Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MR. RUDERMAN: You don't need to see me
for this. I think you can ~- ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Okay.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN: I
don't think we'll be able to hear you.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
All right, well, we can get them back.
.I.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: But you
have a nice —— ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Yeah, and I do have a little bit of clarifying
information. There was a question in 2018 what
the historic report said. So, in 2018 it was not
listed federally or state, it was of local
importance.
But also, a vacation rental wasn't
requested so that sixth finding didn't need to be
met for the project.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Oh, Okay.
.1.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
So, the finding —— so, we have the normal use
permit findings of approval and I'm assuming
we're talking about the adaptive reuse.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: This is not the
findings; this is your recommendatiOn.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Oh, sorry I didn't know that we had done that
yet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: It's
19.42.030.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Yeah, I got it, we're just having here, here.
Here, we go. So, the beginning of the finding is
important too. The Planning Commission shall
approve with or without conditions the adaptive
reuse of a historic structure only if all of the
following findings can be made.
The alteration or adaptive reuse would
the first is enhance, perpetuate, preserve,
protect, and restore those historic districts,
neighborhoods sites, structures, and zoning
districts which contribute to the aesthetic and
cultural benefit of the City.
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Kristina, is
this for the vacation rental or the wine tasting?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
This is all of them.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: So, I think
it was around specifically the language around
like the vacation ——
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Well,
that's number six.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Yeah, I wasn't sure if you wanted to go through
all of them or.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: I wanted
to go through —— well, this is very helpful. I
mean I
—— maybe it was in my packet I hadn't ——
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
It's in the resolution.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Yeah, all
right. I'll get it in the online.
.L
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Let's leave it up
though if we could.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Yeah,
because this is really going to —— it should be
guiding our discussion about what we're thinking
about this.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
And number two stabilize and improve the economic
value of historic districts, neighborhoods, sites
structures, and zoning districts. To preserve
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 diverse architectural design reflecting phases of
the City's history and encourage design Styles
and construction methods and materials that are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Four, promote and encourage continued
private ownership and utilization of structures
now so owned and used. Five, substantially
comply with the applicable Secretary of the
Interior standards and guidelines for the
treatment of historic properties as well as the
applicable requirements and guidelines of this
chapter.
So, all five of those were made for the
previous project and the Commission made those
five findings for the adaptive reuse permit in
2018. What was not addressed in 2018 because a
vacation rental was not proposed. The additional
—~ the following additional finding is required
for applications for adaptive reuse as a vacation
rental.
Six states, restore and rehabilitate a
historic structure and or property excluding
second units which is listed or eligible for
listing on the State Register of Historic Places
that has fallen into such a level of disrepair
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are
necessary to stem further deterioration, correct
deficient conditions, or avoid demolition as
implemented in the conditions of project
approval.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.
Thank you. And this is in our resolution?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Other
comments? Mr. Wirick.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: I've got
a lot of comments and a lot of thoughts and a lot
of notes. Are we ready to dive into this
conversation?
COMMISSIONERSTEVE BARBOSE: That's
what we're here for.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: All
right. The Cooperage Building is awesome, it's
fantastic.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Talk into your
mic.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: The
Cooperage Building is awesome and it's fantastic
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 and all those great things. I don't —— I haven't
heard one person say anything negative tonight
about how that building has turned out, and I
think that's a testament to the professionals
involved and to the Applicant.
It contributes significant
significantly to the historic fabric of our town
and our rich architectural history. I hear that
,congratulations are in order too for Sonoma
League for historic preservation award from last
year, which is great. Kudos to all those
involved for that.
It's, you know, it's clear to me that
the Applicant pulled all the stops, and the cost
was really no object for this project and how
great for the building. While I appreciate the
significant efforts toward the historic
preservation, some of the uses requested are a
little troubling to me.
Aside from the implications around
neighborhood compatibility that we've heard
tonight from neighbors, the sticking point for me
in this whole thing is the ability of this body
to make the findings necessary to support
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
approving the use as a vacation rental
specifically.
In my reading of 19.42.030 which is the
—— Kristinaif you would throw that back up on
the screen, which outlines our —— or the findings
that we must make. It's six conditions here that
we have to meet or that we have to observe in
order to approve its use as a vacation rental.
Including the special finding in number six.
The essence of number six in my reading
is but for the approval of this as a vacation
rental as a means of infusing economic
feasibility that the historic structure would
fall into such a state of disrepair that it would
crumble and need to be demolished.
In fact, the actual language is the
economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary
to stem further deterioration. The prima facie
rationale reflected in the project's narrative
provided by the Applicant says that the uses are
being requested to one, add property value for
resale and two, to partially offset the cost,
high Cost of construction.
Which while true and transparent are
not supported by the development code as findings
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
of approval. The fact set around this project as
a hole I don't think lends itself well to making
a finding of economic shortcoming or necessity as
the code says. And it's tantamount to an ex post
facto approval. I mean it's kind of outside the
normal SOP around how these things are granted.
I mean between September 2015 and
August of 2022 there were no less than 12
building permits issued for this location with
the last permit finale in November of 2024. In
addition to that the use permit that was granted
in May of 2018 did not as we've discussed did not
seek vacation rental and that coupled with the
scale of the project it's subsequently added
features, its amenities, its appointments, and
finishes all nice ~~ I'm just challenged in
finding that the use as a vacation rental is the
only thing standing between viability and
insolvency.
And I'm challenged too by the
retroactive application of the adaptive reuse
provision. And this is all notwithstanding the
fact that the May 2018 use permit expressly
disallowed the use of the site as a vacation
rental.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
l7
l8
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 And while you know we don't know the
specific rationale behind the Planning Commission
at the time expressly and maybe preemptively
stating that that would be a disallowed use, I
can conclude that the Planning Commission saw fit
to enshrine in those conditions that there's a
belief in the community that more vacation
rentals above that which were already
grandfathered in have a detrimental effect to
neighborhoods.
We've heard neighborhood concerns
around the application compatibility, noise,
parking availability, traffic congestion.
There's definitely consensus in the neighborhood
that that there are some things here of concern.
And that taken in concert with other factors I
think have the effect of casting doubt as to as
to general plan consistency too, which calls for
compatibility with neighborhood context.
I think for those reasons I would have
a hard time supporting an amendment to allow the
use as a vacation rental. I might be open to
discussing the merits of a wine tasting use
permit in this case, I'd like to hear what other
Commissioners have to say. You know, in my
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 opinion that doesn't diverge wholly from the
impacts of the existing approved use and that all
activities occur indoors and are governed by you
know a revocable permit that addresses nuisance
issues.
