First Street East development raises ire of neighbors

Is the proposed First Street East development too large in scale for its neighborhood?|

After two hours of public comment, the City of Sonoma's seven planning commissioners gave only broad feedback to the local developers of the newly rechristened 'First Street East' project at a special meeting held last Thursday to discuss the project formerly known as 'the Cloisters.'

The overall concern echoed by each commissioner was that the project is too large in scale for the northwest Sonoma neighborhood in which it is proposed. Caymus Capital developers Ed Routhier and JJ Abodeely presented plans for 21 houses, a hotel, a pool and clubhouse and a restaurant on the 3.4 acre lot.

More than 100 First Street East-area neighbors and other interested citizens crowded the Community Meeting room. The broad concerns raised by neighbors, and echoed by the commissioners, included too little parking, buildings that are too high (three stories), a hotel with too many rooms (49), a restaurant with too many seats (112) and houses that are too big to readily fall into the category of what residents and commissioners consider 'affordable.'

While the project includes 21 dwellings – seven rental units and 14 houses – the plan drew flack for its units over 2,000 square feet. The public commenters repeatedly stressed the need for more lower-cost housing in Sonoma.

Several neighbors voiced their preference that the site be developed only with housing, but the commissioners and city planner David Goodison reminded the audience that because the land is already permitted as mixed use, that is indeed how it likely will be developed.

According to Routhier, the lot is the largest undeveloped mixed-use property left in Sonoma. He noted that the revenue generated for the city from the parcel should be a consideration. He projected that if the site was developed only with houses, it would generate only $400,000 in income to the City over the next five years, while a small hotel on the property would contribute $5.7 million to the City coffers, and an all-hospitality project would generate $14 million over five years.

Routhier pointed out that the city has only 550 rooms, despite sometimes 3,000 to 10,000 visitors on a weekend. He presented a statistic that it takes 23 day-trippers to add the same income to the City as one person spending the night.

The idea of the 49-room hotel was a primary point of contention among those in attendance, as was the size of the proposed restaurant. Richard Peters, a First Street East resident, pointed out that the proposed 112-seat restaurant is bigger than most existing restaurants in town.

Traffic was also a key area of concern, as a dozen people stepped forward to note that the proposed development site is located between two small streets with no east-west egress. Molly Farrell, of Second Street East, warned that if there was a fire on the hill, it might be impossible to evacuate guests and residents in time.

Only a weekday traffic analysis was provided. One speaker questioned why all the project traffic is routed onto First Street East, instead of both First and Second streets east. One neighbor pointed out that perhaps it was because Routhier himself lives on Second Street East.

Also raising ire among his neighbors was the fact that Routhier stressed how well the development would serve that neighborhood, while several muttered that his house on Second Street West is currently for sale.

As the meeting neared the end of its third hour, commissioner James Cribb pointed out the neighborhood in question is a true microcosm of Sonoma because it currently include a farm, event space, apartments, homes, open space, manufacturing, a school, a vineyard and lodging.

In guiding their thinking on what kind of development makes sense there, the commissioners referred repeatedly to City of Sonoma's General Plan. They pointed out that while the General Plan urges infilling (or dense development) inside the City lines, it also states that new development should be in keeping with the neighborhood in which it sits.

After a Second Street East neighbor complained that the project would disrupt their 'slice of heaven,' West Side renter Gary Hulquist spoke up in favor of the project because it did offer additional housing options within City limits. 'You [the project neighbors] live in heaven but the rest of us need a place to live,' he countered. 'Infill and housing should be paramount.'

The commissioners made it clear early on that they had too many issues with the project to provide actionable feedback to the developers at the meeting. Chairman Bill Willers seemed to speak for the panel when he said, 'My responsibility is to uphold the General Plan. I don't believe that this project meets the spirit or intent of the General Plan. As it is now, it is too far from the development code and is requesting too many exclusions.'

The room had largely cleared by the time the commissioners had finished speaking. Routhier took to the podium again to thank the commissioners for their comments as well as those from the neighbors.

'I'm open,' he said. 'I'm not committed to any one direction. It has been an education and stimulating in an intellectual and an emotional way.'

The seven commissioners agreed that the turnout of more than 100 neighbors for last Thursday's meeting was more than any of them could remember since the Rosewood Hotel proposal in 1999.

A citizen's group has formed a website fseandme.org. The developer has a website at fseproject.com. The FSE complete plan is available at sonomacity.org/Government/Councils-Commissions/Planning-Commission.aspx (1/28/16 packet).

Email Lorna at lorna.sheridan@sonomanews.com.

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.