Hotel Project Sonoma clears EIR hurdle

A proposal to build a 62-room hotel and 80-seat restaurant along West Napa Street took a step forward on Thursday night, when the Sonoma Planning Commission voted 5-1 to certify the Environmental Impact Report.

Only Commissioner Bill Willers voted nay on the EIR for what has become known as the Hotel Project Sonoma – his objections reflecting two areas of concern raised in public comment. The first cited the absence of alternative project analysis for the project that would reduce its need for mitigation by reducing its scale. The second underscored skepticism over a traffic study that compared Hotel Project Sonoma with the MacArthur Place hotel half a mile away.

But Willers was outvoted by those who accepted the staff report on the Environmental Impact Report, which found no significant issues which couldn't be properly dealt with by the developers.

Thursday's vote followed almost three hours of discussion of the possible certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report. The time was almost evenly split between the staff report, presented by Planning Director David Goodison, and the presentation from Bill Hooper, president of project developers Kenwood Investments, and architect Michael Ross – and public comment from residents and others on the pros and cons of the hotel project. Public comment was followed by a final discussion by the commissioners themselves.

The vote cleared the way for the Commission's next step: direct consideration of the applicant's use permit and 'site design and architectural review.' Consideration of the use permit is slated for April 27.

Hotel Project Sonoma is a project of Kenwood Investments, whose principal is Darius Anderson, who's also the managing partner in Sonoma Media Investments, which owns the Index-Tribune. Anderson purchased the Index-Tribune and most of the property being redeveloped for the hotel from the Lynch family in 2011.

Most of the discussion on Thursday night focused on the CEQA report prepared by independent consultants paid for by the developers, but contracted with through the City. The CEQA report, required under the California Environmental Quality Act, addresses certain criteria for environmental evaluation, including aesthetics, cultural resources, hazardous waste, traffic, noise and housing among others.

A stumbling block in the project's quest for approval appeared in the fall, when local architect Vic Conforti contested the draft EIR's traffic study, saying it did not include traffic generated or used by other businesses on the hotel property – including the Index-Tribune, the bank and offices in the Lynch Building, and other businesses.

Follow-up studies by consultants demonstrated that while the additional traffic did generate slightly higher numbers, it did not rise to the level of requiring mitigation, such as a left-turn lane on West Napa Street.

Yet some commenters, including Commissioner Willers, doubted the accuracy of the traffic study, noting that much of the MacArthur Place parking takes place on public streets outside the facility, so a 'driveway census,' as it was described at the meeting, captures only a portion of the traffic the hotel generates and receives. Public street parking is largely unavailable in the downtown Plaza area.

As commission chair James Cribbs pointed out, the issue of traffic and pedestrians is all interrelated, but since the city has 'a pedestrian priority in the downtown, that means that cars are going to back up and slow down,' suggesting the easy flow of traffic on West Napa Street is not to be expected anyway.

In addition to the traffic question, another key area of discussion from the two dozen or so commenters – about evenly split between supporters of the project and opponents – included any overlooked hazardous material from the printing press facility behind 117 W. Napa St. Goodison noted that while earlier studies all came up negative on the possibility of hazardous waste at the site, persistent public concern kept it in the final EIR.

Numerous studies failed to show any hazardous infiltration from the printing plant. Bill Lynch, formerly editor and publisher of the Index-Tribune, pointed out that the press used soy-based inks, not petroleum-based.

'Perhaps no other building in Sonoma was more monitored, except the service station, and I resent being thought of as a sloppy housekeepers,' Lynch said.

One of the consultants hired to look at the issue, Brian Aubry of Geological, concurred, saying his studies proved the site 'did not qualify as high risk.'

Another stubborn issue was the large tin structure at 177 W. Napa, formerly used as Sara Anderson's Chateau Sonoma vintage housewares shop. Patricia Cullinan, a member of but not speaking for the Sonoma Valley Historical Society, was among those who maintained that the EIR was remiss in not giving it historical status, but city historian Frederick Knapp disagreed, saying that not only did he not think it a historic milestone in Sonoma history, but since it was located outside the boundaries of the Plaza district, it was ineligible for preservation anyway.

There was some confusion over the issue of whether or not a residential component was required in the development, which could be as much as 50 percent of a proposed commercial development unless waived or reduced by the Planning Commission. The applicants did ask that the residential component be waived, citing a number of factors including that it was 'infeasible' to include a housing component separate from the hotel, given the irregular shape of the L-shaped property.

A number of those in the public comment period referred to the economic benefit the project would bring – up to $10 million in the first five years, proponents said, including 60 new local jobs and a commitment to pay a living wage.

Marcelo Defrietas, board president of La Luz, spoke in favor of the project despite its lack of a residential component because of that economic benefit to the community.

Subjective judgement came under question at several points, as when Tom Jones of Diamond A said it didn't matter what credentials people have, it all came down to opinions. This was particularly at issue when it came to one of the criteria on the EIR: 'aesthetics.'

When pressed on how the city could judge the Hotel Project Sonoma as in keeping with the aesthetic standards of Sonoma, Planning Director Goodison remarked, 'Well, the city pays me to do something. It's part of my job to do that analysis, and I did so.'

Though several people questioned the lack of alternatives to the 62-room hotel in the EIR, Goodison stated that a required component of any EIR is an analysis of alternatives, and this EIR did have several – though none of them were a scaled-down version of the hotel. Nonetheless, he added, 'Just because a potential alternative was not included in the EIR's alternative analysis, that does not mean that the Planning Commission may not require it, if they choose.'

That would be a discussion for the Use Permit and Site Design and Architectural Review of Hotel Project Sonoma, on the Planning Commission agenda for their next meeting, Thursday, April 27.

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.

Note: An earlier version of this story gave the impression that Patricia Cullinan was speaking on behalf of the Sonoma Valley Historical Society; she did not.