You know whether people are trying to
on caps or sipping wine I don't think that's —— I
think that's of limited consequence as it relates
to neighborhood impact. You know, as it stands
now there's no head counter or capacity limits
imposed by anything other than the fire code.
So, I don't think that the grant of a WTP is
outside the realm but would like to hear input
from the rest of the commission on this topic.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you,
Commissioner. Would —— Mr. Willers.
COMMISSIONER BILL WILLERS: Thank you,
Commissioner Wirick. I think you hit all of the
substantial points in this and very thoroughly.
And I want to stop —— start with the first
paragraph of section 19.42.030 which says the
adaptive reuse of historic structures within the
Historic Overlay District involving uses not
otherwise allowed through the base zone may be
Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1€[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
allowed subject to the approval and conditional
use in compliance with the following ordinances.
In other words, while the finding says
the Planning Commission shall approve, first we
have to find the threshold of whether or not this
is an adaptive reuse. The way I look at this
permit is that it is a wholly separate use
permit, it is not an amendment to an original use
permit. The original use permit has been
effectuated, the building is built, the permit is
finalized, and it is a building.
It is now a use permit asking for an
intensification of use of a —— of an existing
structure and an existing use. And it is no
longer an adaptive reuse under the adaptive reuse
ordinance. I will not be able to make the
finding number six to allow for a vacation rental
given that context. And I think that the wine
tasting use permit is actually an encroachment
into a residential district that for the most
part our general plan does not support. So,
those are my comments.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you, Mr.
Willers. Who'd like to go next? Matt, could you
turn off your mic?
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Are you
kicking me off?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Mr. Barbose.
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: I would
agree with both of all the opinions expressed by
Mr. Wirick and Mr. Willers. I don't think that
this using the adaptive reuse is appropriate here
for the reasons Mr. Willers just mentioned. This
is really an application for a separate use
permit to allow things that weren't allowed
before. And it can't be justified because of the
adaptive reuse because the work has already been
done.
It —- the project is complete, it's
beautiful we all say that. It's gorgeous, but
it's not an adaptive reuse anymore, you've
already done that. We're done with adaptive
reuse that ship has sailed.
So, I am not going to vote in favor of
either the vacation rental or the wine tasting.
There is no way a wine tasting is going to right
the economic ship that is apparently necessary
even if were even talking adaptive reuse.
But given that it's a residential
neighborhood, I just I'm not going to approve a
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
wine tasting in it and I'm definitely not
approving a vacation rental.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. MS.
O'Neill.
COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: First of
all, thank you to the professionals and to the
McQuown's for the incredible job done on this
property. It's truly beautiful and I
think the
saving of the well was really a great decision
and I do want more of the public to have access
to this and be able to see this. I think it's a
very special property and I would like to see
more of the public be able to get in there and
see it.
Cost isn't our issue; we're the
Planning Commission and we have nothing to do
with the economic ability of any applicant. And
also, because we know the Applicants can sell the
property and we know in particular in this one
they are selling it so none of that is an issue
for us. So, I want to just put all that aside
and say I feel for them but it's just not our
issue.
I liked that historic photo that
Michael Ross showed with the live above work
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 below that was so cool. And I'd like to see it
continue live above, work below, not vacation
rental above but live above, work below. I would
like to see that.
I live next to a vacation rental, and I
know exactly how vacation rentals work and how
noisy they can be and especially with a pool.
And we're not looking for more vacation rentals
in the City of Sonoma, we are looking for more
housing. There's still the ability with this
property even with the current permit to do a 31—
day plus rental and that option still exists.
There's the ADU there and if the ADU is
going to be rented by somebody they really don't
want to be with a vacation rental as well. So, I
think that that's just a nonissue. I think that
the item six is the clincher. It's you know we
just we can't make those findings number six both
in the vacation rental and in the wine tasting
use permit.
And the wine tasting use permit it says
the property used will not adversely affect the
welfare of the area residents. These residents
supported you in 2018 and there —— the work was
done, and this work was completed in a fabulous
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 way, but that was because you had the
neighborhood support.
Neighborhood support is so critical,
and you definitely do not have neighborhood
support here now. So, I think that you really
just have to recognize that the neighbors did get
you to this point. If too much money was spent
and they went too far down the rabbit hole or the
artisan well hole, that's really great you guys
did a wonderful project and it will outlast all
of you, but it's not our place to save you
economically.
Caution to the neighbors, the
property's empty now somebody's going to move in
there you might have the noisiest neighbors with
a pool party every single day of the year. And
you're not going to have any control over that so
just keep in mind that you know with a vacation
rental at least you do have the ability to have
some regulations there. With ownership you're
not going to have any of those regulations so
caution.
Vacation rental, if this had come
forward and it was a dilapidated building, and we
could have looked at it that would be something I
Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1endar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 think we would really have looked at. But what
we've seen even like with the Maysonnave Cottage
people have come together with proposals to put
together the Maysaonnave Cottage and make it a
short—term rental. It was the original vacation
rental in the City Of Sonoma, but nobody has been
able to find a way to develop it in such a way
that it was economically feasible.
If somebody then does the work and it's
not economically feasible and they come to us for
help, sorry we're not here to help you
economically we are just here to look at
planning, and building, and use permits. So,
that's not our position to help. I do think that
this property contributes massively to the
Historic Train District and I'm so glad it was
sold —— it was sold to the McQuown's and that
they did all this work. I really appreciate
that, but we just can't make the findings for
either a vacation rental or a wine tasting use
permit.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. Yes.
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: I'll try to
be succinct because I pretty much agree with
everything that's been said. And I do want to
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 reiterate the incredible craftsmanship and the
dedication of the owners to reestablishing this
property. And also, to Kristina for the
extensive work you did and the you know the
options that you gave us to consider. So, I
really appreciate that.
But I would agree I mean while I
empathize with the owners, I mean I've owned an
old house and discovered crazy things that I had
to deal with, it really can't be part of our
decision. Especially when we heard in some of
the narrative that the building was yellow tagged
when it started.
So, there was an expectation that there
would be a lot of work that would need to be
done. I think the bottom line for me, and this
was a series of conflict for me to try to
resolve, was that you know the original building
was residential on top and commercial on the
bottom.
