)
C
Commercial (15 D.U./acre, maximum)
C-G
Commercial-Gateway (15 D.U./acre, maximum)
W
Wine Production
P
Public Facility
Pk
Park
A
Agriculture

1st STREET EAST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - PROJECT SUMMARY
November 16, 2015
AXIA Architects
Project Name

First Street East Development

APNs

018-131-012
018-131-013
018-131-018
018-131-028
018-131-029

Location

216, 226, 254 First Street East

273 and 299 Second Street East

Area

Approximately 3.4 acres

Current Zoning

MX - Mixed Use

Current General Plan

Designation

Medium Density Residential

Total Allowable Units

20 Units / Acre (Residential); 68 total

Total Proposed Units

21 Units (Residential)

Proposal

Planned Development consisting of 9 single family

residential detached units with guest units , 5 single family
attached units with guest units, 7 apartments, including 4
affordable units. Commercial space includes a pool, a club
house with yoga studio and a small inn consisting of 7
casitas and 5 residential-style buildings with 5-6 rooms in
each. The inn will comprise 29%, and the residences 60%,
of the total project square footage. The inn will
professionally manage the opportunity for owners to rent
their guest units, and their single family dwellings for a
limited percentage of time which will provide a model for
property owners wanting to legally and responsibly offer
short-term rentals.

Maximum Proposed Height 43 feet at mixed use building and inn, 30 feet elsewhere
Garbage Collection

Residential Units:
Each unit has a side yard next to the garage. It is
envisioned that the utility meters and garbage cans will

occur tucked under the staircase location at each house with

common collection happening behind the Mixed Use
Building where a common trash enclosure will be used.
Parking

See Attached

Project Vision Statement

Acknowledging the City vision for the downtown, the
project design blends a variety of housing types with onsite
amenities providing a sense of community. The swimming
pool, club house, and commercial spaces provide a
pedestrian-focused, localized neighborhood center,
complementing the town center offerings two blocks away.
With professional 24/7 on site management and designed to
share resources such as water and housing opportunities,
the mixed use project provides enhanced value for residents
and neighbors alike. The development will accompany a
significant beautification effort benefitting neighbors as
well as users of nearby public spaces.

The mixed use frontage is designed to interface with the

adjacent park and street pedestrians. The entire project
provides a residential scale, in line with adjacent neighbors.
The architecture is grounded in traditional agricultural roots
with a playful intervention of modernist updates,
replicating a sense of evolution over time.

1ST STREET EAST DEVELOPMENT

UNIT TABULATION - PRELIMINARY PROGRESS SET
11.16.15
[Based on Conceptual Site Plan - 11.13.2015]
Note: The following tabulation is based on a conceptual design. Square footage is approximate.
This information is in a preliminary form and will change up or down as the project develops.
% OF
MIX

# OF UNITS UNIT TYPE

AMENITIES

PER UNIT
SQUARE
FOOTAGE

TOTAL
SQUARE
FOOTAGE

Unit D

2 Bedroom , 2.5 Baths

Guest Unit
2-Car Garage
3 Bedroom, 3.5 Bath
Guest Unit
2-Car Garage
3 Bedroom, 3.5 Bath
Guest Unit
2-Car Garage
1 Bedroom, 1 Bath (Affordable)

1704
479
450
2513
479
450
2190
479
450
622

8520
2395
2250
7539
1437
1350
13140
2874
2700
622

Unit E

1 Bedroom, 1 Bath (Affordable)

640

640

5%

Unit F

1 Bedroom, 1 Bath (Affordable)

640

640

5%

Unit G

Studio (Affordable)

442

442

5%

Unit K

2 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath

1824

1824

5%

Unit L

3 Bedroom, 3.5 Bath

2582

2582

5%

Unit M

2 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath

1760

1760

Garden Units
2nd Floor
2nd Floor - Mixed Use Building
3rd Floor Units
3rd Floor Suites
3rd Floor Premiere Suite
Casitas

500
500
500
500
750
1000
476

6500
6500
4500
1500
3000
1000
3332

24%

5
5

Unit B

14%

3
3

Unit C1

29%

6
6

Unit C2

5%

5%

Inn Rooms
13
13
9
3
4
1
7

Unit H-1
Unit H-2
Unit H-3
Unit H-4
Unit H-5
Unit H-6

Commercial Space
Clubhouse
Clubhouse
Clubhouse
Clubhouse

Yoga Studio
Inn Check-in and Offices
1st Floor
2nd Floor

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE (Without Garages)

TOTAL INN SQUARE FOOTAGE (Without Garages)
TOTAL COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE
FOOTAGE (NOT INCL. GARAGES)

