Item 3 Cloisters Study Session

December 10, 2015 Agenda Item #3

M E M O

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 project’s 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,

2

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 café 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/café, 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 project’s 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.

3

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 Sonoma’s 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 Sonoma’s distinctive qualities—such as agriculture, food and wine, history and art—and that offer high-paying jobs. (LE 1.1)

4

− Promote and accommodate year-round tourism that is consistent with the historic, small-town 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 development’s 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

5

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 Summary Setback Code Standard Project Proposal Notes

Front/Street-side A variety of setbacks, consistent with neighborhood conditions, shall normally be required at the discretion of the Planning Commission.

10 ft. along First Street 21 ft. along Second Street (balconies/patios setback 13 feet)

Planning Commission discretion.

Side, 1-story 5 ft. minimum, 15 ft. total.

3 feet Casita east of pool.

Side, 2-story 8 ft. minimum on two-story side

10-20 feet The standard is met.

Rear One-story: 15 ft. Two-story: 20 ft.

N.A. 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.

Garage, front 20 ft. from primary structure

Met with townhomes. Not met with detached units.

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.

6

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 Minimum Requirement

Hotel: One space for each guest room, plus one space for every two employees on the largest shift.

54

Commercial: One space for every 300 square feet of building area. (2,089 sq. ft.)

7

Restaurant: One space for every four seats. (38 seats) 10 Primary Units: 1.5 parking spaces per unit, plus 25% guest parking.

26

Second Units: 1 space per unit. 14 Total Required: 111 Total Provided Onsite: 88 Difference: -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 staff’s 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

7

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 Element’s 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:

8

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 types—guidelines 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 Types—guidelines for commercial structures. Proposed commercial and mixed-

use 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 City’s 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

9

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 staff’s 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 “city’s vision for the downtown.” In terms of Development Code definitions, this area is not part of the downtown and in staff’s 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 staff’s 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

10

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 Official’s 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

11

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

12

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)

Pk

R-R

MX

P

SE

CO

ND

ST

RE

ET

EA

ST

FIR

ST

ST

RE

ET

EA

ST

DEPOT PARK

GU

AD

ALU

PE

PADRE DRIVE

Zoning Designations

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 ProductionP Public FacilityPk ParkA Agriculture

´

Project Summary

Vicinity Map

0 190 38095 Feet

1 inch = 200 feet

Subject Property

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.

1st STREET EAST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - PROJECT SUMMARY November 16, 2015 AXIA Architects Project Name First Street East Development APN’s 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 Medium Density Residential Designation 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 DEVELOPMENTUNIT TABULATION - PRELIMINARY PROGRESS SET11.16.15 [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

24% 5 Unit B 2 Bedroom , 2.5 Baths 1704 85205 Guest Unit 479 2395

2-Car Garage 450 225014% 3 Unit C1 3 Bedroom, 3.5 Bath 2513 7539

3 Guest Unit 479 14372-Car Garage 450 1350

29% 6 Unit C2 3 Bedroom, 3.5 Bath 2190 131406 Guest Unit 479 2874

2-Car Garage 450 27005% 1 Unit D 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath (Affordable) 622 622

5% 1 Unit E 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath (Affordable) 640 640

5% 1 Unit F 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath (Affordable) 640 640

5% 1 Unit G Studio (Affordable) 442 442

5% 1 Unit K 2 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath 1824 1824

5% 1 Unit L 3 Bedroom, 3.5 Bath 2582 2582

5% 1 Unit M 2 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath 1760 1760

Inn Rooms13 Unit H-1 Garden Units 500 650013 Unit H-2 2nd Floor 500 65009 2nd Floor - Mixed Use Building 500 45003 Unit H-3 3rd Floor Units 500 15004 Unit H-4 3rd Floor Suites 750 30001 Unit H-5 3rd Floor Premiere Suite 1000 10007 Unit H-6 Casitas 476 3332

Commercial SpaceClubhouse Yoga Studio 2089Clubhouse Inn Check-in and Offices 2000Clubhouse 1st Floor 1318Clubhouse 2nd Floor 2457

UNITS TOTAL:TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE (Without Garages) 21 44,415 TOTAL INN SQUARE FOOTAGE (Without Garages) 26,332 TOTAL COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 7,864

TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE (NOT INCL. GARAGES)

78,611

REQUIRED PARKING

# OF UNITS UNIT TYPE # OF STALLS REQ'D #/Unit TOTAL STALLS5 Unit B 1.5/Unit 1.5 7.55 Guest Unit 1 53 Unit C1 1/Unit 1 33 Guest Unit 1 36 Unit C2 1/Unit 1 66 Guest Unit 1 61 Unit D 1.5/Unit 1.5 1.51 Unit E 1.5/Unit 1.5 1.51 Unit F 1.5/Unit 1.5 1.51 Unit G 1.5/Unit 1.5 1.51 Unit K 1.5/Unit 1.5 1.51 Unit L 1.5/Unit 1.5 1.51 Unit M 1.5/Unit 1.5 1.5