And the original permit asked for the
same. And in all honesty, those are revenue
streams. So, and what I heard tonight was the
wine taste, I'm paraphrasing, but the wine
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
tasting room was more of a branding it wasn't
necessarily going to bring a lot of revenue.
And so, really based on those things
and based on the fact that that we have met the
five aspects of approval, I too am not inclined
to support this amendment and really am more
supportive of the original permit from 2018.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER AMY O'GORMANeJENKINS:
Well, I don't know how much more I can add to the
eloquent comments from my colleagues, but I have
to say I concur with all of them. I did a lot of
—~ I spent a lot of time deliberating this and I
think Matt put it together quite well. What I
was really focused on going into this was
community, neighborhood compatibility.
I don't think that criteria has been
sufficiently met with this request and like my
colleagues I'm just simply not prepared to
approve it tonight. So, thank you and thanks to
the work of my colleagues. And I do too want to
acknowledge the spectacular work this is truly
beautiful project, a true community benefit, and
I do hope the public has the opportunity to see
it and thank you for that.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIRLARRY BARNETT: Thank you, all.
I'll wrap up. I'm not going to really add much
more to what's already been said, I concur with
all of it. When I proposed the vacation rental
'ordinance in 1999 it was because I could see that
there was a risk of Sonoma evolving into
neighborhoods without neighbors. And I didn't
want to see that happen and I still don't want to
see it happen.
When I see what's happened in the
county and the complaints and things that people
in the county have had to put up with as the
proliferation of vacation rentals has proceeded
there, then I'm ever more convinced that we
dodged a real bullet here in the town. And I'm
appreciative that I had the support of my fellow
council members in 1999 to prevent it from
happening.
This is an odd situation. This is a
project that for me falls in the category of
having started as a vanity project. It was going
to be a special project that frankly some very
wealthy people wanted to do because it was going
to be fun and interesting and exciting and be a
place to live in town.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 And it was not presented at the time to
be an investment with a projected return. It
was about something else and what we see as the
result, and I concur with everybody else when I
walk to the farmers market I cut through Casa
Grande parking lot and I take a look to the west
and I see the building and it presents the
profile that it always has I feel pleased and
proud of the effort that was done to keep the
integrity of that building on the street. And
with the others I agree it’s lovely.
Now, the issue now is that since the
plan is no longer for it to be a residence for
the owner and I want to say there's a line in the
findings that talk about encouraging private
ownership. I'm trying to find out what the
alternative to private ownership is. I mean a
corporation can own a piece of property and so
there's some wording there that we need to look
at that private ownership is a term without
reference.
You know what's happened now is it
basically this is an investment property and
unfortunately given the unintended expense and
cost, the owner will never rescue or get a return
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 l3
14 15'
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 on the investment. What I know of the owners of
the building is that this will not impact you
know what they have for breakfast tomorrow
morning.
They own Stone Edge Farm which is a
remarkable project of its own in terms of energy
and hydrogen generation and battery technologies
and as a micro grid. I've had a tour of that
property, it's an amazing place. And these are
really quite remarkable people who I think for
very good reasons decided to get involved with
this project and then for whatever probably Very
good reasons as well, changed their mind about
what they wanted to do.
So, where are we today? Now we have a
project for sale and someone's going to buy it
either to live there or as an investment
property. Now if it becomes a bed and breakfast
in a wine tasting room and that goes with the
land then it truly becomes an investment
property.
Because is it if it's a vacation rental
given the nature of the space, the beauty of the
work that was put into it, this is not going to
be $199 a night vacation rental this is going to
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 be a $10,000 a weekend vacation rental. So, it's
going to —— if it becomes an investment property
it changes everything. And I certainly think
that the implication of private ownership is not
that a property becomes an investment property.
I don't know what to make of that term
private ownership, but it implies to me owner
occupied. It, you know, at —— in its best
manifestation. So, with the rest of the
Commission at this point I cannot support the
requested uses and I'd like some guidance from
City staff as to what kind of motion we now bring
to the floor to resolve the issue for tonight.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JENNIFER
GATES: So, I believe based on what has been
discussed tonight that the motion will probably
be a recommendation that staff bring forward the
resolution for denial. With the findings in
regard to what I've written down is specific to
compatibility on the conditional use permit, the
wine tasting use permit, and then also on finding
number six under the adaptive reuse. That those
would be the findings for the specific to denial.
And I'll look closer, but those are the
ones I just quickly noted during the discussion.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 And then, the recommendation with that would be
that you would continue to a date certain being
May 16th that we would bring forward that item
again.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. Would
someone like to incorporate the recommendations
of our Development Director into a motion? I
don't think you have to repeat it verbatim since
we have all this on the record. Who would like
to make the motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Okay, Mr.
Chair, I will make a motion to provide direction
to staff to return with the resolution denying
the amendment to the use permit and the wine
tasting permit incorporating the what Director
Gates has enumerated in her earlier soliloquy.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: IS there a
second?
COMMISSIONER AMY O'GORMAN—JENKINS: I
second that.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. We
have a motion, roll call please, Madam.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:
Sorry I just wanted to make sure that we are
continuing to a date certain on May 16th.
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 ll
l2
l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: I would
like to amend my motion to continue to a date
certain on May 16th.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: IS that
acceptable to the second?
COMMISSIONER AMY O'GORMAN—JENKINS:
Yes, that's acceptable, thank you.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: All right, now
we're ready for the roll call vote.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner Barbose?
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Yes.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner O'Gorman—Jenkins?
COMMISSIONER AMY O'GORMAN—JENKINS:
Aye.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner O'Neill?
COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: Yes.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner Willers?
COMMISSIONER BILL WILLERS: Yes.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Commissioner Wirick?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: Yes.
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN:
Vice—Chair Dambach?
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: YeS.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Chair Barnett?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Aye.
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUDEEN: The
motion passes.
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you. Yep,
we'll take another five—minute break. We will
come back into session. I'm going to ask the
indulgence of the Commission to switch around a
few things on the agenda to give those who remain
in the audience the opportunity to get out of
here a little earlier.
So, what we're going to do is we're
going to close the public hearing portion and
then reopen it after we have received the
presentation of the general plan housing element
and the request for the interpretation of SMC
Section 1954.080, Items 51 and 52. And we're
actually going to put off the work program
discussion until-our subsequent meeting. So,
unless there's an objection to that.
COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: You lost
me are you referring to 4.3?
Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.2:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Sonya Ledanski Hyde, certify that the
foregoing transcript is a true and accurate
record of the proceedings.
