Design Review Board approves Stonehouse Hotel design review with noise, roof and materials conditions

The Design Review and Preservation Board voted to approve a major design review for the Stonehouse Hotel, a project that preserves the existing Stonehouse building and adds a new three-story hotel on the adjacent parcel. Vice Chair Sheron moved the resolution and board member Bisby seconded; the motion passed with five 'I' votes and one recusal.

Planner Suzanne Hartman told the board the project proposes a new 70-room hotel alongside preservation of the historic Stonehouse structure, with a partly subterranean parking level, up to 77 vehicle parking spaces reported in the staff packet, and a building height of about 34 feet (tower to 36 feet). Hartman said staff found the project consistent with the General Plan and zoning, referenced Council Policy 0075 for naming (in the earlier item), and cited CEQA exemptions noted in the staff report (transcript referenced "SQA guidelines section 15332").

Architect Randy Figerto said the design intends to subordinate the new hotel to the Stonehouse by setting the new massing back from Highway 12, embedding much of the parking below grade and preserving an oak grove buffer. "We tried to take some of the gray stone... and then took the remainder of the hotel, made it very contemporary," he said, describing the use of stone paneling, composite cladding and warm earth-tone materials to reduce visual prominence from the highway.

During public comment, speakers were split: several community members praised the design and potential tourism benefits, while immediate neighbors urged stronger noise and fire-safety protections, and expressed traffic and late-night activity concerns. Greg Hamlin, a nearby resident, recommended a concrete wall instead of wood for both sound attenuation and noncombustibility, noting concrete has a much higher STC rating than wood. Roy Tasher, another neighbor, said the project would put his bedroom within a few hundred yards of potential pool parties and expressed strong opposition.

In board deliberations members recommended and the motion incorporated three friendly amendments as conditions: the upper portion of the west property wall must be constructed or detailed to achieve an STC rating of 45 or better; the flat/TPO roof should be non-white and non-reflective; and staff must receive a complete material palette prior to finalization. The recording secretary noted the resolution moved by Vice Chair Sheron and seconded by board member Bisby; the vote was recorded as Anderson – yes; Bisby – yes; Andis – yes; Fagent – recused; Vice Chair Sheron – yes; Chair Jonas Carter – yes. The board chair reminded the public that the decision is final unless an appeal is filed with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days under zoning code section 20-62.030.

The board’s approval advances the design review with explicit noise and materials conditions; neighbors retain the right to file an appeal within the statutory period.