Guest Stalls for Residential @ 25% of Res. Req'd 10.313 Unit H-1 1 1313 Unit H-2 1 133 Unit H-3 1 34 Unit H-4 1 41 Unit H-5 1 17 Unit H-6 1 78 Inn Staff - 1/every 2 staff 0.5 4

112 Seats - Café 295864 Health/Fitness 1 Stall per 300 SF 20

Total Required Stalls 145Request a Variance of 28%* 41If Variance is Granted, New Total Required Stalls

104

Total Parking in Current Design ConceptCovered* 43Open 45On Street 16

Total Parking Provided 104

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

Friday,December4,2015at10:06:19AMPacificStandardTime

Page1of1

Subject: RE:ProposedHotelDevelopmenton1stSt.EastDate: Thursday,December3,2015at4:04:26PMPacificStandardTimeFrom: LarryBarneITo: DavidGoodison

Thelastthisthiscommunityneedsismoreluxuryhousingandluxuryhotels.Rather,weneedaffordablehousingforthosewhoworkhereandsecure,affordablehousingforseniors.ProximityofthispropertytoVintageHousemakesitanaturalchoiceforseniorhousing,andIbelievesuchausewillreceivewidespreadneighborhoodsupport.

Fewhousingopportunitysitesexistwhicharesoappropriatetolow-costhousingdevelopment;tosquandersuchpropertyforuseandenjoymentsolelybytherichandprivilegedisethicallyandsociallywrong.IurgethePlanningCommissiontodirectthisapplicanttoreturnwithaprojectplanwhichmeetstherealhousingneedsofthecommunity,andnotjustprojectedhighprofitsreflectedonapro-formaprofitandlossstatementorbalancesheetpertainingtovacaZonrentalsandhoteloccupancy.

ThecommunitywillnotbesilentasyetanotheropportunitytoprovidehousingandeconomicequityiswastedinSonoma.Ifthedeveloperistrulyinterestedinprovidinglong-termbenefittothecommunityatlarge,itwillnotbethroughhotels,vacaZonrentalsandswim-clubs,butthroughadevelopmentplaninfusedwithcompassionforthosewhoareunderservedworkersorseniorsfindingthemselvespriced-outofhousingatpreciselytheirmostvulnerableZmeoflife.

Sincerely,LarryBarneIFormerCityCouncilmemberandformerMayor


Page1of1

Subject: FirstSt.EprojectDate: Friday,December4,2015at12:28:15AMPacificStandardTimeFrom: BasDanGmailTo: DavidGoodison

DearMr.Goodison,DearPlanningCommission

Asa10yearSonomaresident,Iwantedtowritetowhole-heartedlyendorseandsupportadevelopmentproposalforFirstStE.(“TheCloisters”)thathasbeensharedwithmeandthatwillcomebeforethecommissioninthenearfuture.

Theproposalisgroundbreakinginseveralaspects:

1)Itisawellthoughtoutandcommunity-mindedplanthatwouldturnacentralareaofoldSonomathatisnowblandandunderuDlizedintoaplacewithasoul.AplacethatisaestheDcallypleasing,keepswiththevisualaestheDcandpayshomagetoouragriculturalheritage,allwhilecreaDnganewalternaDveliving,eaDngandgatheringplaceforlocalsandvisitors.2)Itstrikesanadmirablebalancebetweeneconomicallysounddevelopment,communityfeatures(thecafe,thepool),andinvolvesandengagesthecommunityratherthanexcludingit.3)ItleveragesaspectsofthesharingeconomytomakeownershipmoreaffordablewhilereducingtheneedforaddiDonalpermiYedvacaDonrentalselsewhere.4)ItprovidesaverysoundfinancialcontribuDontothecitybudgetbycreaDngmuch-needednewtaxrevenues(bothproperty,sales,andtouristtax).

Thisproposalisafreshbreathandhasmyfullsupport.ItwascreatedbyaSonomaresidentwhohasobviouslygivenmuchthoughthowtodesignforSonoma,whichmeanskeepingdensity,scaleanddesignappropriateandincludingcommunityaspectsinadevelopment,andwhohaslearnedfromotherproposalswhichdon’tfitthecharacterofSonoma.

IwouldencouragethePlanningCommissiontoapprovethisdevelopmentforaestheDcaspects,communityaspects,andforitsposiDvefinancialimpactonSonoma.

regards

BasDanSchoell


Page1of1

Subject: NewCpnstruc-onon1stStreetEastDate: Friday,December4,2015at9:12:55AMPacificStandardTimeFrom: [email protected]: DavidGoodison

Hi David,

I have been a resident of Sonoma Valley for over 35 years. My husband and I have raisedour 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 youngfamily. We accepted the fact that in order to keep the small town feeling - which is one of themain reasons we moved here - there would be some concessions. I do not understand whythese individuals ( who do not even own property or are in the process of selling their propertyhere in Sonoma) feel they must come in and make our town BETTER, why did they evenmove here in the first place.

