hotel sonoma final eir - storage.googleapis.com€¦ · 2.1.3 report organization this revised...

November 2019

Hotel Project Sonoma Final EIRCity of Sonoma

SCH # 2014062041

NOVEMBER 2019

Hotel Project Sonoma Final EIRCity of Sonoma

SCH # 2014062041

1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

This document provides responses to comments received on the revised Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report (revised Draft EIR) for the proposed Hotel Project Sonoma (Project). The revisedDraft EIR identified significant impacts associated with the Project and examined alternativesand recommended mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce potential impacts.

This document, together with the January 2016 Draft EIR, the October 2016 Final EIR, and theJuly 20, 2018 revised Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR. The City of Sonoma PlanningCommission will be asked to certify these documents as complete and adequate under theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies havingjurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity tocomment on the revised Draft EIR. This revised Final EIR has been prepared to respond tocomments received on the revised Draft EIR.

The revised Draft EIR was made available for public review from July 20, 2018 throughSeptember 13, 2018. The revised Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional, and Stateagencies and the general public was advised of the availability of the revised Draft EIR. Copiesof the revised Draft EIR were made available for review to interested parties at:

§ City Hall at No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma

§ Sonoma Valley Regional Library, 744 West Napa Street, Sonoma

§ The City's website at http://www.sonomacity.org/News.aspx

A Planning Commission public hearing to solicit comments on the revised Draft EIR was heldSeptember 4, 2018. The 45-day public comment period ended on September 13, 2018. Copiesof all written comments received on the revised Draft EIR are contained in this document. Thesecomments and responses to these comments are laid out in Chapter 5, Comments andResponses, of this revised Final EIR.

The revised Final EIR will be presented to the City of Sonoma for potential certification as theenvironmental document for the Project. All persons who commented on the revised Draft EIR

H O T E L P R O J E C T S O N O M A R E V I S E D F I N A L E I RC I T Y O F S O N O M A

INTRODUCTION

1-2 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 9

will be notified of the availability of the revised Final EIR and the date of the public hearingbefore the City.

All response to comments submitted on the revised Draft EIR by agencies will be provided tothose agencies at least 10 days prior to the final action on the Project. The PlanningCommission will make findings regarding the extent and nature of the impacts as presented inthe revised Final EIR. The revised Final EIR will need to be certified as complete by the Cityprior to making a decision to approve or deny the Project. Public input is encouraged at allpublic hearings before the City.

Should the Planning Commission certify the revised Final EIR, it will also consider the Projectitself, which it may approve, deny, or approve with conditions. The Planning Commission mayrequire the mitigation measures specified in this revised Draft EIR as conditions of Projectapproval, and it may also require other feasible mitigation measures. Alternatively, the PlanningCommission may find that the mitigation measures are outside of the jurisdiction of the City toimplement, or that there is no feasible mitigation measure(s) for a given significant impact. In thelatter case, the Planning Commission may nonetheless determine that the Project is necessaryor desirable due to specific overriding considerations, including economic factors, and mayapprove the Project despite an unavoidable, significant impact.

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This document is organized into the following chapters:

§ Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the use and organization of this Responseto Comments Document.

§ Chapter 2: Executive Summary. This chapter is a summary of the conclusions of the DraftEIR and the Response to Comments Document.

§ Chapter 3: Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR. Additional corrections to the text andgraphics of the Revised Draft EIR are contained in this chapter. Underline text representslanguage that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from theEIR.

§ Chapter 4: Comments and Responses. This chapter lists the comments received fromagencies and the public on the revised Draft EIR and provides responses to thosecomments.

§ Appendices. The appendices for this document contain the following supportingdocuments:

Appendix Q: City Council Resolution to Recirculate the EIRAppendix R: Revised Technical Traffic AppendixAppendix S: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan


INTRODUCTION

November 2019 1-3

Appendix T: Historic Evaluation of Proposed Bulb-out (revised)Appendix U: Project VMT Benchmark Estimate and Mitigation Performance TargetAppendix V: Hotel Project Sonoma Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) EstimateAppendix W: Greenhouse Gas AnalysisAppendix X: Delivery Plan

2-1Final Revised Final EIR

Executive Summary

This summary is intended to highlight the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the Project as required by Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The summary includes an overview of the CEQA process, brief description of the Project, a summary of alternatives to the Project, and a table summarizing (1) potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the Project; (2) the level of significance of the environmental impacts prior to implementation of any applicable mitigation measures; (3) the recommended mitigation measures that avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts; and (4) the level of significance after mitigation measures are implemented (refer to Table 2-1 [Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures] at the end of this chapter).