2089
2000
1318
2457
UNITS TOTAL:
21

44,415
26,332
7,864
78,611

REQUIRED PARKING
# OF UNITS UNIT TYPE
# OF STALLS REQ'D
#/Unit
5 Unit B
1.5/Unit
5
Guest Unit
3 Unit C1
1/Unit
3
Guest Unit
6 Unit C2
1/Unit
6
Guest Unit
1 Unit D
1.5/Unit
1 Unit E
1.5/Unit
1 Unit F
1.5/Unit
1 Unit G
1.5/Unit
1 Unit K
1.5/Unit
1 Unit L
1.5/Unit
1 Unit M
1.5/Unit
Guest Stalls for Residential @ 25% of Res. Req'd
13 Unit H-1
13 Unit H-2
3 Unit H-3
4 Unit H-4
1 Unit H-5
7 Unit H-6
8
Inn Staff - 1/every 2 staff
112 Seats - Caf
5864 Health/Fitness 1 Stall per 300 SF
Total Required Stalls
Request a Variance of 28%*
If Variance is Granted, New Total
Required Stalls
Total Parking in Current Design Concept
Covered*
43
Open
45
On Street
16

1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5

Total Parking Provided

* Note: Covered spaces include 7 auto lifts inside mixed use building

TOTAL STALLS
7.5
5
3
3
6
6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
10.3
13
13
3
4
1
7
4
29
20
145
41
104

104

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:06:19 AM Pacic Standard Time

Subject:
Date:
From:
To:

RE: Proposed Hotel Development on 1st St. East

Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 4:04:26 PM Pacic Standard Time
Larry BarneI
David Goodison

The last this this community needs is more luxury housing and luxury hotels. Rather, we need aordable housing for
those who work here and secure, aordable housing for seniors. Proximity of this property to Vintage House makes it
a natural choice for senior housing, and I believe such a use will receive widespread neighborhood support.
Few housing opportunity sites exist which are so appropriate to low-cost housing development; to squander such
property for use and enjoyment solely by the rich and privileged is ethically and socially wrong. I urge the Planning
Commission to direct this applicant to return with a project plan which meets the real housing needs of the
community, and not just projected high prots reected on a pro-forma prot and loss statement or balance sheet
pertaining to vacaZon rentals and hotel occupancy.
The community will not be silent as yet another opportunity to provide housing and economic equity is wasted in
Sonoma. If the developer is truly interested in providing long-term benet to the community at large, it will not be
through hotels, vacaZon rentals and swim-clubs, but through a development plan infused with compassion for those
who are underserved workers or seniors nding themselves priced-out of housing at precisely their most vulnerable
Zme of life.
Sincerely,
Larry BarneI
Former City Council member and former Mayor

Page 1 of 1

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 8:52:25 AM Pacic Standard Time

Subject:
Date:
From:
To:

First St. E project

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 12:28:15 AM Pacic Standard Time
BasDan Gmail
David Goodison

Dear Mr. Goodison, Dear Planning Commission

As a 10 year Sonoma resident, I wanted to write to whole-heartedly endorse and support a development proposal for
First St E. (The Cloisters) that has been shared with me and that will come before the commission in the near
future.
The proposal is groundbreaking in several aspects:
1) It is a well thought out and community-minded plan that would turn a central area of old Sonoma that is now
bland and underuDlized into a place with a soul. A place that is aestheDcally pleasing, keeps with the visual aestheDc
and pays homage to our agricultural heritage, all while creaDng a new alternaDve living, eaDng and gathering place
for locals and visitors.
2) It strikes an admirable balance between economically sound development, community features (the cafe, the
pool), and involves and engages the community rather than excluding it.
3) It leverages aspects of the sharing economy to make ownership more aordable while reducing the need for
addiDonal permiYed vacaDon rentals elsewhere.
4) It provides a very sound nancial contribuDon to the city budget by creaDng much-needed new tax revenues (both
property, sales, and tourist tax).
This proposal is a fresh breath and has my full support. It was created by a Sonoma resident who has obviously given
much thought how to design for Sonoma, which means keeping density, scale and design appropriate and including
community aspects in a development, and who has learned from other proposals which dont t the character of
Sonoma.
I would encourage the Planning Commission to approve this development for aestheDc aspects, community aspects,
and for its posiDve nancial impact on Sonoma.
regards
BasDan Schoell

Page 1 of 1

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 9:14:03 AM Pacic Standard Time

Subject:
Date:
From:
To:

New Cpnstruc-on on 1st Street East

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 9:12:55 AM Pacic Standard Time
[email protected]
David Goodison