Putting in this proposed development would only make Sonoma less affordable for families. Itwill also cater to a specific group of individuals - as far as the pool etc. the monies should bebetter spent on a pool for our High School. This is not a win win situation for the families ofSonoma or even for our town it is just a win win for the developers and their goals to makemoney and make Sonoma into what they believe it should be!

Nancy Bei


Page1of1

Subject: FirstSt.EprojectDate: Friday,December4,2015at10:33:53AMPacificStandardTimeFrom: RandyBenneETo: DavidGoodison

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 Ibelieve are the most importation contributions of the project.

it will beautify a neglected area, turning a light industrial area into a pleasant and usefulcommunity spaceit will add much needed housing options and short-term rental options that are in shortsupply much of the yearthe community pool concept and café are creative ways to extend the use of the spaceto the entire communityit will boost the economy and provide additional city revenue with a multiplier effectfrom increased local spendingit improves the overall architecture, landscape, and streetscape of Sonoma

Thank you for considering these valuable contributions and I am hopeful this project is givenfair consideration for moving forward.

-Randy Bennett

1

FredAllebach12//3/15CloistersSonoma,notesfromdeveloper12/3/15homemeetingandcommentsforthePlanningCommissionStudySessionTheCityhasapprovedparcel(s)on1stStreetEastnorthofthebikepathandeastoftheballfieldsownedbyEdRouthierfor“highdensityapartments”ofupto54units;buildingheightcanbe3stories.Thecitydidatrafficstudy,54unitsareallowed.Thedeveloperisproposing34housingunitsIbelieve.Theprojectwillbeoncitywater,buttheCloisterswillhaveitsownH2Oonsite.Therewillbeagraywatersystem.Theydidnotsayifawellexists,willbedrilledorisimpactedbyonsitetoxicmaterials.Existingtoxics,ofanundeclaredtypeandquantity,onsitewillberemoved.Concreteandpavingwillberemovedfromthesitethatwillresultinbettergroundwaterrechargeandfloodcontrol.Ifnotnow,someonewilldevelopthepropertyatsometime;thisisafact.“ThestateofCAmandatesthatnewhousingbebuilt.”(Actually,thestatemandatesthatcapacityforlow-incomehousingbeshown;actuallybuildingofsuchunitsisnotmandated.)Theydon’thavetodoanInnoracafé.Theproposedprojectismixeduse:40hotelrooms,residences,acafé,andapool.Thepoolwillbeavailabletothepublicand/orneighborsinsomeway.Isthepoolbigenoughforexercise?Therewillbevaletparkingandparkingwillbealloffstreetinsidethecomplex.Thedevelopersaysthereislesstrafficfromahotelthanaresidentialdevelopment.Ifthecommunitywantsacafe,aparkingvariancewouldbenecessary.Thedeveloper,likemanycitizens,isturnedoffbytouristsonthePlaza;“it’snolongerforresidents”;localsnowgotoDepotHotelandpicktheirtimestogothroughthePlazatoPeets.Anattenderpointedoutthatthisdevelopmentwilladdtotheperceivedtouristproblemandsenseoflossofcommunitybyaddingevenmoretouristswiththenewhotelandthroughthebuilt-invacationrentals.Thedeveloperwasbustedonthatandcouldn’tquitefinesseapersuasivecomeback.Built-invacationrentalsontheproject’shomes’garageswillhelpownerspayfortheirhouses.CCRssayownerswillhavetolivethere80%ofthetime.Intermsofarchitecture,a“storyisbeingtold”,abucolic,agrarianrootsstory.Thenewbuildingswilllooklikebarns.Lotsofvisual,architecturaltermswereused;it’saboutthe“look”,appearance,“anesthetic”,a“farmmotif”,“harmony”,“beautifulfromanagrarianstandpoint”.Thestorytoldisabigelementofthedeveloper’sstyle.Thegoalistobuilditsoyoudon’tknowifitwasbuilt200yearsago.1stStreetEastbytheprojectwillundergo“beautification”.GroundcrewfortheCloisterswillmaintainthestreetlandscapeinquestion,inperpetuity.Largetreesareprojectedtolinethestreet.ItshouldbenotedbythePlanningCommissionthatlargetreesareanexistingproblemforthecityandtheCSECtree