2.1 HOTEL PROJECT SONOMA CEQA PROCESSThe proposed Project has undergone extensive CEQA review. A Draft EIR was filed with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and circulated to State agencies on January 26, 2016 for a 45-day review period ending on March 10, 2016; the Draft EIR is herein referred to as “2016 Draft EIR.” A Final EIR (2016 Final EIR) was certified by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2017. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council, which held public hearings on June 22, 2017 and August 14, 2017. At the August 14, 2017 hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution #43-2017, (Appendix N of this revised Draft EIR) which upheld the appeal and directed that the 2016 Draft EIR be revised.

The revised Draft EIR was made available for public review from July 20, 2018 through September 13, 2018. The revised Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional, and State agencies and the general public was advised of the availability of the revised Draft EIR. Copies of the revised Draft EIR were made available for review to interested parties at:

§ City Hall at No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma

§ Sonoma Valley Regional Library, 744 West Napa Street, Sonoma

§ The City's website at http://www.sonomacity.org/News.aspx

The 45-day public comment period ended on September 13, 2018. Copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR are contained in this document. These comments and responses to these comments are laid out in Chapter 5, Comments and Responses, of this Final EIR.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2-2 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 9

2.1.1 REVISED DRAFT EIRThe revised Draft EIR was a recirculated EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA GuidelinesSection 15088.5, which contains provisions regarding recirculation of an EIR. According toSection 15088.5(a), a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when “significant newinformation” is added to the EIR after notice of availability of the Draft EIR has been issued, butbefore certification of the EIR. According to CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5(a), “information”can include changes in the project, changes in the environmental setting, additional data, orother information. In this case, the new information that has been added to the 2016 Draft EIR isthe addition of certain project components analyzed in Section 3.5 of this revised Draft EIR, aswell as three new alternatives analyzed in the revised Draft EIR.

According to Section 15088.5(c), the recirculated EIR need only contain the portions of the DraftEIR that have been modified. Therefore, the revised Draft EIR focused on new analysis anddoes not reproduce information from the 2016 Draft EIR unless it was critical to understandingthe analysis.

2.1.2 REVISED FINAL EIRThis document provides responses to comments received on the revised Draft EIR for theproposed Project. The revised Draft EIR identified significant impacts associated with theproposed Project and examined alternatives and recommended mitigation measures that couldavoid or reduce potential impacts.

This document, together with the January 2016 Draft EIR, the October 2016 Final EIR, and theJuly 20, 2018 revised Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR if the City of Sonoma PlanningCommission certifies it as complete and adequate under the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA).

2.1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This revised Final EIR is organized into the following chapters:

§ Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the use and organization of this Responseto Comments Document.

§ Chapter 2: Executive Summary. This chapter is a summary of the conclusions of the DraftEIR and the Response to Comments Document.

§ Chapter 3: Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR. Additional corrections to the text andgraphics of the Draft EIR are contained in this chapter. Underline text represents languagethat has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2-3November 2019

§ Chapter 4: Comments and Responses. This chapter lists the comments received fromagencies and the public on the revised Draft EIR and provides responses to thosecomments.

§ Appendices. The appendices for this document contain the following supportingdocuments:

Appendix Q: City Council Resolution to Recirculate the EIRAppendix R: Revised Technical Traffic AnalysisAppendix S: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting PlanAppendix T: Historic Evaluation of Proposed Bulb-out (revised)Appendix U: Project VMT Benchmark Estimate and Mitigation Performance TargetAppendix V: Hotel Project Sonoma Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) EstimateAppendix W: Greenhouse Gas AnalysisAppendix X: Delivery Plan

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project site is located near the southwest corner of the Sonoma Plaza in the City ofSonoma, California, approximately 40 miles north of San Francisco. The Project is locatedwithin the block bounded by Highway 12 (West Napa Street) to the north, First Street West tothe east, Andrieux Street to the south, and Second Street West to the west, with regionalvehicular access to the Project site provided via West Napa Street.

2.3 PROJECT SUMMARY

Kenwood Investments, LLC (Project Applicant) is proposing a 62-room hotel, 80-seat restaurant,and spa, along with 115 on-site parking spaces, located on West Napa Street in Sonoma,California, on a 71,000-square-foot lot (1.63 acres). At buildout, the Project would include a totalhotel building area of 67,478 square feet;1 a 37,655-square-foot basement parking garage; and26,962 square feet of exterior courtyards, surface parking areas, and patio areas. Additionally,the Project would include landscaped street trees in raised planters along West Napa Street,First Street West, and throughout the Project site, as well as raised planter beds.

The principle components of the Project are listed below (A detailed description of the project,including maps and figures is included in Chapter 3, Project Description of the revised DraftEIR):

§ Demolition and Site Preparation. The existing metal warehouse, 153 West Napa Streetbuilding, ancillary structures (i.e. sheds), and existing parking lots would be demolished andremoved to accommodate the Project. In total, approximately 15,412 square feet of building

1 Excludes square footage of basement parking garage and exterior courtyards.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2-4 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 9

space would be demolished, and approximately 30,000 square feet of existing hardscapewould be removed consisting of surface lots and other paved surfaces.

