Sonoma Planning Commission throws cold water on hotel Draft EIR
In calling the Draft EIR prepared for the Kenwood Investment’s West Napa Street Hotel Project “insufficient and inadequate,” Sonoma Planning Commission Chairman Robert Felder summed up the opinion of the Planning Commission as whole on Thursday night, and sent the EIR consultant off with a long list of commission concerns needing to be addressed.
The issues that seemed to get the most commission attention were related to traffic and water. As a group they expressed the opinion that the traffic estimates and impacts, called “insignificant” in the Draft EIR report, simply defied “common sense”, as Chair Felder remarked. Commissioner Willers brought attention to the report’s absence of analysis of traffic impacts on 1st Street West, which will be used as an exit for all cars parked in the underground garage of the proposed hotel. “Many of those vehicles will mostly travel south on 1st Street West, and then loop around over to Broadway and back onto Highway 12 to go north,” he noted, adding that 1st St. West is already heavily trafficked.
As to water, commissioners also commented that simultaneously asking the public to reduce water use while approving a project estimated to use 5.7 million gallons of water per year seems, according to Commissioner Wellander, “a stretch.” Other commissioners noted that the project analysis relies on documents prepared in 2006, before the current, drought-related mandated water use restrictions were put in place.
On a related note, a member of the public commented that given the condition of the sewage pipes under Broadway, which are old, leaky and damaged, it’s unlikely that the discharged sewage from the proposed hotel will get permission from the local Bay Area water quality regulators to add to the volume already causing sewage overflow and unsanitary conditions in the present infrastructure.
Local resident Fred Allebach presented a list of his concerns, highlighting what he felt was a dismissal “of the cumulative impacts” of green house gas-related air travel and transportation associated with hotel development. He asked that estimates be developed and incorporated into the project’s calculations.
The issue of hazardous wastes potentially contaminating the soil around and beneath the old Index Tribune printing plant, now used for offices and proposed to be removed if the hotel proceeds, also received commission attention. In comments to the commission, former Mayor Larry Barnett urged the commission to add analysis and review of the soils under and around the old plant to the EIR process, calling the absence of such a requirement a “mistake and an oversight that should be corrected.” “The chemicals and solvents used as degreasing and press-cleaning agents in the printing business during the operation of the printing plant include some that are highly toxic. All it took was a crack in a drainage pipe to contaminate the soil,” Barnett noted.
His request appeared to get support from a majority of the commission members. Commissioner Cribb agreed the issue should be considered, but cautioned against “creating hysteria” about the possible health hazards. Commissioner Coleman remarked that he had used some of the same solvents during linoleum installation, but stopped when he read the warning on the can that said the solvent Trichloroethylene “can cause death.”
The issue of housing also was brought up, both by the public and the commission members. Valley resident Bonnie Brown noted that the Sonoma General Plan calls for a housing component within development on parcels as large as those combined for the hotel project, and the commission asked the EIR consultant to develop an alternative analysis that incorporates a housing component.
The EIR is part of California’s CEQA process and is limited to matters pertaining to environmental impacts only. The commission voted unanimously to accept the public comments and combining them with their own, directed staff and the consultant to prepare an updated document. Future meetings of the commission will deal with issues of design, etc. At this point, the EIR consultants will review all public and commission member comments, and return at a later date in the Spring of 2016 with a revised draft for review and eventual action.
3 thoughts on “Sonoma Planning Commission throws cold water on hotel Draft EIR”
Comments are closed.
Summary of some of the comments of Planning Commission commissioners:
Willers: EIR lacking in addressing significant impact to First Street West traffic.
Hennevold: water issues are relevant and systemic.
Wellander: Traffic numbers seem “incredibly light”; water supply is supposed to be conserved for the greatest public benefit; city water plans re: development appear to be based on a 2006 study, but it is 2016 now; there is an obligation to be very careful for commercial uses when the public has been asked to cut back on water use.
Cribb: required housing issue needs to be addressed relative to the project; traffic won’t be worse bc people would be here anyway, Rin’s was a 100 seat restaurant and the proposed new restaurant would simply replace that lost capacity; newspaper truck delivery was higher than now, so that use is not new; soil testing would be prudent.
McDonald: traffic, air quality and GHG issues would be exacerbated by idling buses and shuttles, and vehicles confined in inner spaces of project; EIR lacks comprehensive visual analysis to be able to see impacts on historical resources; probable that since the project owner also owns Ramekins, General’s Daughter (and Cornerstone, and a hunt club down by the raceway), that there would be traffic and air quality impacts there to be measured in the EIR, as patrons would be going to these other venues as part of a hotel visit; the cumulative impacts on traffic might require a person to direct traffic.
Coleman: potential of big traffic build-ups could cause air quality issues; peak traffic period in Sonoma is more than the EIR measured; increased traffic could impact historic character; the underground garage is “unprecedented” and could result in archaeological and historic impacts.
Felder: “In many respects this draft EIR is seriously flawed”; significant omissions and significant reductions in what is considered an impact; with too many environmental issues classed as “less than significant”, the overall combined effect won’t be mitigated; when do impacts accumulate to be “significant”?; for traffic and water, the effects of this project are “drastically underestimated”; with a 51 car parking deficit “this project is larger than it should be because it can’t provide parking”; the project will take a significant amount of water, the 5.7 million gallons a year is equal to the use of 7 single family homes, this seems unrealistically low and understated; that water impacts are seen as “less than significant” by the EIR but are a significant public conservation issue does not add up; impact fees should be considered to offset the projects environmental impacts.
It seems clear that a majority of City Planners have serious reservations about this project at its present location. Traffic and congestion are fixed and more serious than mentioned, but water and its availability fluctuates from year to year and its importance cannot be negated. The traffic-jam is underestimated and will certainly get worse and the addition of hundreds of bicycles in and around The Plaza will create a Sonoma that most residents will regret! Before it’s too late lets please don’t forget that we’re the stewards of Sonoma! The City is not a VISA card to cash in on – lets be wise and prudent. Just say NO to mega-Plaza development!!!
Regarding the West Napa Street Hotel Project – I haven’t read about the instability of the soils near the development due to flooding and saturation as evidenced by the underground parking garage just 150 yards south on West 1st Street. When the garage was being excavated a few years ago, and the building developed, the engineers had to go to extreme lengths to mitigate the (spring) water intrusion. The distance from there to the present location of the applicant isn’t that far different! I think that this proximity to a known underwater resource and potential hazzard should be reviewed and put to rest.