Planning Commission eyes Sonoma Gateway Commons

Plans for the old Sonoma Truck and Auto site at 870 Broadway were unveiled Thursday before the Sonoma Planning Commission.

Called Sonoma Gateway Commons, it includes a 36-room boutique hotel, 15 apartment units, and a culinary promenade, akin to Oxbow Market in Napa, on the two-acre site on the northeast corner of Broadway and MacArthur. A surprise was a 56-car parking lot on the west side of Broadway that includes the refurbishment of the Union 76 Station.

Michael Pattinson of Bull, Stockwell, and Allen, a San Francisco design firm, said the plans were developed after several informal public meetings to try to determine what might be acceptable uses on the site. The property is owned by Owen Smith of Sunlever Corporation, a Southern California development firm.

Billed as a study session, this was an opportunity for the commissioners and the public to view an official proposal and provide feedback to the applicants. It is the first step in a long development process that will include many public hearings.

Drawing the most concern at this first look was parking, both the on-site configuration and the off-site lot. Other issues were the three-story hotel element, the size of the culinary pavilion, traffic safety with so many schools near by, and general compatibility of the uses with the rest of the neighborhood.

There is also the issue of demolition: All the structures on the site are scheduled to be torn down. While the site once held the Cumberland College building, an 1864 structure that served as the first high school, and a second building that was built later as a high school, only remnants of these buildings remain.

A description of the three major components of the project are as follows:

The hotel building would be an L-shaped, three-story structure oriented toward the northeast corner of the site. The hotel entrance would be on the south, fronting a circular drop-off and parking area (with 16 stalls for the apartments) accessed from East MacArthur Street. The lower floor would encompass the lobby, housekeeping and office areas, a lounge, two meeting spaces, and guestrooms.

The second and third floors would be guestrooms. A swimming pool and deck would adjoin the hotel building at the northeast corner of the site. The hotel would feature all valet parking.

The 15 apartment units would be divided between two buildings aligned north/south through the center of the site. The first of these, an L-shaped building fronting East MacArthur Street, would feature five apartments and one townhome. While the townhome would have a third floor, the main portion of the building would be two stories in height.

The second building, a rectangular structure located west of the hotel building, would feature nine apartments. A covered outdoor dining area associated with the culinary promenade would be placed between the two buildings.

The culinary promenade is a rectangular structure located at the southwest corner of the property oriented along the Broadway frontage. It would have an open floor plan allowing for multiple small tenants and is conceived as an indoor farmers market highlighting local produce and specialty foods.

A 21-stall parking lot would be located in the northwest corner of the property, fronting Broadway. It would be entered from the south driveway, with the north driveway serving as an exit.

“My challenge is the unusual parking arrangement,” said Bill Blum, general manager of MacArthur Place, a neighboring business. “Valet parking does not always go over with the guests and it’s pricey to do.” He added, however, that he thought it was an exciting project that would revitalize Broadway.

David Eichar also liked the over-all project, but he did not like the size of the hotel. “Putting a three-story building on Broadway doesn’t fit with the neighborhood.”

Carol Marcus, a neighbor, said the project does not fit the spirit of the General Plan. “Promoting pedestrian friendly development is to keep the parking within the projects, not to find remote parking elsewhere.”

The planning commissioners agreed that parking has to be addressed further and perhaps in a different way. Among suggestions were: underground parking, a second level on the remote lot, moving parking away from the front of the hotel.

Some wanted the culinary promenade to be increased, but only if the parking issue can be resolved. Commissioner Gary Edwards opposed this because it might encourage events and the morphing of retail food uses into restaurants.

He also brought up the issue of employee parking. All agreed that the uses and the design has to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Robert Felder, who opposed the three-story element of the hotel, said, “Don’t try too hard to bring the big city to Sonoma. It still has a different feel than San Francisco. Make sure what you do fits the town.”

In other business, the Commission:

Approved an 11-unit apartment complex at 840 W. Napa St., a long narrow strip that also has access onto Spain Street.

Approved a seven-unit development of detached single family homes at 800 W. Spain on the old Hatchery site where buildings were recently demolished.

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.