Hi David,
I have been a resident of Sonoma Valley for over 35 years. My husband and I have raised
our 3 sons here in Sonoma and one of them continues to live here with his family.
When we moved to Sonoma it was because we felt it was the perfect place to raise our young
family. We accepted the fact that in order to keep the small town feeling - which is one of the
main reasons we moved here - there would be some concessions. I do not understand why
these individuals ( who do not even own property or are in the process of selling their property
here in Sonoma) feel they must come in and make our town BETTER, why did they even
move here in the first place.
Putting in this proposed development would only make Sonoma less affordable for families. It
will also cater to a specific group of individuals - as far as the pool etc. the monies should be
better spent on a pool for our High School. This is not a win win situation for the families of
Sonoma or even for our town it is just a win win for the developers and their goals to make
money and make Sonoma into what they believe it should be!
Nancy Bei

Page 1 of 1

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:41:57 AM Pacic Standard Time

Subject:
Date:
From:
To:

First St. E project

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:33:53 AM Pacic Standard Time
Randy BenneE
David Goodison

David As a resident of Sonoma, I am writing in support of the proposed project on First St. E.
I believe this project will be a valuable addition to Sonoma. Below are the aspects that I
believe are the most importation contributions of the project.
it will beautify a neglected area, turning a light industrial area into a pleasant and useful
community space
it will add much needed housing options and short-term rental options that are in short
supply much of the year
the community pool concept and caf are creative ways to extend the use of the space
to the entire community
it will boost the economy and provide additional city revenue with a multiplier eect
from increased local spending
it improves the overall architecture, landscape, and streetscape of Sonoma
Thank you for considering these valuable contributions and I am hopeful this project is given
fair consideration for moving forward.
-Randy Bennett

Page 1 of 1

Fred Allebach
12//3/15
Cloisters Sonoma, notes from developer 12/3/15 home meeting and comments for
the Planning Commission Study Session

The City has approved parcel(s) on 1st Street East north of the bike path and east of
the ball fields owned by Ed Routhier for high density apartments of up to 54 units;
building height can be 3 stories. The city did a traffic study, 54 units are allowed.
The developer is proposing 34 housing units I believe. The project will be on city
water, but the Cloisters will have its own H2O on site. There will be a gray water
system. They did not say if a well exists, will be drilled or is impacted by on site toxic
materials. Existing toxics, of an undeclared type and quantity, on site will be
removed. Concrete and paving will be removed from the site that will result in
better groundwater recharge and flood control.

If not now, someone will develop the property at some time; this is a fact. The state
of CA mandates that new housing be built. (Actually, the state mandates that
capacity for low-income housing be shown; actually building of such units is not
mandated.) They dont have to do an Inn or a caf. The proposed project is mixed
use: 40 hotel rooms, residences, a caf, and a pool. The pool will be available to the
public and/or neighbors in some way. Is the pool big enough for exercise? There will
be valet parking and parking will be all off street inside the complex.

The developer says there is less traffic from a hotel than a residential development.
If the community wants a cafe, a parking variance would be necessary. The
developer, like many citizens, is turned off by tourists on the Plaza; its no longer
for residents; locals now go to Depot Hotel and pick their times to go through the
Plaza to Peets.

An attender pointed out that this development will add to the perceived tourist
problem and sense of loss of community by adding even more tourists with the new
hotel and through the built-in vacation rentals. The developer was busted on that
and couldnt quite finesse a persuasive comeback. Built-in vacation rentals on the
projects homes garages will help owners pay for their houses. CCRs say owners
will have to live there 80% of the time.

In terms of architecture, a story is being told, a bucolic, agrarian roots story. The
new buildings will look like barns. Lots of visual, architectural terms were used; its
about the look, appearance, an esthetic, a farm motif, harmony, beautiful
from an agrarian standpoint. The story told is a big element of the developers style.
The goal is to build it so you dont know if it was built 200 years ago. 1st Street East
by the project will undergo beautification. Ground crew for the Cloisters will
maintain the street landscape in question, in perpetuity.

Large trees are projected to line the street. It should be noted by the Planning
Commission that large trees are an existing problem for the city and the CSEC tree

committee; sidewalks buckle, people trip, people get sued, people want to cut the
big trees down. Big trees near sidewalks in town are constantly under pressure to
be cut down. Trees therefore would need to be setback away from potential
sidewalk trouble.

Density is an issue for neighbors and the developer, to not have it be too dense or
too massive looking; they all want less. The developer has already reduced the
profile and feels he is at the point of diminishing returns economically if the project
is shrunk any more. He is selling that it is less dense; its greener; the neighbors
want it even less dense than that. The developer does not prefer high density
apartments; he sees hotels and Inns as good neighbors. Dense apartments are not
good neighbors. The implication is that high density, lost cost housing would not be
responsible development. The developer sees the 1st Street East Vets parking lot
as an eyesore; it is managed poorly.

In aggregate, this all amounts to gentrification pressure on this neighborhood. The
property values in the immediate area range from a balance between high
($750,000) and low ($259,000) value, with not much medium value. The median
home sale price in Sonoma now is right around $600,000.