2

committee;sidewalksbuckle,peopletrip,peoplegetsued,peoplewanttocutthebigtreesdown.Bigtreesnearsidewalksintownareconstantlyunderpressuretobecutdown.Treesthereforewouldneedtobesetbackawayfrompotentialsidewalktrouble.Densityisanissueforneighborsandthedeveloper,tonothaveitbetoodenseortoomassivelooking;theyallwantless.Thedeveloperhasalreadyreducedtheprofileandfeelsheisatthepointofdiminishingreturnseconomicallyiftheprojectisshrunkanymore.Heissellingthatitislessdense;it’sgreener;theneighborswantitevenlessdensethanthat.Thedeveloperdoesnotpreferhighdensityapartments;heseeshotelsandInnsasgoodneighbors.Denseapartmentsarenotgoodneighbors.Theimplicationisthathighdensity,lostcosthousingwouldnotbe“responsibledevelopment”.Thedeveloperseesthe1stStreetEastVetsparkinglotasan“eyesore”;itis“managedpoorly”.Inaggregate,thisallamountstogentrificationpressureonthisneighborhood.Thepropertyvaluesintheimmediatearearangefromabalancebetweenhigh($750,000)andlow($259,000)value,withnotmuchmediumvalue.ThemedianhomesalepriceinSonomanowisrightaround$600,000.Eventhough3storiesisallowed,buildingheightwillbereducedineffectbya20’setback.Neighborsbroughtuptheissueof“mass”,and“overimposing”structuresInfillhowever,andhigherdensityandmixeduseiscalledforincityplanningandthisimpliesstructuralchangesthatnoneighborsseemtowantintheirbackyard.Itappearsimportantthatacertainsmalltownlookbemaintained.Thuswehaveconflictingprioritiesbetweenresidentsandplanners.Theneighborsetalinitiallygavethedeveloperalotoftrouble;theycameoutswingingathim.Hemostlykepthiscool.Neighborswereconcernedaboutnoise,height,setback,density,toomuchtraffic,toomuchonstreetparking,fireandpedestriansafetyconcerns,safetyofVintageHouseseniors,watersupply,autoandleafbloweremissions;theywant“responsibledevelopment”.Themeaningof“responsibledevelopment”willbeinterestingtopursueasthisallunfolds.Forneighborsthiscouldsimplymeantheyareheardandthatafewchangesaremadebasedontheirconcerns.Forothers,responsiblecouldinvokeequityconcerns,low-incomehousing,higherdensityetc.Therealwayshastobeafewcatch-allweaselwordsinpolicydebates!Ifthesenseoftheseneighborsisasign,therewillnevergettobehigh-densityhousinganywhereinSonoma.Theyareresignedtosomedevelopmenthereinthisareabuttheydon’twantmuch.Oneneighborsaidthedeveloperhasa“cleverwayofintroducingwhatthecitywants”,theprojectis“presentable”butneighborswantittobelessofeverything,lessimpact.Inastrawpoll,noonewantedmoreunitsofasmallersize.Mixeduseapparentlydoesallowfor20unitsperacre,verysmallunits.

3

TheCountygivesadensitybonus;makesadevelopmentmoredense,geta25%increaseofunits.Provisionsforpercentagesoflow,verylowandseniorunitshavetobemet.MaybetheCitycanputsomethinglikethisintoaction?Ahotelmanagementpersontalkedtoneighborstosweetenuptheimpressionofhowhighdollarhotelstreatneighbors.Hotelsgivethewhiteglovetreatmenttoall,neighborsincluded;goodhotelownerswanttobe“responsible”neighborsthemselves.Thedevelopermentionedthathousingis“muchneeded”;that“changehappensinatown”.20%ofunitshavetobeaffordable.Thedeveloperwas“toldbythecitytosolvetheaffordablehousingissue”.Thenewhomeswillbean“incredibledealforowners”;theywillgofast.Hewouldbesurprisedifpeopleatthemeetingdidn’tbuyone.Houseswillbe@$600,000butonlyiftherewillbea40roomhotel,otherwisehouseswillbemoreexpensive,like$1,000,000.Therecomesapoint,saidthedeveloper,whereeconomicallyyoucan’tdoit;thecitywantsfees,thecitywantthisandthat,an20%affordableunitrequirement;upshot:nohotel,$600,000housegoestoamillionandtherewillbehigherdensity.Thepriceoftheaffordablehomeswasnotgiven,northebasisforcalculatingwhataffordablemeanstohimortheCity.Affordableisapparentlythenewtopweaselword.Affordabletowhoandathowmuch?If$600,000isaffordable,whatismarketrate?WehavetofiguretheaverageincomeofSonoma,andoftheValleyandcountyandthenseewhataffordableactuallymeanscomparedtomarketrate.Theactualmeaningofaffordableislow-incomeandvery-low-income.TheCountyDevelopmentCommission’stakeonaffordable:“AffordablehousingisakeyissueinSonomaCountytoday.TheCommunityDevelopmentCommissionandotherCountydepartmentsoperateanumberofprogramsprovidingregulatoryincentivesandfinancingtopromoteandassistinthedevelopmentandpreservationofhousingthatisaffordable,availableandaccessibletotheCounty’slow-incomeresidents.”Asweknow,withthelossofjobsintheGreatRecession,themiddleclasshasshrunktonothing,theaveragecountyrentis$1500amonthandrising,therentalvacancyrateis1.5%,rentalsarebeingconvertedtovacationrentalsfurthererodinghousingstock,tenant/mobilehometenants/seniorsarebeingturnedoutandeventhoseattheSonomamedianincomeof$64,000cannotaffordahouse,orfindanapartment.Sonomarealestatehasexperienceda41%riseinvalueoverthelastfiveyears.Atthesametimeunincorporatedcountyresidentsareprojectedtoincreaseby150,000peopleinthenext25yearsandgreenbeltseparatorsandUGBswillconstrainhousingopportunitiesforthesepeople,makingitmorecrucialfortheCitytoponyupinmoreforcefulwaysonaffordablehousing.TheincometrendinSonomamirrorsthedifferencebetweenthe10%andthe90%inthecountryasawhole.Thiscanbestatisticallycorroborated.Yetthepeoplewhocanaffordthemoreexpensiverealestatewantthattypeofrealestatetobedeveloped;thereisa