Veritext Legal Solutions
330 Old Country Road
Suite 300
Mineola, NY 11501
Date: May 2, 2024
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calenda1‘—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.2:
19.42.030 Adaptive reuse.
The adaptive reuse of historic structures within the historic overlay district, involving uses not otherwise allowed through the base zone, may be allowed subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, in compliance with SMC 19.54.040 and as set forth below.
A. Eligible Structures. The following types of structures are eligible for adaptive reuse:
1. Officially Designated Structures. Those structures of officially designated historical significance as indicated by (a) listing with the State Office of Historic Preservation, or (b) listing as a locally significant historic resource, regardless of whether they are located within the historic overlay zone.
2. Structures with Potential Historical Value. In addition to officially designated structures, there are other structures that may have historical value because of their age (usually more than 50 years old), and their contribution to the overall historic character of the community due to their unique architectural scale and style, use of design details, form, materials, or proportion, as may be documented through listing on the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation’s inventory of historic structures. Such structures shall only be eligible for adaptive reuse if located within the historic overlay zone and shall not be eligible for consideration as a vacation rental.
B. Allowable Use. The following uses may be considered in an application for the adaptive reuse of a historic structure:
1. Residential Uses and Densities.
a. Allowable Residential Uses. Single- and multifamily dwellings and residential condominiums. b. Allowable Residential Densities. The allowable residential density within the historic overlay district may exceed the normally allowable density under the subject general plan designation and zoning district, subject to the approval of the planning commission.
2. Nonresidential Uses.
a. Bed and breakfast inns;
b. Hotels;
c. Limited retail;
d. Mixed use (residential over commercial) developments; e. Professional and service-oriented offices;
f. Restaurants (with or without outdoor dining facilities); and Ch. 19.42 Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone | Sonoma Municipal Code Page 1 of 3 The Sonoma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 02-2024, passed March 6, 2024.
Agenda Item #8.2:
g. Vacation rentals (limited to structures listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places); and
h. Wine tasting facilities.
C. Retention of Residential Character, Scale, and Style. Adaptive reuse projects shall retain a residential character, scale, and style (e.g., off-street parking areas would be prohibited in the front and street side setbacks, new construction would have a residential appearance, signs would be limited, etc.). The guidelines set forth in SMC
19.42.040 shall be considered by the planning commission in applications for adaptive reuse.
D. Compliance with Parking Standards. The above-listed uses shall be provided with suitable parking, in compliance with Chapter 19.48 SMC (Parking and Loading Standards).
E. Findings and Decision. The planning commission shall approve, with or without conditions, the adaptive reuse of an historic structure only if all of the following findings can be made, in addition to those identified in SMC
19.54.040 (Use permits). The alteration or adaptive reuse would:
1. Enhance, perpetuate, preserve, protect, and restore those historic districts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts which contribute to the aesthetic and cultural benefit of the city;
2. Stabilize and improve the economic value of historic districts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts;
3. Preserve diverse architectural design reflecting phases of the city’s history, and encourage design styles and construction methods and materials that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood(s);
4. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of structures now so owned and used; and
5. Substantially comply with the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties as well as the applicable requirements and guidelines of this chapter.
The following additional finding is required for applications for adaptive reuse as a vacation rental:
6. Restore and rehabilitate a historic structure and/or property, excluding second units, which is listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places, that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition as implemented in the conditions of project approval. (Ord. 03-2016 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 06-2013 § 2(A) (Exh. B), 2013; Ord. 06-2009 §§ 1 – 3, 2009; Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003. Formerly 19.42.020).
Ch. 19.42 Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone | Sonoma Municipal Code Page 2 of 3 The Sonoma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 02-2024, passed March 6, 2024.
Agenda Item #8.2:
The Sonoma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 02-2024, passed March 6, 2024.
Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Sonoma Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.sonomacity.org
Hosted by General Code.
Ch. 19.42 Historic Preservation and Infill in the Historic Zone | Sonoma Municipal Code Page 3 of 3 The Sonoma Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 02-2024, passed March 6, 2024.
Agenda Item #8.2:
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Project Specific Implementation Site
Address
Zoning Approval Date Prior & Proposed
Use(s)
Structural Improvements Planning Commission City Council 424 Second
Street West
Medium Density
Residential (R-M),
Historic Overlay
2003* Long Term Rental -
> Vacation Rental
None Proposed Approved w/ condition
to register structure w/
local survey of historic
resources
N/A
157 West Spain
Street
Medium Density
Residential (R-M),
Historic Overlay
2003* Residence ->
Vacation Rental
Kitchen and Bathroom
Renovations
Approved N/A
143 West Spain
Street
Medium Density
Residential (R-M),
Historic Overlay
2004* Residence ->
Vacation Rental
None Proposed Approved N/A
304 First Street
East
Medium Density
Residential (R-M),
Historic Overlay
2005* Residence -> Bed
& Breakfast ->
Vacation Rental
None Proposed Approved N/A
247 Fourth
Street East
Hillside Residential
(R-HS), Rural
Residential (R-R),
Historic Overlay
2006* Residence ->
Vacation Rental
None Proposed Approved N/A
151, 153, 155
East Napa
Street
Medium Density
Residential (R-M),
Historic Overlay,
Creek Setback
Overlay
2008* Triplex -> Two
Vacation Rentals
w/ One Residential
Property Manager
Increased Building Area w/
Expansion of Second
Floor Unit
Approved N/A
143 West Spain
Street
Medium Density
Residential (R-M),
Historic Overlay
2012** Residence ->
Vacation Rental
(2004) -> Office &
Wine Tasting
No External Modifications
and Potential Bathroom
Upgrade for ADA
Approved, Vacation
Rental Finding #6 Not
Applicable
Appealed and PC
Decision Upheld:
Determined that
findings for Adaptive
Reuse could be
made and included
additional conditions
for parking and
security measures
Agenda Item #8.2:
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Project Specific Implementation 180 East Napa
Street
Medium Density
Residential (R-M),
Historic Overlay
2013** Residence ->
Museum -> Admin
Office -> School ->
Wine Tasting and
Gift shop (2011) ->
Vacation Rental
No modifications, Previous
Renovations Completed
w/ Adaptive Reuse
Approved N/A
162-166 West
Spain Street
Medium Density
Residential (R-M),
Historic Overlay
2014** Residential ->
Triplex -> Mixed
Use (Office &
Apartment) ->
Vacation Rental
Interior Repairs,
Restoration, and
Improvements including
Reconstruction of Deck
Denied Appealed and PC
Decision
overturned.