Even though 3 stories is allowed, building height will be reduced in effect by a 20
set back. Neighbors brought up the issue of mass, and overimposing structures
Infill however, and higher density and mixed use is called for in city planning and
this implies structural changes that no neighbors seem to want in their back yard. It
appears important that a certain small town look be maintained. Thus we have
conflicting priorities between residents and planners.

The neighbors et al initially gave the developer a lot of trouble; they came out
swinging at him. He mostly kept his cool. Neighbors were concerned about noise,
height, setback, density, too much traffic, too much on street parking, fire and
pedestrian safety concerns, safety of Vintage House seniors, water supply, auto and
leaf blower emissions; they want responsible development. The meaning of
responsible development will be interesting to pursue as this all unfolds. For
neighbors this could simply mean they are heard and that a few changes are made
based on their concerns. For others, responsible could invoke equity concerns, lowincome housing, higher density etc. There always has to be a few catch-all weasel
words in policy debates!

If the sense of these neighbors is a sign, there will never get to be high-density
housing anywhere in Sonoma. They are resigned to some development here in this
area but they dont want much. One neighbor said the developer has a clever way of
introducing what the city wants, the project is presentable but neighbors want it
to be less of everything, less impact. In a straw poll, no one wanted more units of a
smaller size. Mixed use apparently does allow for 20 units per acre, very small units.

The County gives a density bonus; makes a development more dense, get a 25%
increase of units. Provisions for percentages of low, very low and senior units have
to be met. Maybe the City can put something like this into action?

A hotel management person talked to neighbors to sweeten up the impression of
how high dollar hotels treat neighbors. Hotels give the white glove treatment to all,
neighbors included; good hotel owners want to be responsible neighbors
themselves.

The developer mentioned that housing is much needed; that change happens in a
town. 20% of units have to be affordable. The developer was told by the city to
solve the affordable housing issue. The new homes will be an incredible deal for
owners; they will go fast. He would be surprised if people at the meeting didnt buy
one. Houses will be @ $600,000 but only if there will be a 40 room hotel, otherwise
houses will be more expensive, like $1,000,000. There comes a point, said the
developer, where economically you cant do it; the city wants fees, the city want this
and that, an 20% affordable unit requirement; upshot: no hotel, $600,000 house
goes to a million and there will be higher density. The price of the affordable homes
was not given, nor the basis for calculating what affordable means to him or the City.

Affordable is apparently the new top weasel word. Affordable to who and at how
much? If $600,000 is affordable, what is market rate? We have to figure the average
income of Sonoma, and of the Valley and county and then see what affordable
actually means compared to market rate.

The actual meaning of affordable is low-income and very-low-income. The County
Development Commissions take on affordable: Affordable housing is a key issue in
Sonoma County today. The Community Development Commission and other County
departments operate a number of programs providing regulatory incentives and
financing to promote and assist in the development and preservation of housing
that is affordable, available and accessible to the Countys low-income residents.

As we know, with the loss of jobs in the Great Recession, the middle class has shrunk
to nothing, the average county rent is $1500 a month and rising, the rental vacancy
rate is 1.5%, rentals are being converted to vacation rentals further eroding housing
stock, tenant/ mobile home tenants/ seniors are being turned out and even those at
the Sonoma median income of $64,000 cannot afford a house, or find an apartment.
Sonoma real estate has experienced a 41% rise in value over the last five years. At
the same time unincorporated county residents are projected to increase by
150,000 people in the next 25 years and greenbelt separators and UGBs will
constrain housing opportunities for these people, making it more crucial for the City
to pony up in more forceful ways on affordable housing. The income trend in
Sonoma mirrors the difference between the 10% and the 90% in the country as a
whole. This can be statistically corroborated. Yet the people who can afford the
more expensive real estate want that type of real estate to be developed; there is a

strong market for it. Money talks. The socio-econ sensibilities of the 10% and above
may not be tuned into the housing needs for everyone below.

If a diverse community is to be valued by the City in its plans for affordable housing,
affordable must reflect real proportions of the economic spectrum. Is affordable
measured by the number of possible buyers able to pay that price? Is it a reflection
of proportional socio-econ spread in the community? I believe that we can
realistically gloss affordable as low income and very low income.

The developer said this project does not have to happen. It is not incumbent on him
and his associates to solve the affordable housing problem; its his right to want the
type of project he wants. The existing buildings on the property are making $ now; if
the developer cant do his project, he will sell it and it will be developed by someone
else with perhaps less of an esthetic sensibility. This may be an avenue the Planning
Commission can look towards, to try and get more affordable housing in this central,
infill location.