4

strongmarketforit.Moneytalks.Thesocio-econsensibilitiesofthe10%andabovemaynotbetunedintothehousingneedsforeveryonebelow.IfadiversecommunityistobevaluedbytheCityinitsplansforaffordablehousing,affordablemustreflectrealproportionsoftheeconomicspectrum.Isaffordablemeasuredbythenumberofpossiblebuyersabletopaythatprice?Isitareflectionofproportionalsocio-econspreadinthecommunity?Ibelievethatwecanrealisticallygloss“affordable”aslowincomeandverylowincome.Thedevelopersaidthisprojectdoesnothavetohappen.Itisnotincumbentonhimandhisassociatestosolvetheaffordablehousingproblem;it’shisrighttowantthetypeofprojecthewants.Theexistingbuildingsonthepropertyaremaking$now;ifthedevelopercan’tdohisproject,hewillsellitanditwillbedevelopedbysomeoneelsewithperhapslessofanestheticsensibility.ThismaybeanavenuethePlanningCommissioncanlooktowards,totryandgetmoreaffordablehousinginthiscentral,infilllocation.Isuggestonepossibility,all54unitsallowedforbedevelopedandthat20beaffordable,with½ofthoseaslowandverylowincomeapartments.Theprojectasitstandsnowappearstobedesignedforrichpeoplefromthefoothillswhowanttomovetotownandbeneartheirfriends.Itisclearlyahigh-endprojectthatwillnot“solvetheaffordablehousingproblem”ifaffordableistohaveanyactualmeaning.Infillrequireshigherdensity,notless.Buildingheightsneedtogouptogetthehigherdensity.IfthecityisgoingtogetboxedinbyaUGBandgreenbeltseparators,howwillitsurmountanobviousNIMBYproblem,thatnoonewants“irresponsibledevelopment”anywherenearthem.Inclusionofaffordablehousingwillaffectpropertyvalues,andresidentswillcrybloodymurder.Theupshottobusinessasusual:noactualaffordablehousingwillbebuiltinsideoroutsidetheCity,ifneighborsandresidentshavetheirway.ThisleavestheCitytostructurallystandupforthecreationofadiversecommunitybyinsistingontheactualbuildingourofaffordablehousing,evenifovertheobjectionsofpeopleandneighborswhodon’twantchangetoaccommodateamajorityofcitizens.Buildingthisaffordablehousingstockwillrequirehigherdensity,greaterheight,moremassandmoreinfill.Theserequirementsgodirectlyagainstwhatneighborsanddeveloperswant.DoestheCityhavethestomachtoplanforandfundwhatisobviouslynecessary?Thisproposedprojectisalreadyborderingarichareaoftown.Façadeisimportanthere.Thehistoricalsenseofaformergenuinecommunitycannowbebought;it’sthemodernlookofcountryaristocracyagrarian.Ifwewantthelookofhistory,wherewillthelookofmodernaffordablehousingbe?Practicallyspeakingthereisnowaythedeveloperorneighborswillgoforactualaffordableorlow-incomehousing;thatwouldbeapoisonpill.ThereforetheCity

5

couldconsiderhittingtheprojectupwithmajorhighimpactfeestosupportlow-incomehousingonlessdesirableormore“appropriate”parcelsintown.TheCity/PlanningCommissionshouldusewhatleverageithastodemandthetypeofhousingbeactuallybuiltthatiscalledforbytheHousingElement.Overall,mixeduseisgoodurbandesign.Therestofthisareainquestionby1stStreetEastisalreadydevelopedwithcondosandapartmentsofdifferentgrades.Thedeveloper’sworkandhisownbuildingsdolookgood;hisownhouseisnice;thecompoundthereiswelldone;thereisanattractiveandestheticuseofmaterials.Thedeveloperhasanestheticagendaandwantsacertaincleanandmanagedtonetotheneighborhood,i.e.gentrificationpressuretowardshighenduses.Theneighborsfortheirpartareconcernedaboutbeingoverrunbyhigherintensityusebutalsothattheneighborhoodwillkeepacertainlevelofclass.Toobadmixeduseherecannotincludethefull54unitsandadecentamountoflowandmiddleincomehousingtomakeitactualmixeduse.Amoreinclusiveviewbythedeveloperheremightgoalongwaytowardsgainingoverallcommunitysupport.ThePlanningCommissionmightconsiderrequiringmoremidandlowincomehousingathigherdensitytoforcetheissueofsolvingtheaffordablehousingproblem.ItisuptothePlanningCommissionandtheCitythen,todecidehowmanymarketrateluxuryhouseswillbebuiltbeforethecapacitysetasideforaffordablewillactuallygetbuilt.TheCloistersisjustacaseinpointtoaskwhentheseaffordablehousingissueswillbesolved?