Appellant provided
additional
information to
substantiate
improvements and
investment required
to restore the
building
* 2003-2008: Vacation Rentals not an allowable use, and Ordinance only includes Findings #1-4 ** 2009: Vacation Rentals added as a use, and Finding #5 for Vacation Rentals added to assess restoration and rehabilitation for the purpose of preventing further deterioration
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 Use Permit Findings
1. The proposed use is consistent with
the General Plan and any specific
plan;
The property is designated Medium
Density Residential by the General Plan.
The Medium Density Residential land use
designation is intended to provide
opportunities for multi-family housing and
related public improvement, especially in
transition areas between higher density
and single-family development. A limited
range of commercial uses can be
considered as an adaptive reuse of
historically significant buildings in the
corresponding Medium Density
Residential (R-M) zoning district, including
vacation rentals and wine tasting facilities.
2. The proposed use is allowed with a
conditional use permit within the
applicable zoning district and
complies with all applicable
standards and regulations of this
development code (except for
approved variances and exceptions);
and
The proposed project qualifies to utilize the
adaptive reuse provisions under criteria
1(b), listing as a locally significant historic
resource as the project site is a contributor
to the Historic Train District. The proposed
uses are allowed with approval of the
Planning Commission per SMC Section
19.42.030 (Adaptive Reuse).
…
The project does not include any building
additions and therefore there would be no
changes to setbacks, site coverage, floor
area ratio (FAR), or building height.
…
As approved in 2018, one parking space
was allocated to the primary residence,
one space for the storage area in the barn,
and one for the commercial use on the
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 lower floor. Based on the current code, two
spaces are required for the vacation rental
and one space will continue to be
maintained for the commercial use. Per
SMC Section 19.48.110 (Bicycle parking
requirements), a minimum of two shortterm and two long-term bike parking spaces are required. However, given the
new uses and neighborhood compatibility
concerns, staff recommends that six shortterm bike parking spaces be provided and that complimentary bicycles be provided
for the vacation rental to reduce car trips.
3. The location, size, design, and
operating characteristics of the
proposed use are compatible with
the existing and future land uses in
the vicinity; and
The proposed project would support the
continued historic commercial use of the
project site. As conditioned, hour of
operation and other use restrictions would
ensure that the use is compatible with
adjacent land uses.
The project site is zoned Medium Density
Residential and is located in a transitional
neighborhood which is located near the
Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with
residential development. The site is in close
proximity to several other tasting rooms on
First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and
Auteur); however, it also abuts residential
development. The site is surrounded by State
Parks land directly to the north with singlefamily homes beyond, Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the south, a singlefamily home and vacant lot to the east (across First Street West), and residential units within
Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the
west. The proposed vacation rental and wine
tasting use would expand the allowable uses
and introduce potential conflicts with the
adjacent residences as a result of noise and
operating characteristics such as noise, trash,
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 parking, and congestion. Therefore, the
operating characteristics of the proposed use
are not compatible with existing and future
land uses in the vicinity as required under
SMC § 19.54.040(E)(3).
4. The proposed use will not impair the
architectural integrity and character
of the zoning district in which it is to
be located.
The proposed project would not modify the
exterior of the existing building, and only
entails interior modifications and
improvements which would not affect
character of the adjacent neighborhood.
Adaptive Reuse Findings
1. Enhance, perpetuate, preserve,
protect, and restore those historic
districts,
neighborhoods, sites, structures,
and zoning districts which contribute
to the aesthetic and cultural benefit of
the city;
As discussed above, the proposed project
qualifies to utilize the adaptive reuse
provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a
locally significant historic resource as the
project site is a contributor to the Historic
Train District. The Sonoma Depot Historic
District consists of late 19th- and early
20th-century commercial and residential
buildings constructed in relation to the
Sonoma Depot at 270 1st Street West.
Located approximately one block north of
Sonoma Plaza, the development of the
Depot Historic District related spatially to
the alignment of the former rail line (now
the Sonoma Bike Path) and depot building.
District contributors include seven singlefamily residential buildings in Folk Victorian and vernacular cottage styles,
one two-story vernacular residential
building, two commercial buildings (the
The property recently underwent extensive
renovations under a Use Permit the Planning
Commission granted in May 2018 for the
restoration, seismic retrofit and adaptive
reuse of the historic Ince House Building and
barn. Because those renovations have been
completed, the proposed project consists of
a proposed expansion of allowed uses that
are not compatible with the surrounding
uses. Therefore, the proposed vacation rental
and wine tasting use would not enhance,
perpetuate, preserve, protect, and restore
the Historic Train District and the
neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot
be made.
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 Depot Hotel and Cooperage), and the
reconstructed Sonoma Depot and
surrounding open space. The proposed
project would support the historic use of
the property as a commercial building
while maintaining residential uses on site
and would support the continued integrity
of the Historic Train District.
2. Stabilize and improve the economic
value of historic districts,
neighborhoods, sites, structures,
and zoning districts;
The project would support the continued
commercial use of the project site and
ensure that it is utilized in an economically
beneficial manner that supports the
integrity of the Historic Train District.
The proposed vacation rental and wine
tasting use permit would not stabilize and
improve the Historic Train District and
neighborhood. The proposed project would
expand non compatible commercial uses in a
residential neighborhood and therefore this
finding cannot be made.
3. Preserve diverse architectural design
reflecting phases of the city’s history,
and encourage design styles and
construction methods and materials
that are compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood(s);
As discussed above, the project site and
Cooperage building are contributing
elements to the Historic Train District. No
construction is proposed at this time. The
recent renovation preserved and
structurally improved this structure, which
supported the integrity of the Historic Train
District.
The project site and Cooperage building are
contributing elements to the Historic Train
District. However, no construction is
proposed at this time. The proposed vacation
rental and wine tasting use permit would not
preserve the architectural design or
construction methods. Therefore, this finding
cannot be made.
4. Promote and encourage continued
private ownership and utilization
of structures now so owned and
used; and
The current project owner was responsible
for the extensive renovations completed in
2022. The proposed additional uses are
being requested to partially offset the
unexpected high cost of construction
associated with the adaptive reuse project.
Approval of the additional uses would
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 encourage other private land owners to
undertake major renovation projects.
5. Substantially comply with the
applicable Secretary of the
Interior Standards and Guidelines for
the Treatment of
Historic Properties as well as the
applicable requirements
and guidelines of this chapter.
