SVCAC votes 5-4 in favor of 62-room Napa St. Hotel
The Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Committee (SVCAC) voted 5 to 4 in favor of the Napa Street West hotel project with a friendly amendment to note to the Sonoma Planning Commission to pay special attention to the residential component waiver request. Like Measure B, the vote was close, showing the public to be fairly well divided on this project.
Member Pulverenti recused herself as she works for Kenwood Investments at Cornerstone. Member Ding was absent. Those voting Yes were: Sean Bellach (maker of the motion to approve), Pat Stevens (second), Angela White, Ryan Lely, and Margaret Spaulding; those voting No were: Thomas Martin, Gina Dunlop, Helene Silver and Ditty Vella.
To start the proceedings, Bill Hooper of Kenwood Investments gave the initial presentation and noted that the project had undergone “substantial changes in design”, with a lot of public input. Hopper mentioned that the EIR consisted of “objective findings” on the environmental impacts of the project, and that the consultants had no stake. Economic tax benefits to the city were touted as a substantial community benefit. The project would have 50 full time, and 10 part-time, “high paying”, union jobs. Exactly what the wage scale would be was not mentioned. Should the hotel be sold, the buyer would be bound by the union agreement.
Hooper said that 12 years of soil testing on the former Chevron site had revealed no TCE contamination. “All samples came up clean.”
Architect Michael Ross said, “we believe the project evolved for the good”, and noted that he was a 45-year local resident. Ross said the project is not taking up any green spaces, and is desirable infill on a brownfields, commercially zoned property. The hotel is designed to pick up surrounding Plaza historical themes, and to be in pieces rather than one monolithic structure. 95% of the hotel will be invisible from the Plaza.
The applicant team and staff then responded to SVCAC questions. A comparison of traffic volumes to MacArthur Place drew a clarification from city Planning Director David Goodison: the comparison was meant only to see what traffic a 60+ room hotel generates, not to imply that surrounding conditions are equal to the Plaza. The finding: hotel traffic trickles guests in and out. MacArthur Street and Broadway seem to have no serious traffic problem.
A number of SVCAC members were concerned about the residential component waiver, given the need for housing here in Sonoma. The waiver of the residential component was explained by Mr. Hooper to be necessary for spatial, zoning and financial reasons; “economic clearly”, he said. We “couldn’t accommodate that on this project.” Hooper noted that the Lynch Building was taken out of the hotel plans and has seven apartments, which rent from $800 to $1,200 a month, “affordable by anyone’s standards.”
Construction time would take 14 – 16 months once the project was shovel-ready. The hotel would be at a Four Star price point, similar to the Fairmont. Given that Best Western can charge $400 and over for a room, the cost of a Napa Street West hotel room would clearly be at a luxury level; hence the high amount of taxes that would result. Hotels in town are now at 70% annual occupancy rate.
In response to a question by member Bellach, about what might happen if archaeological and historical remains were found during construction, would they look into those? David Goodison quickly interjected, “yes”.
Goodison also noted, regarding the residential component waiver, that potential in lieu fees would be tied to building permit issuance, and that should the council adopt such fees, that would likely be within six months’ time, and that such fees would go to support affordable housing development in the city.
Committee member Thomas Martin had trouble with traffic and congestion. There is “no way to judge the validity of the EIR’s numbers”. The EIR has many “rebuttable presumptions.” This precipitated a discussion about traffic, upon which ex officio member Dick Fogg said that the traffic study could be peer reviewed to give more confidence in its assertions. David Goodison noted this would not be typical, and that Cal Trans and city engineer Dan Takasugi had already reviewed traffic, and agreed with the EIR consultant’s conclusions.
There seems to be a disconnect between public opinion and bureaucratic takes on potential project traffic impacts. The public, and some SVCAC members simply don’t buy the “less than significant” findings. Fogg’s suggestion of a peer review could be of value in such an opinion stalemate.
During public comment, Bill Blum, manager of the 60+ room MacArthur Place hotel, and a board member of the $750,000 a year, city tax-based Tourism Improvement District (TID), gave his support for the project, “for the long-term health of the city.” Blum said more hotels are needed. He proposed that vacation rental (VR) demand is siphoning off hotel demand, and noted the negative impact of VRs on hotel occupancy and city tax revenue. The 300 plus illegal AirBnB VRs in the Valley are not paying taxes, and stealing hotel guests. Blum asserted that the high level of hotel occupancy now, without new hotel growth, means city revenues will flatten, and that in the near future the city will begin to struggle to pay its bills, for fire and police. Blum concluded by saying that Sonoma’s founders intended the town to be a tourist destination because the original plaza had hotels as well.
Marilyn Goode, with an E on the end, noted that on an individual basis the design was nice but the aggregate effect of so much tourism had pushed Sonoma over the top. “When is enough, enough?”
Mike Marino, 7-room hotel proprietor across the street, and Sue Simon of Highway 12 Properties both spoke in support of the project.
Other public comment concerned greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and how accurately they were quantified by the Final EIR. Fred Allebach noted that the EIR failed to quantify potential employee transportation GHG emissions by saying that employees could take the bus to work. Allebach noted this does not mean employees will take the bus to work. Allebach said the EIR had an illogical response-style of changing the subject, and then linking the public comment (employee trans GHG) to an irrefutable assertion (could take the bus), and then claiming the issue (employee trans GHG) was invalid and less than significant. Said Allebach, it is likely most employees will not be taking the bus.
Tom Conlon, a local energy consultant, noted that the EIR contained many out of date assertions and that it failed to note and include critical local, regional and state GHG reduction targets and policies.
David Eichar noted in his comment that poor bus schedules would not support employee use of that trans option. Eichar noted that there was a lot of demand for housing in the valley, as evidenced by the number of applications for the Mid-Pen development in the Springs, and therefore the residential component should not be waived.
Another comment followed Eichar, saying that many of those Mid-Pen applications were not from locals anyway.
A question arose from SVCAC member Ditty Vella, as to how many employees MacArthur Place had? MacArthur has 60 full time and 60 part time. (As compares to proposed 50 full time and 10 part time for Napa Street West) What would be the effect on project parking numbers, asked Vella, if the Napa Street West hotel had an actual employee profile similar to the comparable MacArthur Place? This would mean 50 more part-time employees than stated in the EIR.
In the end, the SVCAC came into two camps, project supporters and non-supporters. The reasons mirrored public and applicant comment for and against. Next up, a November 3rd special meeting of the Planning Commission on this project. The 11/3 Planning Commission agenda and packet has not yet been published online, but the Final EIR and SVCAC project submittal, plus other project background info can be found at the following city link:
http://www.sonomacity.org/Government/Resources/Reports.aspx
One thought on “SVCAC votes 5-4 in favor of 62-room Napa St. Hotel”
Comments are closed.
This project could be subject to housing impact fees, but not in lieu fees which the City Council will consider in the next 2 to 3 months. The current thinking of city staff, which of course is ultimately up to the city council is:
1. The impact fee would be on commercial part of any development, and the amount could vary depending on the degree of inclusion of a residential component.
2.A separate in-lieu fee is also being considered, but is only applicable to projects of 4 housing units or fewer, which are not including any affordable housing.