Friday,December4,2015at3:01:51PMPacificStandardTime

Page1of1

Subject: STOPTHECLOISTERS!Date: Friday,December4,2015at2:52:35PMPacificStandardTimeFrom: StopTheCloistersTo: StopTheCloisters

You may have heard about "The Cloisters Sonoma" - a major proposed mixed-use hotel development planned for 3.4 acresat 254 1st St. E. - stretching to 2nd St. E. (just northeast of our Historic Plaza, across from the Little League fields and directlynorth of the Vintage House). The developers are planning to build (numbers approximate):

45-Room Hotel 9 "Vacation Rental" homes5 Townhomes4 Studio & 1-Bd Apartments3 Condominium unitsPrivate Pool Complex and Clubhouse (Membership Fee)Cafe/Restaurant/CommercialThree 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 largehotel and Sonoma's first from-scratch precedent-setting Vacation Rental development), the massive scale of the project (3-story buildings throughout), the intense density of the project, the potential traffic nightmare, and noise, parking, lighting, andlong-term control issues. Major hotel projects like this are more compatible in commercial areas adjacent to main roads, nothere. It's important that this site be developed in the best interests of Sonoma's residents, and not become just a playgroundfor 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 historicpreservation community and others to offer constructive recommendations in an effort to improve the project and make itappropriate 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 friendsand neighbors.

And join us at next week's:

Planning Commission Study SessionThurs. Dec. 10, 2015, 6:30 PMCommunity Meeting Room, 177 1st. St. West

It's important to let the Planning Commission know from the very beginning that this proposed project isthe 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

http://www.stopthecloisters.org/

http://www.stopthecloisters.org/

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

xx

xx

xx

x xx x x x x x x

x

1ST STREETEAST

2ND STREETEAST

CC

UNIT C2 UNIT C2 UNIT C2

UNIT BUNIT B

UNIT BUNIT B

COMMERCIAL

RES. & INNUNITS

[2ND & 3RDFLRS.]

TRASH

COVEREDPARKING

[GRND FLR]

ELRR

MECH

CLUBHOUSE

POOL25' x 75'

INNOPEN

COURTYARD

+10'

+10'

+9'

+18'

+10'SPA

+20'

+10'

1245 3

67

89

1011

1213

EXISTING EASEMENT

EXISTING OAKS

FIREPIT

ENTRY

CCCCCCCC

+3'+5'

75' - 0"

DRIVE

22' - 0"75' - 0"

+22'

+3'+3' +3'

+5'

+10'

+25'

+26'

VAN

+26'

+10' +18'

GAR.

+6'

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR. GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

74' - 0"

DRIVE

24' - 0"

+9'

CCCCC

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

GAR

.

+12'

+17'

+14'

GARAGEENTRY

+20'

+16'

+8'

+16'

+8'

GAR

.

GAR

.

UNIT B

+5'

+3'

+20'

+10'

+/- 2

0' -

7"

+4'+4'


+21'


+5'5' - 6"

+1'

+5'+5'

+3'

+26'

+12'

+8' +20'

CASITAH-6

2 FLR.

+18'

+20'

+9'

+30'

CASITAH-6

2 FLR.

CASITAH-6

1 FLR.

CASITAH-6

1 FLR.

CASITAH-6

1 FLR.+3'+9'

INNCONCEPT

A

INNCONCEPT

A

INNCONCEPT

B

+26'+14 '

FD ACCESS+26'

+22'

+22'

+26'+22'

+40'

ASSUMEDPROPERTY LINE,STREET CURBBEYOND

EL

PATHWAY

143' PATH

C

PROPERTY LINE

HYDRANT

PROPERTY LINES

HYDRANT

(E) UTILITY LINES TO BE BURIED

(E) UTILITY LINES TO BE BURIED

FIRE DEPARTMENTACCESS

+15'

+20'

+15'

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL &INN SONOMA

12.03.2015

NORTH

0' 30' 60' 120'

UP

UPUP

DNDN

DW

ENTRY

B-10 LIVING

B-11

STAIR

B-12

KITCHEN / DINING

B-13

PWDR

B-14

COURTYARD

B-15

1-CAR GARAGE

B-16 1-CAR GARAGEGUEST UNIT

H4-101-CAR GARAGE

GUEST UNIT

H41-CAR GARAGE

B

1-CAR GARAGE

B

1-CAR GARAGEGUEST UNIT

H4


H4

1-CAR GARAGE

B

1-CAR GARAGE

B


H4

UNIT B

B

UNIT B

B

UNIT B

B

UNIT B

B

HALL

B-20

LNDRY

B-21

OFFICE

B-22 CLOS.