§ Hotel-Restaurant Building. The hotel restaurant building would consist of a three-story,21,281-square-foot building fronting West Napa Street and would include an 80-seat groundfloor restaurant with two upper floors consisting of 20 guestrooms.

§ Main Hotel Building. The main hotel building would consist of a three-story, 44,417-square-foot building constructed around two exterior garden courtyards. This building would includea public lobby, guest reception, two upper floors consisting of 39 guestrooms, a spa with sixtreatment rooms, three first-floor accessible guestrooms, and a fitness center. Because theProject does not include residential uses, the Project requests a waiver of a residentialcomponent pursuant to Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.10.020(B)(3).

§ First Street West Service Support Building. The 1,780-square-foot building would includethe swimming pool mechanical room, the emergency generator room, one service elevatorto the garage, a pool refreshment service counter, storage, and exit stairs.

§ Hotel Basement Parking Garage/Surface Parking. The 37,655-square-foot basementparking garage would include parking for 94 vehicles utilizing a managed valet parkingsystem, and provide other building support, such as delivery and storage space. Additionally,the Project would include 21 on-site surface parking spaces, for a total parking capacity of115.

§ Exterior Courtyard. The Project would be constructed around three exterior courtyards,including the hotel plaza courtyard, a sheltered lobby courtyard, and a raised swimming poolveranda area. The courtyards would be landscaped with raised planting beds, and tree wellswould be irrigated with captured, stored, and recycled rain water.

§ Pedestrian Circulation. The Project is planned to be pedestrian oriented by encouraginghotel guests to park their vehicles for the duration of their stay and walk or bike in andaround the Sonoma Plaza area. Guest vehicles would enter the site via West Napa Street,and drop-off would occur in an area set back from West Napa Street to avoid the potentialfor traffic back up along West Napa Street. During non-peak traffic periods, departing guestswould exit right onto West Napa Street, and during weekday evening peak traffic periods(4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) and weekend midday peak hours (12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m.)guests would depart via a one-way vehicle ramp from the parking garage onto First StreetWest.

§ Architectural Design. The Project is expected to compliment Sonoma’s vernacular styleand character by incorporating three primary Sonoma architectural patterns, including theuse of gabled thick-walled buildings parallel to the street, the creation of exterior timberarcades at the sidewalk, and overhanging sheltered roofs.

§ Sustainable LEED Certified Design. The Project would be constructed to meet Leadershipin Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification requirements by incorporatingseveral sustainability components throughout construction and operation of the Hotel.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2-5November 2019

§ Parking and Deliveries. The Project would provide a total of 115 on-site vehicle parkingspaces, consisting of 94 parking spaces in the basement parking garage, (31 of which wouldbe managed by valet staff), and 21 surface parking spaces. Parking capacity in thebasement parking garage will be maximized through the use of a combination of 90-degreestalls and stacked tandem spaces. 25 parking spaces would be available to employeesacross the street at the Bank of Marin parking lot.

Large truck deliveries would be staged from the street on First Street West, similar to howother businesses in the area receive deliveries and would be restricted to before 10 a.m.

Small truck or van deliveries would take place inside the basement parking garage at theservice core receiving area. Three service elevators are provided in the hotel to efficientlyfacilitate the vertical transfer of deliveries inside the hotel. Designation of a truck loadingzone on First Street West located adjacent to the basement parking garage entry is beingrequested as part of the Project’s Use Permit Application.

§ Landscaping. The Project proposes three exterior courtyards, including the hotel courtyardplaza, a courtyard adjoining the hotel lobby, and a courtyard where the swimming pool andspa pool are located. Additional landscaping includes street trees in raised planters alongWest Napa Street, First Street West, and throughout the Project site, as well as raisedplanter beds. In order to accommodate the Project, mature trees are proposed to beremoved; however, they would be replaced on a one-for-one basis.

§ Stormwater. The Project site would remain connected to the City’s storm drain system, andis expected to capture, store and reuse rainwater to support landscape irrigation.

§ Water Supply. Potable water will be provided to the Project site through existingconnections.

§ Sanitary Sewer Service. Sanitary sewer service would continue to be provided throughexisting connections.

§ Utilities and Services. Electricity and natural gas would be supplied to the Project site byPacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Solid waste recycling service for the City of Sonoma isprovided by Sonoma Garbage Collectors.