I suggest one possibility, all 54 units allowed for be developed and that 20 be
affordable, with of those as low and very low income apartments. The project as
it stands now appears to be designed for rich people from the foothills who want to
move to town and be near their friends. It is clearly a high-end project that will not
solve the affordable housing problem if affordable is to have any actual meaning.

Infill requires higher density, not less. Building heights need to go up to get the
higher density. If the city is going to get boxed in by a UGB and greenbelt separators,
how will it surmount an obvious NIMBY problem, that no one wants irresponsible
development anywhere near them. Inclusion of affordable housing will affect
property values, and residents will cry bloody murder. The upshot to business as
usual: no actual affordable housing will be built inside or outside the City, if
neighbors and residents have their way.

This leaves the City to structurally stand up for the creation of a diverse community
by insisting on the actual building our of affordable housing, even if over the
objections of people and neighbors who dont want change to accommodate a
majority of citizens. Building this affordable housing stock will require higher
density, greater height, more mass and more infill. These requirements go directly
against what neighbors and developers want. Does the City have the stomach to
plan for and fund what is obviously necessary?

This proposed project is already bordering a rich area of town. Faade is important
here. The historical sense of a former genuine community can now be bought; its
the modern look of country aristocracy agrarian. If we want the look of history,
where will the look of modern affordable housing be?

Practically speaking there is no way the developer or neighbors will go for actual
affordable or low-income housing; that would be a poison pill. Therefore the City

could consider hitting the project up with major high impact fees to support lowincome housing on less desirable or more appropriate parcels in town. The City/
Planning Commission should use what leverage it has to demand the type of housing
be actually built that is called for by the Housing Element.

Overall, mixed use is good urban design. The rest of this area in question by 1st
Street East is already developed with condos and apartments of different grades.
The developers work and his own buildings do look good; his own house is nice; the
compound there is well done; there is an attractive and esthetic use of materials.
The developer has an esthetic agenda and wants a certain clean and managed tone
to the neighborhood, i.e. gentrification pressure towards high end uses. The
neighbors for their part are concerned about being overrun by higher intensity use
but also that the neighborhood will keep a certain level of class. Too bad mixed use
here cannot include the full 54 units and a decent amount of low and middle income
housing to make it actual mixed use. A more inclusive view by the developer here
might go a long way towards gaining overall community support.

The Planning Commission might consider requiring more mid and low income
housing at higher density to force the issue of solving the affordable housing
problem. It is up to the Planning Commission and the City then, to decide how many
market rate luxury houses will be built before the capacity set aside for affordable
will actually get built. The Cloisters is just a case in point to ask when these
affordable housing issues will be solved?

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 3:01:51 PM Pacic Standard Time

Subject:
Date:
From:
To:

STOP THE CLOISTERS!

Friday, December 4, 2015 at 2:52:35 PM Pacic Standard Time
Stop The Cloisters
Stop The Cloisters

You may have heard about "The Cloisters Sonoma" - a major proposed mixed-use hotel development planned for 3.4 acres
at 254 1st St. E. - stretching to 2nd St. E. (just northeast of our Historic Plaza, across from the Little League fields and directly
north of the Vintage House). The developers are planning to build (numbers approximate):
45-Room Hotel
9 "Vacation Rental" homes
5 Townhomes
4 Studio & 1-Bd Apartments
3 Condominium units
Private Pool Complex and Clubhouse (Membership Fee)
Cafe/Restaurant/Commercial
Three Story Buildings throughout, on 1st St. E. and 2nd St. E.
No, this isn't April Fool's Day. It's December 4th.
This project makes no sense in this quiet Sonoma neighborhood for many reasons, including land-use incompatibility (a large
hotel and Sonoma's first from-scratch precedent-setting Vacation Rental development), the massive scale of the project (3story buildings throughout), the intense density of the project, the potential traffic nightmare, and noise, parking, lighting, and
long-term control issues. Major hotel projects like this are more compatible in commercial areas adjacent to main roads, not
here. It's important that this site be developed in the best interests of Sonoma's residents, and not become just a playground
for visitors.
A large number of Sonomans are coming together to help protect our Sonoma neighborhoods and stop "The Cloisters"
project as proposed. We'll be joining with neighbors, neighborhood and community stakeholders, members of the historic
preservation community and others to offer constructive recommendations in an effort to improve the project and make it
appropriate for this special site.
If you agree, there's a lot you can do. Please forward this email and our website www.stopthecloisters.org to your friends
and neighbors.
And join us at next week's:
Planning Commission Study Session
Thurs. Dec. 10, 2015, 6:30 PM
Community Meeting Room, 177 1st. St. West
It's important to let the Planning Commission know from the very beginning that this proposed project is
the WRONG direction for Sonoma's neighborhoods and will negatively impact the quality of life for locals in favor of visitors.
Sign up on our website for updates and action alerts. We'll consider appropriate next steps after the study session.
www.stopthecloisters.org