B-23

BEDROOM-1

B-24

BATH

B-25

CLOSET

B-26

BEDROOM-2

B-27BATH

B-28

GUEST UNIT

H4-20

GUEST UNIT

H4

GUEST UNIT

H4

GUEST UNIT

H4

UNIT B

B

UNIT B

B

UNIT B

B

UNIT B

B

D

W

D

W

DN

GUEST UNIT

H4

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - UNIT B PLANS &ELEVATIONS

RESIDENTIAL WITH GUEST UNIT

SONOMA11.13.2015

1/8" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1/8" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLAN

1/8" = 1'-0"1st STREET ELEVATION

58

' - 3

"

TRASH

P-14

PARKING GARAGE

P-15

1

2

3

4

8

7

5

STAIR

P-13

MECH

P-17

REST ROOM

P-16

RETAIL SPACE

P-18

67' - 3" 28' - 0" 42' - 0"

COMMERCIAL UNIT2,089 GSF

ELEVATOR

P-12

6

MIN

10

' - 0

"

20' - 0" 26' - 0" 20' - 0"

10

' - 0

"

VESTIBULE

P-11

STAIR

P-10

SECOND FLOOR OVERHANG ABOVE

BALCONIES ABOVE

OPEN

137' - 3"

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - GROUND FLOOR PLAN &ELEVATION

MULTI-USE - RESIDENTIAL PARKING & COMMERCIALSPACE SONOMA

11.13.2015

1/8" = 1'-0"GROUND FLOOR PLAN NORTH

1/8" = 1'-0"1st STREET ELEVATION

65' - 0" 28' - 0" 42' - 0"

58

' - 3

"

STAIR

P-23

135' - 0"

33

' - 0

"1

0' -

6"

32

' - 2

"

16' - 6" 16' - 0" 16' - 0" 16' - 6"

ELEVATOR

P-22

CORRIDOR

P-21STAIR

P-20

INN - SUITE

H2-01

INN - SUITE

H2-02INN - SUITE

H2-03

INN - SUITE

H2-04

INN - SUITE

H2-05

INN - SUITE

H2-06

INN - SUITE

H2-07

INN - SUITE

H2-08

W/D

MURPHYBED

DW

CLOS

F-3

LAUNDRY

F-2

BATH

F-4

STUDIO

F-1

DW

CLOS

G-3

UNIT G442 GSF

UNIT D622 GSF

UNIT E640 GSF

KITCHEN

D-1

LIVING

D-2

BED-1

D-3

CLOSET

D-4

BATH

D-5

LIVING / DINING

E-1

KITCHEN

E-3

CLOS

E-2

BED-1

E-4

CLOS

E-5

BATH

E-6

UNIT F640 GSF

PATIO

PATIOPATIOPATIO PATIO

PATIOPATIOPATIO PATIO PATIO

PATIO

PATIO

PATIO

INN - SUITE

H2-09

PATIO

STUDIO

G-1

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - SECOND FLOOR PLAN

MULTI-USE - RESIDENTIAL & INN

SONOMA11.13.2015

NORTH


DW W D

DW

LIVING / DINING

K-5

KITCHEN

K-6

HALL

K-7

LAUNDRY

K-8MECH

K-9

BATH

K-10

BEDROOM-1

K-11

W.I.C.

K-12

W.I.C.

K-13BEDROOM-2

K-14

BATH

K-15

PATIO

K-4

STAIR

P-33 UNIT K1,824 GSF

BEDROOM-1

L-7

BATH

L-9

BEDROOM-2

L-10

PATIO

L-3

UNIT L2,582 GSF

PATIO

M-14

FRZR REF

DW

FRZR REF

PWDR

K-2

ENTRY

K-1

CLOS

K-3

UNIT M1,824 GSF

LIVING / DINING

L-2

ENTRY

L-1

KITCHEN

L-4W.I.C.

L-5BATH

L-6

HALL

L-8

CLOSET

L-11

CLOSET

L-12

PWDR

L-13

LAUNDRY

L-14

CLOSET

L-15

BEDROOM-3

L-16BATH

L-17

MECH

L-18

ENTRY

M-1

CLOSET

M-2

KITCHEN

M-3

LIVING / DINING

M-4

PWDR

M-5

HALL

M-6

HALL

M-7

BEDROOM-1

M-8

CLOSET

M-9

BEDROOM-2

M-10 WALK IN CLOSET

M-11

BATH

M-12

MECH

M-13

ELEVATOR

P-32

CORRIDOR

P-31STAIR

P-30

PATIO

L-19

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - THIRD FLOOR

MULTI-USE - RESIDENTIAL UNITS

SONOMA11.13.2015

1/8" = 1'-0"THIRD FLOOR PLAN NORTH

UPUP

UPUP

UP

D

W

DW

COURTYARD

C1-2

LIVING ROOM

C1-3

DINING ROOM

C1-4

KITCHEN

C1-5

LAUNDRY

C1-6

PWDR

C1-7

15' X 14'

REF FZR OV

50' - 1"

46

' - 6

"

25' - 0" 36' - 4" MIN 16' - 4"

20

' - 1

"STOR.

C1-29

1-CAR GARAGE

C1-01

20

' - 0

"

1-CAR GARAGE -GUEST UNIT

H4-01

UP

10' - 0"10' - 0"

HALL

C1-8

CLOS

C1-9

W.I.C.