2.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

Chapter 6 of the 2016 Draft EIR analyzed the following alternatives to the proposed Project:

§ No Project Alternative§ No Restaurant Alternative§ Mitigated Project Alternative

Chapter 6 of the revised Draft EIR evaluates three additional alternatives, described below:


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2-6 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 9

2.4.1 HOTEL-RESIDENTIAL (50%-50%) ALTERNATIVE

Under this alternative, the Project’s proposed building area (excluding the underground parkinggarage) of 67,478 square feet would include 50 percent as commercial and 50 percent asresidential. In order to accommodate the residential and hotel units within the proposed buildingfootprints, it is assumed that the site could accommodate 25 hotel rooms (450 square feet perroom) and 25 residential units (800 square feet average size per unit), consisting of 12 two-bedroom units and 13 one-bedroom units. Based on a project site area of 54,000 square feet (or1.24 acres),2 25 residential units would be the maximum number of units permitted under theapplicable Commercial Zoning District, which permits 20 units per acre. To meet the City’sparking standards, the underground parking garage would be expanded to add 12 additionalparking spaces. Overall, the building would be increased by 8,750 net square feet. All otherproject components would be the same as the proposed Project.

2.4.2 HOTEL/RESIDENTIAL (8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) ALTERNATIVE

Under this alternative, eight residential units would be added to the First Street West side of thesite, where the proposed Project would provide surface parking for staff. Under this alternative,the parking garage would be expanded to accommodate an additional 12 parking spaces. Thehotel and restaurant use of the proposed Project would be maintained.

2.4.3 HOTEL ONLY ALTERNATIVE

The Hotel Only Alternative would not include the restaurant as part of the project, and thenumber of hotel rooms would be reduced to 30, resulting in a reduction of the environmentalimpacts as compared to the proposed Project.

2.5 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentiallysubstantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by theProject, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historicand aesthetic significance.

The Project has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts in a number ofareas. Table 2-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in therevised Draft EIR and presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified. It isorganized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Chapters 4.1 through 4.12in the 2016 Draft EIR, and the revised analysis in the revised Draft EIR. The table is arranged infour columns: 1) environmental impacts, 2) significance prior to mitigation, 3) mitigationmeasures, and 4) significance after mitigation. For a complete description of potential impacts,

2 Although the Project site is 71,000 square feet (1.63 acres) in area, because no changes are proposed to theLynch Building or Tribune Building, the affected area is limited to 54,000 square feet (1.24 acres).


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2-7November 2019

please refer to the specific discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.12. In some places, Table 2-1incorporates changes to the impacts and mitigation measures of the 2016 Draft EIR as a resultof the additional analysis provided in the revised Draft EIR. Revisions are shown instrikethrough and underline in Table 2-1.

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-8N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

TAB

LE2-1

SUM

MA

RY OF

IMPA

CTS A

ND

MITIG

ATION

MEA

SUR

ES

Impact

SignificanceW

ithoutM

itigationM

itigation Measures

SignificanceW

ithM

itigationA

ESTHETIC

SA

ES

-1: The Project w

ould notsubstantially degrade the existing visualcharacter or quality of the site and itssurroundings.

LTSN

/AN

/A

AE

S-2: The P

roject, in combination w

ithpast, present, and reasonablyforeseeable projects, w

ould result inless than significant cum

ulative impacts

with respect to aesthetics.

LTSN

/AN

/A

AIR

QU

ALITY

AIR

-1: The Project w

ould result infugitive dust generated duringconstruction activities.

SA

IR-1: The P

roject’s construction contractor shall comply

with the follow

ing BA

AQ

MD

Best M

anagement P

ractices forreducing construction em

issions of PM

10 and PM

2.5 :§

Water all active construction areas at least tw

ice daily, oras often as needed to control dust em

issions. Watering

should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving

the site. Increased watering frequency m

ay be necessaryw

henever wind speeds exceed 15 m

iles per hour.R

eclaimed w

ater should be used whenever possible.

§P

ave, apply water tw

ice daily or as often as necessary, tocontrol dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on allunpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areasat construction sites.

§C

over all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loosem

aterials or require all trucks to maintain at least tw

o feet

LTS

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

TAB

LE2-1

SUM

MA

RY OF

IMPA

CTS A

ND

MITIG

ATION

MEA

SUR

ES

Impact

SignificanceW

ithoutM

itigationM

itigation Measures

SignificanceW

ithM

itigationof freeboard (i.e., the m

inimum

required space between

the top of the load and the top of the trailer).§

Sw

eep daily (with w

ater sweepers using reclaim

ed water if

possible), or as often as needed, with w

ater sweepers all

paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas atthe construction site to control dust.

§S

weep public streets daily (w

ith water sw

eepers usingreclaim

ed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project

site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visiblesoil m

aterial.§

Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive

construction areas.§

Enclose, cover, w

ater twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil

binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).§

Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 m

ph.§

Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as

possible.§

Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to

prevent silt runoff from public roadw

ays.A

IR-2: The P

roject would result in

construction-related air quality impacts

related to fugitive dust and exhaustem

issions.