Page 1 of 1

+20'

ASSUMED
PROPERTY LINE,
STREET CURB
BEYOND

2ND STREET
EAST

FD ACCESS
+26'

(E) UTILITY LINES TO BE BURIED

+20'

INN
CONCEPT
B

+30'

+10'

EL

INN
CONCEPT
A

INN
OPEN
COURTYARD

+22'

FIRE DEPARTMENT
ACCESS

+15'

PATHWAY

PROPERTY LINES

+22'

+26'

+40'

HYDRANT
11

INN
CONCEPT
A

10
+26'

+22'

+15'

13

12

+14'

DRIVE

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

+1'
+21'

EXISTING EASEMENT

UNIT C1

GAR.

GAR.

x
x

C
C

+5'

C
C

UNIT C2

UNIT C2

+22'

+9'

UNIT C2

FIRE
PIT

+3'

+10'

+3'

SPA

+5' +3'

+3'

GAR.

EXISTING OAKS

POOL
25' x 75'

C
C

GAR.

CASITA
H-6
2 FLR.

UNIT C1

GAR.

+5' +3'

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

CLUBHOUSE

C +16'
C

+3'

ENTRY

+14'

+26'

+25'

+26'

+5'

UNIT C2

UNIT C2

+12'

+5'

+4'

+4'

GAR.

GAR.

+8'

UNIT C2

+8'

GAR.

+16'

+9'

CASITA
H-6
1 FLR.

+10'
5' - 6"

+12'

UNIT C1

CASITA
H-6
2 FLR.
C

+10'

DRIVE

CASITA CASITA
H-6
H-6
1 FLR. 1 FLR.

+3'

24' - 0"

74' - 0"

75' - 0"

22' - 0"

75' - 0"

143' PATH

COVERED
PARKING
[GRND FLR]

PROPERTY LINE

TH
NOR

0'

30'

60'

120'

+20'

RR

+20'

GARAGE
ENTRY

+20'

+10'

+18'

+9'

VAN

+8'

+17'

+18'

MECH
EL

+10'

UNIT B

TRASH

+6'

GAR.

RES. & INN

UNITS
[2ND & 3RD
FLRS.]

+/- 20' - 7"

UNIT B

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

UNIT B

UNIT B

+9'

+10'

UNIT B

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

+20'

+18'

COMMERCIAL

+5'

C
HYDRANT
+26'

1st STREET EAST

1ST STREET
EAST
(E) UTILITY LINES TO BE BURIED

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL &

INN
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SONOMA , CALIFORNIA

12.03.2015

UP

B
1-CAR GARAGE

H4

H4

GUEST UNIT

H4-20

H4-10

GUEST UNIT

1-CAR GARAGE
GUEST UNIT

B-16
1-CAR GARAGE

B
DN

H4

1-CAR GARAGE
GUEST UNIT

1-CAR GARAGE

H4

GUEST UNIT

1-CAR GARAGE
GUEST UNIT

H4
H4
B

GUEST UNIT

H4
H4

GUEST UNIT

1-CAR GARAGE
GUEST UNIT

1-CAR GARAGE

1-CAR GARAGE

1-CAR GARAGE
GUEST UNIT

B-15
COURTYARD

B-23
B-22

CLOS.

B-24

OFFICE

B-14
B

BEDROOM-1

PWDR

UNIT B

UNIT B
DN

B-13

DN

B
UNIT B
D

KITCHEN / DINING

B-20

B-25

HALL

BATH

B-21

DW

UNIT B

LNDRY

B-26
CLOSET
UP

B-12
STAIR

B
B

UNIT B

UNIT B

UNIT B

B-11
B-10

LIVING

ENTRY

B-28

UNIT B

UP

BATH

B-27
BEDROOM-2

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1/8" = 1'-0"

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET ELEVATION

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

RESIDENTIAL WITH GUEST UNIT
CONCEPT - UNIT B PLANS &
ELEVATIONS

SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
11.13.2015

10' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR OVERHANG ABOVE

P-14

P-17

TRASH

MECH

OPEN

P-10

P-12

STAIR

ELEVATOR

P-13
STAIR

P-16
REST ROOM

P-11
VESTIBULE

P-15
58' - 3"

PARKING GARAGE

P-18
RETAIL SPACE

COMMERCIAL UNIT
2,089 GSF

26' - 0"

20' - 0"
10' - 0"
MIN

20' - 0"

BALCONIES ABOVE

67' - 3"

28' - 0"

42' - 0"

137' - 3"

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

H
NORT

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET ELEVATION

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

MULTI-USE - RESIDENTIAL PARKING & COMMERCIAL
SPACE
CONCEPT - GROUND FLOOR PLAN &
SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
ELEVATION