C1-10

BEDROOM-1

C1-11

BATH

C1-12

FIREPIT

OUTDOOR STORAGE

HALL

C1-20

LINEN

C1-21

W.I.C.

C1-22

BEDROOM-2

C1-23

BATH

C1-24

BEDROOM-3

C1-25WALK IN CLOSET

C1-26

BATH

C1-27

15' X 14'

14' X 15'DECK & PERGOLA

C1-28

LANDING

GUEST UNIT

H4-03

SKYLIGHTABOVE

MECHANICAL

BATH

H4-05

CLOSET

H4-04STAIR

H4-02

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - UNIT C-1 PLANS


SONOMA11.13.2015



DW

COURTYARD

C2-02

LIVING ROOM

C2-03

DINING ROOM

C2-04

KITCHEN

C2-05

LAUNDRY

C2-06

1-CAR GARAGE

C2-01

30

' - 6

"1

6' -

6"

47

' - 0

"

51' - 6"

W D

HALL / STAIR

C2-09

25

' - 0

"5

' - 6

"

14' X 15'

20' - 0"

1-CAR GARAGE -GUEST UNIT

H4-01

/FR.

PWDR RM

C2-07

CLOSET

C2-08UP

UP

43

' - 0

"

18' - 6"

FIREPIT

10

' - 0

"1

0' -

0"

BATH

C2-11

BEDROOM-1

C2-10W.I.C.

C2-12

OV

TRASH ALCOVEBELOW

OUTDOORSTORAGE

DECK & PERGOLA

C2-21

BEDROOM-2

C2-22

BEDROOM-3

C2-28

BATH

C2-24

HALL / STAIR

C2-25

14' x 15' 12' x 12'

GUEST UNIT

H4-03

CLOSET

C2-23

LINEN

C2-30

DN

W.I.C.

C2-32

BATH

C2-31

SKYLTABOVE

STAIR

H4-02

CLOS.

H4-04BATH

H4-05

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - UNIT C-2 PLANS &ELEVATIONS


SONOMA11.13.2015



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

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

UP

68' - 0"

56

' - 0

"

6' -

0"

44

' - 0

"6

' - 0

"

28' - 0"40' - 0"

LOBBY

CH-13

RECEPTION

CH-14OFFICE

CH-15

MEN'S

CH-16

WOMEN'S

CH-17

BAR / CAFE

CH-18

BAR

CH-19

KITCHEN

CH-20

STORAGE

CH-21

LIVING ROOM

CH-22OPEN ABOVE

OPEN TO BELOW

OPENTO

BELOW

OFFICE

CH-22

LOBBY

CH-21

STORAGE

CH-23

EQUIPMENT

CH-24

OFFICE

CH-25

STORAGE

CH-26

MINI SPA

CH-27

540 SF765 SF

DN

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - CLUB HOUSE PLANS &ELEVATIONS

COMMERCIAL SPACE

SONOMA11.13.2015



1/8" = 1'-0"CLUB HOUSE ENTRY ELEVATION

UP

UP

14

' - 6

"

36' - 0"

12

' - 0

"ENTRY

H1-01

CLOS.

H1-02

BATH

H1-03BED

H1-04

LIVING

H1-05

PATIO

H1-06

MECH

H1-07

8' -

6"

INN - UNIT H-1 & H-2CONCEPT-A




10' - 6"

STAIR LANDING

14

' - 6

"

36' - 0"

12

' - 0

"

ENTRY

H3-15

BATH

H3-17

PATIO

H1-20

MECH

H1-21

8' -

6"

INN - UNIT H-3SUITE

10' - 6"

INN - UNIT H-3SUITE

DN

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - UNIT H-1, H-2 & H-3PLANS & ELEVATIONS

INN - PROTOTYPE ROOMS - CONCEPT A

SONOMA11.13.2015

1/8" = 1'-0"H-1 GARDEN UNITS & H-2 2ND FLOOR UNITS

1/8" = 1'-0"H-3 THIRD FLOOR SUITES

1/8" = 1'-0"INTERIOR COURT ELEVATION

UP UP

36

' - 0

"

INN - UNIT H-1CONCEPT-B

ST

AIR

LA

ND

ING 14' - 6"



ENTRY

H1-01

CLOS.

H1-02

BATH

H1-03

BED

H1-04

LIVING

H1-05 MECH

H1-07


PATIO

H1-06


ST

AIR

LA

ND

ING

INN - UNIT H-3SUITE

INN - UNIT H-3SUITE

INN - UNIT H-3ADJOINING SUITE

, CALIFORNIA

1st STREET EASTCONCEPT - UNIT H-1, H-2 & H-3PLANS & ELEVATIONS

INN - PROTOTYPE ROOMS - CONCEPT B

SONOMA11.13.2015

1/8" = 1'-0"H-1 GARDEN UNITS & H-2 2ND FLOOR UNITS

1/8" = 1'-0"H-3 THIRD FLOOR SUITES

1/8" = 1'-0"2nd STREET ELEVATION

Item 3 Cloisters Study Session

Documents

Transcript of Item 3 Cloisters Study Session