SA

IR-2: Im

plementation of M

itigation Measure A

IR-1 and A

IR-

3.LTS

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-10N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

TAB

LE2-1

SUM

MA

RY OF

IMPA

CTS A

ND

MITIG

ATION

MEA

SUR

ES

Impact

SignificanceW

ithoutM

itigationM

itigation Measures

SignificanceW

ithM

itigationA

IR-3: The P

roject would expose

sensitive receptors to elevatedconcentrations of TA

Cs and P

M2.5 .

SA

IR-3. The construction contractor shall use construction

equipment fitted w

ith Level 3 Diesel P

articulate Filters (DP

F)for equipm

ent of 50 horsepower or m

ore. The constructioncontractor shall m

aintain a list of all operating equipment in

use on the Project site for verification by the C

ity of Sonom

aB

uilding Departm

ent official or their designee. Theconstruction equipm

ent list shall state the makes, m

odels,and num

ber of construction equipment onsite. E

quipment

shall properly service and maintain construction equipm

entin accordance w

ith the manufacturer’s recom

mendations.

The construction contractor shall also ensure that allnonessential idling of construction equipm

ent is restricted tofive m

inutes or less in compliance w

ith CA

RB

Rule 2449.

Prior to issuance of any construction perm

it, the constructioncontractor shall ensure that all construction plans subm

ittedto the C

ity of Sonoma P

lanning Departm

ent and/or Building

Departm

ent clearly show the requirem

ent for Level 3 DP

Ffor construction equipm

ent over 50 horsepower.

LTS

AIR

-4: The Project w

ould contribute tocum

ulative air quality impacts in the

SFB

AA

B.

SA

IR-4: Im

plementation of M

itigation Measure A

IR-1 and A

IR-

3.LTS

BIO

LOG

ICA

L RESO

UR

CES

BIO

-1: Implem

entation of the proposedP

roject would not have a substantial

adverse effect on special status batspecies.

LTSN

/AN

/A

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

TAB

LE2-1

SUM

MA

RY OF

IMPA

CTS A

ND

MITIG

ATION

MEA

SUR

ES

Impact

SignificanceW

ithoutM

itigationM

itigation Measures

SignificanceW

ithM

itigationB

IO-2: Im

plementation of the proposed

Project w

ould not contribute tocum

ulative impacts in the area related

to special status bat species.

LTSN

/AN

/A

CULTU

RA

L RESO

UR

CES

CU

LT-1: Construction of the P

rojectw

ould not alter the historicalsignificance of the Index-Tribunebuilding.. The Index-Tribune buildingw

as remodeled in 2017. Therefore, the

warehouse additions are no longer

connected to the building anddem

olition would not affect the Index-

Tribune building because the rear wall

has been rebuilt and is not historic. TheP

roject will not im

pact this façade andthis m

itigation measure is no longer

needed.

LTSN

/ALTS

CU

LT-2: Construction of the P

rojectcould adversely change the significanceof an archaeological resource.

SC

ULT-2A

: The Project shall com

ply with the follow

ingm

easures during construction of the Project:

§O

nce the surface is cleared but before thecom

mencem

ent of construction, a cultural resourcessurvey shall be com

pleted by an archaeologist who m

eetsthe S

ecretary of the Interior's professional qualificationsstandards. Additionally, lim

ited subsurface explorationsshall be com

pleted through a series of auger hole borings.

LTS

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-12N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

TAB

LE2-1

SUM

MA

RY OF

IMPA

CTS A

ND

MITIG

ATION

MEA

SUR

ES

Impact

SignificanceW

ithoutM

itigationM

itigation Measures

SignificanceW

ithM

itigation§

If archaeological remains are found, w

ork at the place ofdiscovery shall be halted im

mediately until a qualified

archaeologist can evaluate the finds (Section 15064.5 [f]).

- Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include:

obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and m

ashing implem

ents (e.g., slabs andhandstones, and m

ortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders w

ith mortar cups; and locally

darkened midden soils. M

idden soils may contain a

combination of any of the previously listed item

s with

the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and

fire affected stones.- H

istoric period site indicators generally include:fragm

ents of glass, ceramic, and m

etal objects; milled

and split lumber; and structure and feature rem

ains such as building foundations and discrete trashdeposits (e.g., w

ells, privy pits, dumps).

§If archaeological rem

ains are found and judged potentiallysignificant, a treatm

ent plan shall be developed andexecuted.

§A

ll cultural materials recovered as part of the H

otelS

onoma project shall be subject to scientific analysis and

a report prepared according to current professionalstandards.