There are no physical modifications
proposed at this time. The recent
renovation was determined to comply with
the applicable Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation.
6. Restore and rehabilitate a
historic structure and/or property,
excluding second units, which is
listed or eligible for listing on
the State Register of Historic Places,
that has fallen into such a level of
disrepair that the economic benefits
of adaptive reuse are necessary to
stem further deterioration, correct
deficient conditions, or
avoid demolition as implemented in
the conditions of project approval.
The proposed project qualifies to utilize the
adaptive reuse provisions under criteria
1(b), listing as a locally significant historic
resource as the project site is a contributor
to the Historic Train District. The
Cooperage building and the adjoining barn
have been found to be historically
significant and recently underwent a major
renovation and seismic retrofit to the
unreinforced masonry structure. The
recently completed renovation resulted in
the stabilization and strengthening of the
Cooperage building and the barn which
enabled them to be used in an
economically beneficial manner, rather
than allowing their continued
deterioration. At this time, the applicant
requests to expand the allowable uses on
site to add the use of the second floor as a
vacation rental and the lower level as a
wine tasting facility in order to help recoup
unexpected expenses associated with the
renovations.
The proposed project qualifies to utilize the
adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b),
listing as a locally significant historic resource
as the project site is a contributor to the
Historic Train District. The Cooperage building
and the adjoining barn have been found to be
historically significant and recently
underwent a major renovation and seismic
retrofit to the unreinforced masonry
structure. The recently completed renovation
resulted in the stabilization and
strengthening of the Cooperage building and
the barn which enabled them to be used in an
economically beneficial manner, rather than
allowing their continued deterioration. At this
time, the applicant requests to expand the
allowable uses on site to add the use of the
second floor as a vacation rental and the
lower level as a wine tasting facility in order
to help recoup unexpected expenses
associated with the renovations. However,
the proposed expansion of use would not
restore or rehabilitate a historic structure or
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 property that has fallen into such a level of
disrepair that the economic benefits of
adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further
deterioration. The restoration was completed
and the structure is not in a state of disrepair.
The proposed expansion of use is not
required to stem further deterioration,
correct deficient conditions, or avoid
demolition. Therefore, this finding cannot be
met.
Wine Tasting Use Permit Findings
1. The proposed use is consistent with
the General Plan and any specific
plan;
The property is designated Medium Density
Residential by the General Plan.
The Medium Density Residential land use
designation is intended to provide
opportunities for multi-family housing and
related public improvement, especially in
transition areas between higher density
and single-family development. A limited
range of commercial uses can be
considered as an adaptive reuse of
historically significant buildings in the
corresponding Medium Density
Residential (R-M) zone, including wine
tasting facilities.
2. The proposed use is allowed with a
WTUP within the applicable zoning
district and complies with all
applicable standards and regulations
of this development code (except for
approved variances and exceptions);
As discussed above, pursuant to SMC
Section 19.42.030 (Adaptive Reuse), the
adaptive reuse of historic structures within
the historic overlay district, involving uses
not otherwise allowed through the base
zoning may be allowed subject to review
and approval of a Use Permit by the
Pursuant to SMC Section 19.42.030 (Adaptive
Reuse), the adaptive reuse of historic
structures within the historic overlay district,
involving uses not otherwise allowed through
the base zoning may be allowed subject to
review and approval of a Use Permit by the
Planning Commission. The proposed project
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 Planning Commission. The proposed
project qualifies to utilize the adaptive
reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing
as a locally significant historic resource as
the project site is a contributor to the
Historic Train District. The wine tasting
facility is allowed in the RM zoning district
through the adaptive reuse provisions of
the Sonoma Municipal Code.
would qualify to utilize the adaptive reuse
provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a
locally significant historic resource as the
project site is a contributor to the Historic
Train District. However, as discussed above,
the required findings of project approval
cannot be met for the adaptive reuse as the
renovation has been completed and the
proposed expansion of use would not be
required to stabilize the property and protect
the Historic Train District.
3. The location, size, design, and
operating characteristics of the
proposed use are compatible with the
existing and future uses in the
vicinity.
The project site is zoned Medium Density
Residential and is located in a transitional
neighborhood which is located near the
Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded
with residential development. The site is in
close proximity to several other tasting
rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines,
Hawk, and Auteur); however, it does abut
residential development. The site is
surrounded by State Parks land directly to
the north with single-family homes beyond,
Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to
the south, a single-family home and vacant
lot to the east (across First Street West),
and residential units within Plaza Gardens
Condominium complex to the west. As
conditioned, the wine tasting facility is
required to comply with all applicable
special use standards, which would limit
hours of operation, noise, and other
neighborhood compatibility issues.
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 Therefore, the proposed wine tasting
facility and wine tasting bar as conditioned
would be compatible with the existing and
future uses in the vicinity.
4. For a WTUP in the PROD, the total
number of wine tasting facilities and
wine bars in the PROD, including all
legal nonconforming and all existing
wine tasting facilities and wine bars
with a valid WTUP are less than 25 in
combined total;
The project site is not located in the Plaza
Retail Overlay District (PROD) and the
numerical limits identified in Sonoma
Municipal Code Section 19.50.120 (Wine
tasting facilities and wine bars) does not
apply to this location.
5. For wine tasting facilities and wine
bars proposed to face the Plaza on
West Napa Street, First Street East,
First Street West or Spain Street,
there is no more than two wine
tasting facilities/wine bars already
located or permitted by WTUP on the
block face set forth in the application.
For the purpose of this subsection
“block face” shall mean the block
upon which the main entrance to the
wine tasting facility or wine bar is
located and shall include the
structures located at each corner of
the above mentioned streets as
depicted in figure A below;
The proposed location of the wine tasting
facility is not located adjacent to the
Sonoma Plaza or within the PROD.
Therefore, these numerical limitations do
not apply to the project site.
6. The proposed use will not adversely
affect the welfare of the area
residents, or result in an undue
concentration of establishments
The project site is zoned Medium Density
Residential and is located in a transitional
neighborhood which is located near the
Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded
with residential development. The site is in
Agenda Item #8.2:
Use Permit (UA 23-40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) for Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit
Findings Required Draft Findings of Approval April 2024 Final Findings of Denial May 2024 dispensing alcoholic beverages in the
area.
close proximity to several other tasting
rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines,
Hawk, and Auteur); however, it does abut
residential development. Conditions of
approval will ensure that neighbors are not
impacted by the proposed project by
restricting hours of operation, the number
of special events, etc.
