Permit Sonoma releases fourth proposal for Sonoma Developmental Center

After critical feedback from community workshops, public surveys and stakeholder meetings on the first three proposals for the Sonoma Developmental Center, on Friday the county announced a fourth alternative. With a hotel, 900-1,000 units of housing and a focus on jobs, the proposal is similar to the options already under consideration.

Sonoma Valley community groups have sent letters to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in recent weeks expressing their concerns over redevelopment plans at SDC, which will impact the future of housing, jobs and conservation on the nearly 1,000-acre site.

“We tried to implement the public feedback where we could,” Bradley Dunn, a policy manager at Permit Sonoma said. “For open space and for buffers, it was something that we heard loud and clear from the community.”

The new design by Permit Sonoma would preserve more than 700 acres of open space, the Eldridge Cemetery, the Main Building, Sonoma House and would expand the buffers around the ecologically sensitive Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor, a county press release said. The project description also calls for renovating historic buildings at the site for use as visitor accommodations and a boutique hotel, although unlike other proposals that called for a 100-room hotel, it is not clear how big the hotel proposed in the fourth option would be. The project description cites other examples of adaptive reuse in Northern California, including Glen Ellen’s Chauvet, a hotel turned condos; and Cavallo Point in Sausalito, which turned an army base into a hotel.

1-14-22-Press Release_ SDC_project_description_PR.pdf

“We hope the public understands the importance of a hotel to the financial feasibility of the project and looks at the kind of examples at Cavallo Point and the Inn at the Presidio,” Dunn said. “If you look at the cost for reusing historically significant buildings, the cost is quite high... visitors serving hospitality in a beautifully restored historic building makes the most sense considering the costs involved.”

Between 900 to 1,000 more units of housing would be created, along with 250 units of “deed-restricted affordable housing.” In addition, the new proposal would build new community facilities for recreation and fire services. A multitude of residential designs are proposed to provide housing variety and density, using models from townhouses to duplexes, and small lots to stacked flats.

A highlight in the new proposal is the “Agrihood,” an agrarian portion of the campus that would connect SDC’s main residential area to the other neighborhoods in Eldridge and Glen Ellen. The project describes it as, “detached, small cottages and/or duplexes” clustered around working agriculture. “They can be one or two story, and would likely be rented to individuals who are involved in the working agriculture program.” The Agrihood was originally included in the Alternative C proposal and received enthusiastic community support, according to Dunn.

“This idea was in that alternative and got really positive feedback from people that mentioned it,” Dunn said. “But with Sonoma County's deep roots in agriculture, we thought it was important to continue that connection to the land and the surrounding community at SDC.”

The original three proposals by Permit Sonoma received disapproval from much of the public and members of Sonoma Valley’s municipal advisory councils, which aid the Board of Supervisors in collecting public feedback. The original three proposals, which ranged from 900 to 1,200 units of housing, with a hotel and conservation projects, are similar to the newly proposed alternative. Community advisory groups and the public asked the county for more time to create a new proposal or establish a land trust that could oversee the financial redevelopment.

But Permit Sonoma has made it clear that the state could walk away if the county attempts to delay a decision. The property is owned by the state and is expected to cost $100 million dollars for the restoration of dilapidated buildings on the SDC campus.

The press release also noted the novel partnership between the state and Sonoma County, as it is the first time a local agency has been allowed to provide input in the “redevelopment of a state psychiatric facility.”

It is yet unclear how local officials will respond to the new proposal on the table. Attempts to reach representatives of the North Sonoma Valley and Springs municipal advisory councils were not successful by press time on Monday.

“We are listening and this is not the end of the process,” Dunn said. “After the Board of Supervisors, we're going to be working on policies associated with this proposal and then going through to environmental review. And both of those steps are going to have extensive public engagement... to continue to refine the project description.”

The Sonoma Developmental Center’s redevelopmentf will be discussed by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Jan. 25. The general meeting begins at 8:30 a.m., with the SDC discussion expected to happen at 3 p.m.

Contact Chase Hunter at chase.hunter@sonomanews.com and follow @Chase_HunterB on Twitter.