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

TAB

LE2-1

SUM

MA

RY OF

IMPA

CTS A

ND

MITIG

ATION

MEA

SUR

ES

Impact

SignificanceW

ithoutM

itigationM

itigation Measures

SignificanceW

ithM

itigationC

ULT-2B

: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface culturalresources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,all w

ork within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a

qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess thesignificance of the find according to C

EQ

A Guidelines

Section 15064.5. If any find is determ

ined to be significant,representatives from

the City and the archaeologist w

ouldm

eet to determine the appropriate avoidance m

easures orother appropriate m

itigation. All significant cultural m

aterialsrecovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of theconsulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis,professional m

useum curation, and docum

entationaccording to current professional standards In consideringany suggested m

itigation proposed by the consultingarchaeologist to m

itigate impacts to historical resources or

unique archaeological resources, the City shall determ

inew

hether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light offactors such as the nature of the find, P

roject design, costs,and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, otherappropriate m

easures (e.g., data recovery) would be

instituted. Work m

ay proceed on other parts of the Project

site while m

itigation for historical resources or uniquearchaeological resources is being carried out.

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-14N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

TAB

LE2-1

SUM

MA

RY OF

IMPA

CTS A

ND

MITIG

ATION

MEA

SUR

ES

Impact

SignificanceW

ithoutM

itigationM

itigation Measures

SignificanceW

ithM

itigationC

ULT-3: C

onstruction of the Project

could directly destroy a uniquepaleontological resource or site orunique geologic feature.

SC

ULT-3: In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits

are discovered during construction, excavations within 50

feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The

contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine

the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the

discovery as needed, in accordance with S

ociety ofVertebrate P

aleontology standards (Society of VertebrateP

aleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, andassess the significance of the find under the criteria set forthin C

EQ

A Guidelines

Section 15064.5. The paleontologist

shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine

procedures that would be follow

ed before construction isallow

ed to resume at the location of the find. If the P

rojectproponent determ

ines that avoidance is not feasible, thepaleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for m

itigatingthe effect of the P

roject based on the qualities that make the

resource important. The plan shall be subm

itted to the City

for review and approval prior to im

plementation.

LTS

CU

LT-4: The Project w

ould not disturbany hum

an remains, including those

interred outside of formal cem

eteries.

LTSN

/AN

/A

CU

LT-5: The Project, in com

binationw

ith past, present, and reasonablyforeseeable projects, w

ould not result inless than significant cum

ulative impacts

with respect to aesthetics.

LTSN

/AN

/A

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

GEO

LOG

Y, SOILS, A

ND

SEISMIC

ITYG

EO

-1: The Project w

ould not exposepeople or structures to potentialsubstantial adverse effects, includingthe risk of loss, injury, or death involvingstrong seism

ic ground shaking.

LTSN

/AN

/A

GE

O-2: The P



ould result inless than significant cum

ulative impacts

with respect to geology, soils, and

seismicity.

LTSN

/AN

/A

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-16N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

GR

EENHO

USE G

AS EMISSIO

NS

GH

G-1: The P

roject would not generate

greenhouse gas emissions either

directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environm

ent.

LTSThe H

otel Sonom

a includes building to LEE

D standards. To

ensure that the Project shall com

plete the LEE

D application

process and achieve LEE

D certification, conditions of

approval shall require that prior to the issuance of acertificate of occupancy, LE

ED

strategies used in the Project

shall be at a level sufficient to reduce overall annual energydem

and of the Project by at least 32 percent com

pared to aversion of the P

roject that does not include these LEE

Dstrategies. The P

roject, once designed, shall provide arevised em

ission estimate that factors in the G

HG

emissions

reductions associated with the selected LE

ED

measures. If

necessary, to demonstrate that G

HG

emissions are

consistent with the S

tate’s legislative mandate for 2030, the

Project shall im

plement additional reduction strategies,

which m

ay include the use of verifiable offsets, and am

onitoring mechanism

consistent with recom

mendations of

CE

QA

Guidelines S

ection 15183.5 for GH

G reduction

programs. The C

ity will require that the P

roject comply w

ithapplicable G

HG

reduction strategies necessary todem

onstrate GH

G em

issions that would be consistent w

iththe S

tate’s emission targets for 2030.

.

LTS

GH

G-2: The P

roject, in combination

with past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable projects, would result in

less than significant cumulative im

pactsw

ith respect to GH

G em

issions.

LTSW

ith the design features, location, and mitigation included

as a part of the Project D

escription and EIR

, and theconditions of approval, the P

roject’s emissions w

ill beconsistent w

ith State guidance on G

HG

emissions

reductions. The City has dem

onstrated that the Project w

illbe consistent w

ith the State legislative fram

ework that, in

California, has been established for assessing the

cumulative significance of G

HG

emissions im

pacts

LTS

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

HYD

RO

LOG

Y AN

D W

ATER Q

UA

LITYH

YDR

O-1: The P

roject would not

substantially deplete groundwater

supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge such that there

would be a net deficit in aquifer volum

eor a low

ering of the local groundwater

table level (e.g. the production rate ofpre-existing nearby w

ells would not drop

to a level which w

ould not supportexisting land uses or planned uses forw

hich permits have been granted).