7. The proposed use is located at an
appropriate distance from:
a. Potential sensitive or incompatible
uses such as religious facilities,
schools, public parks and
playgrounds, and other similar uses;
and
b. The size and proposed activity level
of the use will be compatible with the
uses, and/or character of, the
surrounding area.
The proposed site is not located near any
religious facilities or schools but is across
the street from Depot Park. The limited size
of the proposed tasting room and
conditions of approval which include limits
for hours of operation by appointment,
hours of operation for the general public,
and special events would ensure that the
neighborhood would not be impacted by
the proposed project.
8. The proposed use will not impair the
architectural integrity and character
of the zoning district in which it is to
be located.
The proposed use will not impair the
architectural integrity and character of the
zoning district as external modifications
are not proposed.
Agenda Item #8.2:
16 October 2024
Jennifer Gates
Director, Community Development
City of Sonoma
1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
[email protected]
Subject: “Ice House” Use Permit under the “Adaptive Reuse Ordinance” (ARO), 301 First Street West, Sonoma, CA
95476
Dear Ms. Gates:
As a member of the team for the “Ice House” adaptive re-use project at 301 First Street West I present this letter to add some general context to the history and application of “Adaptive Reuse Ordinances” (AROs) as well as to comment on how these policies apply to our project specifically.
History of Adaptive Reuse
Reusing or repurposing existing buildings is an ancient practice dating back at least to the Renaissance if not earlier.
Working with existing materials has always been a more economical and timely strategy for creating buildings in communities large and small.
Within the context of historic preservation, the concept was dubbed “adaptive re-use” in the 1970s in response to generalized anxiety about real estate development and suburban sprawl and specific concerns about “urban renewal.” The “Housing Act of 1949” provided grants and loans to municipalities for the purpose of acquiring and clearing large tracts of “blighted” land in city centers. In theory, the goal was to revive the nation’s housing stock and reinvigorate downtowns by replacing older housing stock with new low- to middle-class housing. In reality, however, historic neighborhoods were bulldozed and replaced with commercial strip malls (or left vacant).
Between 1949 and 1974, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approved over $13 billion in grants to 1,200 cities. And unfortunately, the pace of redevelopment lagged far behind the demolition and thousands of acres were left empty. Between 1949-1967, for example, 37,200 acres had been cleared but only 17,400 acres were redeveloped or in the process of being redeveloped.1 The demolition hemorrhaging subsided slighting in 1974 in the midst of a financial recession that caused funding for the federal urban program to be slashed.
Historic Preservation, which had been codified in 1966 with the National Historic Preservation Act, was the natural home for the “adaptive reuse” movement to repurpose older buildings rather than demolish them in the name of “progress.” In the 1990s “adaptive re-use” gained more traction and credence with the perceived dwindling of natural resource and the rise of the environmental movement, because of its inherent goal of reducing consumption of natural resources. In short, many historic preservationists touted adaptive reuse as the pinnacle of recycling.
Over the past few decades, communities across the country eagerly incorporated “adaptive reuse” policies into their historic preservation ordinances. The benefits are threefold:
1. Financial:
§ Re-purposing a building can be less expensive than new building in terms of materials and labor. § Many communities offer financial and tax incentives to encourage reusing historic buildings. § Many communities offer zoning assistance and expedited approvals to incentivize adaptive reuse, shortening the review and construction period and bringing the project to market on a faster schedule. 1 Ann Pfau, David Hochfelder, and Stacy Sewell, “Urban Renewal,” 12 November 2019 (https://inclusivehistorian.com/urbanrenewal/#:~:text=Urban%20renewal%20is%20the%20process,HUD)%20grant%20and%20loan%20program.).
Agenda Item #8.2:
2. Sustainable – ultimate recycling:
§ Re-using existing materials reduces the amount of demolition debris and reduces the need to extract and exploit natural resources for new materials.
3. Cultural
§ Adaptive re-use, and historic preservation by extension, capitalizes on a community’s sense of identity by preserving the physical evidence of its social and cultural heritage.
Today when we think of “adaptive reuse” we usually think of converting warehouses into loft apartments, factories into retail centers, mansions into hotels, rails to trails, and military bases to neighborhoods, to name a few. Projects can range in size from one small structure to sprawling complexes of numerous structures and their connecting infrastructure.
Regional examples include:
• Ghirardelli Square, San Francisco: chocolate factory into retail center • The Presidio, San Francisco: army base into mixed use neighborhood with housing, restaurants, commercial and civic spaces
• Hamilton Air Force Base, Novato: military base into mixed use neighborhood with housing, restaurants, commercial and civic spaces
• The Bridge Movie Theater, San Francisco: movie theater into “San Francisco Baseball Academy” • The Silk Mill, Petaluma: factory into a hotel
• Rosenberg’s Department Store, Santa Rosa: department store into Barnes & Noble • “Hotel E,” Santa Rosa: office building into hotel
Examples in Sonoma include:
• Railroad into bike path (rails to trails)
• Elementary school into Community Center on Napa Street • “Sebastiani Roller Rink” into “The Mercato”
• “Olde Bowl” into SonomaFit
• Hotz Grocery Store into Pangloss Wine Tasting
• Old Bus Depot into retail stores
• 139 Napa Street East into restaurant(s) (various iterations) • Numerous houses into B&Bs and boutique hotels
• Sonoma Developmental Center – TBD
• Cheese Factory - TBD
• Blue Wing Adobe - TBD
ARO in Sonoma
Perhaps Sonoma’s best-known example of adaptive reuse was the conversion of the Vallejo-Castenada Adobe into the Three Sticks wine tasting facility in 2012. Three Sticks winery purchased the historic 19th century adobe building just off the square with the intention of converting it from a single family residence into a tasting facility. It should be noted that the historic house had previously been granted three separate vacation rental use permits in the early 2000s.
Neighbors opposed the highly publicized project because they wanted to maintain the residential use of the adobe. They claimed that the project would increase traffic and upset the privacy and “quiet enjoyment” of the neighborhood.
Preservation advocates supported the project, understanding the depth of the historic character of the property as well as the tremendous financial resources necessary to maintain the building.