11.13.2015

PATIO

PATIO

PATIO

PATIO

PATIO

PATIO

G-1
33' - 0"

STUDIO

H2-05

H2-06

H2-07

H2-08

H2-09

INN - SUITE

INN - SUITE

INN - SUITE

INN - SUITE

INN - SUITE

PATIO

UNIT G
442 GSF

G-3
D-2

D-3

CLOS

LIVING

BED-1

UNIT D
622 GSF

D-4
CLOSET

P-22

D-5

ELEVATOR

P-23

BATH

STAIR
10' - 6"

P-20
D-1

STAIR

P-21

PATIO

KITCHEN

F-3
CLOS

F-4

E-2

BATH

CLOS

58' - 3"

CORRIDOR

UNIT E
640 GSF

W/D

PATIO

F-2
LAUNDRY
DW

E-1

32' - 2"

DW

H2-04
INN - SUITE

H2-03
INN - SUITE

LIVING / DINING

E-3

H2-02

H2-01

INN - SUITE

INN - SUITE

F-1

KITCHEN

STUDIO
UNIT F
640 GSF

MURPHY
BED

E-6

E-4

BATH

BED-1

E-5
CLOS

PATIO
16' - 6"

PATIO

PATIO

16' - 0"

16' - 0"

PATIO

PATIO

16' - 6"

65' - 0"

28' - 0"

42' - 0"

135' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

H
NORT

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

MULTI-USE - RESIDENTIAL & INN
CONCEPT - SECOND FLOOR PLAN

SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
11.13.2015

L-3
PATIO

L-19

L-7

L-10

BEDROOM-1

BEDROOM-2

PATIO

L-11
CLOSET

K-4
UNIT L
L-2
2,582 GSF
LIVING / DINING

L-9

L-15

L-17

BATH

CLOSET

BATH

PATIO

L-16

L-6

BEDROOM-3

BATH

L-5

L-12

L-8

CLOSET

HALL

DW

W.I.C.

L-18

L-4

L-1

KITCHEN

ENTRY

P-32

FRZR REF

L-13

L-14

PWDR

LAUNDRY

UNIT K
1,824 GSF

P-33

ELEVATOR

STAIR

K-5

MECH

P-30

LIVING / DINING

STAIR

P-31
K-2

CORRIDOR

M-13

FRZR REF

MECH

M-7
M-8
BEDROOM-1

M-5

KITCHEN

ENTRY

DW

PWDR

M-9
CLOSET

M-3

M-1

HALL

M-6

M-2

HALL

CLOSET

K-3

K-1

CLOS

ENTRY

K-9

DW

PWDR

MECH

K-8

UNIT M
1,824 GSF

LAUNDRY

K-7

M-4

K-15

HALL

K-10

LIVING / DINING

M-11
M-10

K-6
KITCHEN

BATH

BATH

WALK IN CLOSET

BEDROOM-2

K-12
W.I.C.

M-12

K-11

K-14

BATH

BEDROOM-1

BEDROOM-2

M-14
PATIO

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

K-13
W.I.C.

H
NORT

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

MULTI-USE - RESIDENTIAL UNITS
CONCEPT - THIRD FLOOR

SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
11.13.2015

H4-02

MECHANICAL

UP

STAIR

H4-05

H4-04

C1-24

BATH

CLOSET

BATH

SKYLIGHT
ABOVE

C1-23
BEDROOM-2
15' X 14'

H4-03
GUEST UNIT

C1-21

C1-22

LINEN

W.I.C.

C1-20
HALL

C1-26

C1-25
C1-28

WALK IN CLOSET

BEDROOM-3
14' X 15'

DECK & PERGOLA

C1-27

UP

BATH

LANDING

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

1/8" = 1'-0"

25' - 0"

36' - 4" MIN

16' - 4"

OUTDOOR STORAGE

C1-12
BATH
10' - 0"

H4-01

C1-01

1-CAR GARAGE GUEST UNIT

1-CAR GARAGE

20' - 0"

10' - 0"

FIRE
PIT

C1-11
BEDROOM-1
15' X 14'

UP

C1-2

C1-9

C1-10

CLOS

W.I.C.

C1-8

46' - 6"

COURTYARD

UP

HALL

DW
20' - 1"

C1-7
PWDR

C1-3

C1-5

LIVING ROOM

KITCHEN

C1-29
STOR.

C1-6

C1-4
DINING ROOM

REF FZR OV

LAUNDRY

W
D

50' - 1"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

RESIDENTIAL WITH GUEST UNIT
CONCEPT - UNIT C-1 PLANS

SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
11.13.2015

H4-02

H4-05

STAIR

BATH

H4-04
CLOS.