LTSN

/AN

/A

HYD

RO

-2: The Project, in com

binationw

ith past, present, and reasonablyforeseeable projects, w

ould not result insignificant cum

ulative impacts w

ithrespect to hydrology and w

ater quality.

LTSN

/AN

/A

NO

ISEN

OIS

E-1: The P

roject would expose

people to or generate noise levels inexcess of standards established in theG

eneral Plan and/or the applicable

standards of other agencies.

SN

OIS

E-1: P

rior to obtaining building permits, the Project

applicant shall submit an acoustic study to the satisfaction of

the City planning director to ensure that the P

roject includesdesign features to m

eet the 45 dBA C

NE

L noise standard atall hotel room

s. The noise study shall estimate the future

long-range noise levels at the building façade and calculatethe exterior to interior noise reduction at all hotel room

sbased on specific construction plans including grading plans,building footprints and architectural plans. The study shalldescribe specific w

indows and w

all assemblies design and

materials so all hotel room

s meet the 45 dbA C

NEL noise

standard due to exterior noise sources. The projectapplicant/developer shall im

plement all recom

mended

design features.

LTS

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-18N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

NO

ISE

-2: Implem

entation of the Project

could result in the exposure of personsto or generation of excessivegroundborne vibration during portions ofproject construction.

SN

OIS

E-2: D

uring site preparation, demolition, and

construction activities , the following controls to reduce

potential vibration impacts shall be im

plemented:

§The use of vibratory rollers w

ould be prohibited. Theconstruction contractor shall identify alternative soilcom

paction methods such as static rollers.

§To the extent possible, the constructor contractor shallutilize sm

all- to medium

-sized bulldozers would produce

less vibration than using large bulldozers.§

To the extent possible, vibration-intense constructionactivities should take place during tim

es when nearby

sensitive receptors, such as hotels, meeting room

s, andresidences are at their low

est utilization/occupancy.§

Prior to the issuance of building perm

its the applicantand/or construction contractor shall inspect and report onthe current structural condition of the existing buildingsw

ithin 50 feet from w

here vibratory rollers, largebulldozers, and the like w

ould be used.§

During construction, if any vibration levels cause cosm

eticor structural dam

age to existing buildings in closeproxim

ity to a project site, the applicant shall imm

ediatelyissue “stop-w

ork” orders to the construction contractor toprevent further dam

age. Work shall not restart until the

building is stabilized and/or preventive measures are

implem

ented to relieve further damage to the building(s).

With im

plementation of the m

itigation measures listed

above, the Project w

ould reduce potential vibration impacts

to less than significant levels.

LTS

NO

ISE

-3: Implem

entation of the Project

would not result in a substantial

permanent increase in traffic noise

levels in the vicinity of the Project site

above levels existing without the

Project.

LTSN

/AN

/A

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

NO

ISE

-4: Construction activities

associated with buildout of the P

rojectw

ould result in substantial temporary or

periodic increases in ambient noise

levels in the vicinity of the Project site

above existing levels.

SN

OIS

E-4: The P

roject shall implem

ent the following

measures.§

Construction equipm

ent shall be well m

aintained and usedjudiciously to be as quiet as practical. E

quipment and

trucks used for project construction shall utilize the bestavailable noise control techniques (e.g., im

provedm

ufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers,

ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuatingshields or shrouds), w

herever feasible;§

Utilize “quiet” m

odels of air compressors and other

stationary noise sources where such technology exists.

Select hydraulically- or electrically-pow

ered equipment

and avoid pneumatically pow

ered equipment w

herefeasible. Im

pact tools (e.g., jack hamm

ers, pavement

breakers, and rock drills) used for project demolition or

construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered

wherever possible to avoid noise associated w

ithcom

pressed air exhaust from pneum

atically powered

tools. How

ever, where use of pneum

atic tools isunavoidable, an exhaust m

uffler on the compressed air

exhaust shall be used. Quieter procedures shall be used,

such as drills rather than impact equipm

ent, whenever

such procedures are available and consistent with

construction procedures;§

Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as

possible from sensitive receptors that adjoin construction

sites. Construct tem

porary noise barriers or partialenclosures to acoustically shield such equipm

ent where

feasible;§

Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal com

bustionengines;