At its first pass through the Planning Commission in August 2012, the project was remanded to Planning Staff with questions about parking. At its next Planning Commission meeting in September 2012, the project was approved for wine tasting and offices with a parking lot in the rear. The neighbors appealed the project to City Council in November 2012, asserting that the adaptive reuse provision of the historic preservation ordinance was intended for disadvantaged properties with “demonstrable hardships” and only permitted “professional and service oriented offices.” They also restated the potential for negative traffic impacts and impacts to the residential neighborhood.
Agenda Item #8.2:
Ultimately it was shown that the proposed wine tasting facility--with specific conditions of approval--would involve fewer vehicle trips and would have less of an impact on the neighborhood than the previously allowed vacation rentals. In December 2012 City Council rejected the appeal unanimously, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the wine tasting facility (Resolution 48-2012).2 Today the building is well preserved and more accessible to the public than when it was a private residence. Minimal changes were made to the publicly visible area and the building retains its original residential scale, character and style.
“Ice House” Project
Six years later we have another adaptive reuse application for the “Ice House” at 301 First Street West. In May 2018 the Planning Commission approved a use permit for the property allowing it to have a “lifestyle retail store” on the ground level and an apartment on the upper level and in the new auxiliary dwelling unit (ADU) in the barn. These uses were consistent with the historic uses of the building since its construction in 1906 and expansion in 1923. The restoration project was met with great applause from the community and the owners received an award from the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation for their masterful restoration and adaptation of the building.
When the project was approved in 2018, the Planning Commission determined that it satisfied all of the necessary findings for adaptive reuse per Sonoma’s Municipal Code (I have included a flowchart at the end of this letter for reference):
1) The building is historic and in the historic overlay. 2) “Life Style Retail” is an allowable use.
3) Both the original building and its renovation contribute to the “aesthetic” of Sonoma. 4) The adaptive reuse improves the economic value of the building (particularly since it involved critical seismic and safety upgrades required for the continued occupancy of the structure). 5) The restoration preserves a diverse example of Sonoma’s architecture. 6) The adaptive use provides for the continued private ownership of the structure (and long-term economic viability).
7) The renovation complies with the “Secretary of the Interior’s” standards, including the first standard, which states that a building will remain in its historic use (mixed use commercial/residential in this case).
8) Parking is adequate.
9) The exterior retains is original (1923) residential character, scale and style.
Fast forward another six years and the world is an entirely different place. Since the “Ice House” project started, the City of Sonoma has had three Planning Directors (four if you include an acting director) and SEVEN city managers. A pandemic has come and gone, transforming Sonoma’s retail market. The real estate market has fluctuated wildly with a surge of people relocating from San Francisco to Sonoma during the pandemic and then the market slowing down exponentially in the face of soaring inflation and high interest rates.
Life situations change for a myriad of reasons, and so do buildings. The owners of the “Ice House” now ask to modify the project slightly. They would like to have the option to put a wine tasting room in the ground level, in lieu of or in addition to the “lifestyle retail store.”
The amended project, however, STILL meets all the conditions of the adaptive reuse ordinance (again, I refer you to the flowchart at the end of this letter):
2 https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/document/9767/. Note: Resolution 48-2012 is not available on the City of Sonoma’s website.
Agenda Item #8.2:
1) The building is historic and in the historic overlay. Now it is also a key contributing resource to the “Depot Historic District” (2022). (no change)
2) “Lifestyle retail” and wine tasting are allowable uses. 3) Both the original building and its renovation contribute to the “aesthetic” of Sonoma. (no change) 4) The adaptive reuse improves the economic value of the building (particularly since it involved critical seismic and safety upgrades required for the continued occupancy of the structure). (no change) 5) The restoration preserves a diverse example of Sonoma’s architecture. (no change) 6) The adaptive use provides for the continued private ownership of the structure (and longterm economic viability). (no change) 7) The renovation complies with the “Secretary of the Interior’s” standards, including the first standard, which states that a building will remain in its historic use (mixed use commercial/residential in this case). (no change)
8) Parking is adequate.
9) The exterior retains is original (1923) residential character, scale and style. (no change) Let’s step back and take this discussion to the 30,000-foot level. What is the intent of the ARO? Why does Sonoma (or any community for that matter) have these policies? As discussed in the beginning, the concept of the ARO arose out of a need to incentivize the repurposing of historic buildings as a means of preserving communities and cultures as well as individual structures. Early preservationists recognized the importance of giving people a better option than tearing down an old building that was in the way or falling down. These preservationists later realized the environmental benefits of recycling old buildings for new purposes.
Nowhere does Sonoma’s ARO say that you can only repurpose a building ONE time. The whole purpose of the “ADAPTIVE Reuse Ordinance” (emphasis added) is to allow a building’s current use to evolve with the changing needs of its owners and its community.
An ARO is a flexible application set within delineated boundaries to incentivize the long-term preservation and economic viability of historic resources. Ultimately, a building being actively used is a building being actively preserved.
Thank you very much for your consideration. Please feel free to call me at 415-806-4549 or email me at [email protected] if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Alice P. Duffee Healy
APD Preservation LLC
www.apdpreservation.com
cc: Michael Woods ([email protected])
Michael Ross ([email protected])
Tom Thornley ([email protected])
Leslie & Mac McQuown ([email protected])
Rebekah Barr ([email protected])
Agenda Item #8.2:
Is it eligible?
A) Officially designated by State OR City (regardless of within historic overlay)
OR
B) Potentially eligible: 50 years old, architecturally
distinctive, must be within historic overlay
NO
YES
DENY
Is proposed use allowable?
A) Residential (single, multi, condo) --> may exceed density with Planning Commission approval
B) B&B
C) Hotel
D) Limited Retail
E) Mixed use (residential over commercial)
F) Offices
G) Restaurants
H) Wine Tasting
I) Vacation rental (ONLY if listed/eligible for listing on CA Register) NO Does it satisfy ALL of the below findings?
1) Enhance/perpetuate/preserve/protect/restore those
historic districts/neighborhoods/sites/ structures/zoning districts that contribute to aesthetic and cultural
benefit of city.
2) Stabilize and improve the economic value of historic districts/neighborhoods/ sites/structures/ zoning districts. 3) Preserve diverse architectural design reflecting
phases of the city’s history, and encourage design
styles and construction methods that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood(s).
4) Promote and encourage continued private ownership
and utilization of structures now so owned and used.
5) Substantially comply with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards.
6) IF Vacation rental: restore and rehabilitate an historic structure…that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration/correct deficiencies/avoid demolition
YES
APPROVE
PLUS:
1) Complies with parking
standards
2) Retains residential
character, scale and style
Agenda Item #8.2: