Prior to the release of the EIR paperwork filed this year, the hotel’s impact on the Sonoma community and the environment in general was only addressed theoretically because Measure B voters were unaware of specific aspects of the project including proposed mitigation of the problems this project will entail.
One issue that is completely untenable is the amount of water the project will utilize. For several years homeowners have been ripping out lawns and decreasing personal water use. To ignore our conservation efforts and allow this project to proceed as described indicates Sonoma’s voluntary and mandatory water restrictions were unnecessary.
The chosen location for this hotel and restaurant is at odds with many other environmental issues including air quality. We know the buses and limos that deliver tourists to the Plaza often sit in the parking lots with engines running to keep the inside air cool for the guests. The pollution from so much increased traffic and idling of motors will certainly impact the community’s health.We have been blessed until now by smog free air.
The Commission will examine mitigation ideas offered by the developer, but I have read none that actually address the water issue. The hotel will compete with residents for our limited amount, which will diminish even further with continued drought. You cannot have a hotel of this size and a large restaurant without using 5-6 million gallons of water per year.
The developer has a right to build a hotel and restaurant, but no right to threaten the existing community’s resources. I suggest the project be moved to an area away from the Plaza, perhaps somewhere along Arnold Drive or a more rural setting. The hotel can drill a well to provide its own water, and the prevailing afternoon winds will disperse some of the noxious emissions. The Plaza is the center of too much activity already, and this proposed location for construction will cause serious congestion of traffic and create a hazard for pedestrians. Stop lights would only increase the congestion, and emissions and are not a viable solution.
All things considered, this project would be bad for our community in many ways, and the Developer has several alternatives to the currently proposed location.
Carol Collier, Sonoma
Finally: some down to earth truths without the scalding rhetoric of recent opinions. The most telling reasons for not locating this hotel are air pollution and water use, as Collier points out. All the homeowners and property owners who dutifully pulled out lawns are wondering “what, the rules are for everyone except developers who own media?” The less lofty, locally selfish reason: it will be impossible for those who live here to get into or across town via Napa St. any more, and the spillover will further clog up West Spain. Collier makes too much sense: the very reasonable points in her statements will never sway the powers that be.