C2-21
DECK & PERGOLA

H4-03
GUEST UNIT

SKYLT
ABOVE

C2-28
BEDROOM-3
14' x 15'

C2-25

C2-30

C2-22

HALL / STAIR
DN

LINEN

BEDROOM-2
12' x 12'

C2-32
C2-24

W.I.C.

C2-23

BATH

C2-31

CLOSET

BATH

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

ENTRY ELEVATION

1/8" = 1'-0"

1/8" = 1'-0"

TRASH ALCOVE
BELOW

OUTDOOR
STORAGE

18' - 6"

10' - 0"

UP

25' - 0"

C2-03
FIRE
PIT

LIVING ROOM

C2-02
10' - 0"

C2-01
47' - 0"

1-CAR GARAGE

COURTYARD

20' - 0"

C2-04
43' - 0"

30' - 6"

H4-01
1-CAR GARAGE GUEST UNIT

5' - 6"

DINING ROOM

DW

C2-09
C2-12

16' - 6"

W.I.C.

C2-10

C2-08

BEDROOM-1

CLOSET

14' X 15'

HALL / STAIR
UP

C2-05
KITCHEN
OV

C2-11

C2-07

BATH

PWDR RM

/FR.

C2-06
LAUNDRY
W

SIDE ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

51' - 6"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

RESIDENTIAL WITH GUEST UNIT
CONCEPT - UNIT C-2 PLANS &
ELEVATIONS

SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
11.13.2015

CH-22
CH-25

OFFICE

OFFICE
540 SF

765 SF

CH-21
CH-26

DN

LOBBY

STORAGE

CH-27

CH-24

CH-23

EQUIPMENT

STORAGE

OPEN
TO
BELOW

MINI SPA

OPEN TO BELOW

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

6' - 0"

1/8" = 1'-0"

CH-18
BAR / CAFE

CH-16

CH-17

MEN'S

WOMEN'S

CLUB HOUSE ENTRY ELEVATION

1/8" = 1'-0"

CH-19

44' - 0"

CH-13
LOBBY
UP

CH-21

CH-20

STORAGE

KITCHEN

CH-15
OFFICE

CH-14
RECEPTION
OPEN ABOVE

CH-22
LIVING ROOM

6' - 0"

56' - 0"

BAR

40' - 0"

28' - 0"
68' - 0"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

COMMERCIAL SPACE
CONCEPT - CLUB HOUSE PLANS &
ELEVATIONS

SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
11.13.2015

DN

INN - UNIT H-3

SUITE

INN - UNIT H-3

SUITE

H3-15

12' - 0"

14' - 6"

ENTRY

H3-17

H1-20

H1-21

PATIO

MECH

8' - 6"

BATH

10' - 6"
36' - 0"

H-3 THIRD FLOOR SUITES

1/8" = 1'-0"

STAIR LANDING
UP

INN - UNIT H-1 & H-2

CONCEPT-A

INN - UNIT H-1 & H-2

CONCEPT-A

UP

H1-02

CLOS.

INTERIOR COURT ELEVATION

H1-01

H1-03

H1-04

BATH

BED

12' - 0"

H1-05

LIVING

H1-06

H1-07

PATIO

MECH

14' - 6"

1/8" = 1'-0"
INN - UNIT H-1 & H-2
CONCEPT-A

8' - 6"

ENTRY

INN - UNIT H-1 & H-2

CONCEPT-A

10' - 6"
36' - 0"

H-1 GARDEN UNITS & H-2 2ND FLOOR UNITS

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

INN - PROTOTYPE ROOMS - CONCEPT A
CONCEPT - UNIT H-1, H-2 & H-3
PLANS & ELEVATIONS

SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
11.13.2015

INN - UNIT H-3

SUITE

INN - UNIT H-3

SUITE

INN - UNIT H-3

ADJOINING SUITE

H-3 THIRD FLOOR SUITES

1/8" = 1'-0"

H1-06
PATIO

H1-07
H1-05

MECH

LIVING

INN - UNIT H-1

CONCEPT-B

INN - UNIT H-1

CONCEPT-B

INN - UNIT H-1

CONCEPT-B

INN - UNIT H-1

CONCEPT-B

36' - 0"

INN - UNIT H-1

CONCEPT-B

H1-04
BED

2nd STREET ELEVATION

H1-02

1/8" = 1'-0"

CLOS.

H1-03
BATH

14' - 6"

UP

ENTRY

UP

STAIR LANDING

STAIR LANDING

H1-01

H-1 GARDEN UNITS & H-2 2ND FLOOR UNITS

1/8" = 1'-0"

1st STREET EAST

INN - PROTOTYPE ROOMS - CONCEPT B
CONCEPT - UNIT H-1, H-2 & H-3
PLANS & ELEVATIONS

SONOMA , CALIFORNIA
11.13.2015