§P

rior to initiation of on-site construction-related demolition

or earthwork activities, a m

inimum

12-foot-high temporary

sound barrier shall be erected along the Project property

LTS

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-20N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

line abutting adjacent operational businesses, residencesor other noise-sensitive land uses. These tem

porarysound barriers shall be constructed w

ith sound shieldingproperties and shall be constructed so that vertical orhorizontal gaps are elim

inated. These temporary barriers

shall remain in place through the construction phase in

which heavy construction equipm

ent, such as excavators,dozers, scrapers, loaders, rollers, pavers, and dum

ptrucks, are operating w

ithin 50 feet of the edge of theconstruction site by adjacent sensitive land uses. Thism

easure could lower construction noise levels at adjacent,

ground-floor residential units by up to 8 dB, depending on

topography andsite conditions;

§To the m

aximum

extent feasible, route construction-related traffic along m

ajor roadways and aw

ay fromsensitive receptors;

§N

otify all businesses, residences or other noise-sensitiveland uses w

ithin 500 feet of the perimeter of the

construction site of the construction schedule in writing

prior to the beginning of construction and prior to eachconstruction phase change that could potentially result ina tem

porary increase in ambient noise levels in the

Project vicinity;§

Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include

permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening

contact number for the job site, and a day and evening

contact number for the on-site com

plaint and enforcement

manager, and the C

ity’s Building Official, in the event of

problems;

§A

n on-site complaint and enforcem

ent manager shall be

available to respond to and track complaints. The

manager w

ill be responsible for responding to anycom

plaints regarding construction noise and forcoordinating w

ith the adjacent land uses. The manager

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

will determ

ine the cause of any complaints (e.g., starting

too early, bad muffler, etc.) and coordinate w

ith theconstruction team

to implem

ent effective measures

(considered technically and economically feasible)

warranted to correct the problem

. The telephone number

of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction siteand provided to neighbors in a notification letter. Them

anager shall notify the City’s B

uilding Official of all

complaints w

ithin 24 hours. The manager w

ill be trained touse a sound level m

eter and should be available during allconstruction hours to respond to com

plaints; and§

A pre-construction meeting shall be held w

ith the Building

Official and the general contractor/on-site project m

anagerto confirm

that noise measures and practices (including

construction hours, neighborhood notification, postedsigns, etc.) are fully operational.

The above mitigation m

easures shall be identified inconstruction contracts and acknow

ledged by the contractor.N

OIS

E-5: This P

roject, in combination

with past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable projects, would result in

less than significant impacts w

ithrespect to noise.

LTSN

/AN

/A

PUB

LIC SER

VICES

PS

-1: The proposed Project w

ould notresult in the need for new

or physicallyaltered fire protection facilities, theconstruction of w

hich could causesignificant environm

ental impacts, in

order to maintain acceptable service

ratios, response times or other

performance objectives.

LTSN

/AN

/A

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-22N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

PS

-2: The proposed Project, in

combination w

ith past, present andreasonably foreseeable projects, w

ouldresult in less than significant cum

ulativeim

pacts with respect to fire protection

services.

LTSN

/AN

/A

PS

-3: The proposed Project w

ould notrequire expanded facilities, theconstruction of w


ental impacts, in

order to maintain acceptable service

ratios, response times, or other

performance objectives for police

services.

LTSN

/AN

/A

PS

-4: The proposed Project, in

combination w

ith past, present andreasonably foreseeable projects, w

ouldresult in less than significant cum

ulativeim

pacts with respect to police services.

LTSN

/AN

/A

TRAN

SPOR

TATION

AN

D TR

AFFICTR

AN

S-1: The P

roject would not

conflict with an applicable plan,

ordinance, or policy establishingm

easures of effectiveness for theperform

ance of the circulation system,

taking into account all modes of

transportation, including mass transit,

non-motorized travel, and relevant

components of the circulation system

,including, but not lim

ited to,intersections, streets, highw

ays andfreew

ays, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and m

ass transit.

LTSN

/AN

/A

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

TRA

NS

-2: The Project could potentially

increase VM

T and, while specific

standards have not been set, as theim

pact could potentially be significant,m

easures to reduce VM

T shall beim

plemented as a condition of approval

the Project

PS

The Project shall pay its fair share of Im

provements to the

intersection of West N

apa Street/First S

treet West, identified

by the City of S

onoma as part of the G

eneral Plan U

pdateprocess, and the S

ystemic Safety R

eport (March 2019) and

which m

ay include including curb extensions, stripingm

odifications, and enhanced signing /or other similar

facilities, should construct in conjunction with by the P

rojectidentified as approxim

ately $6,238 at the time of building

permit

LTS

TRA

NS

-3: The Project w

ould not resultin a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in trafficlevels or a change in location thatresults in substantial safety risks.

LTSN

/AN

/A

TRA

NS

-4: The Project w

ould notincrease hazards due to a designfeature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerousintersections) or incom

patible uses(e.g., farm

equipment).

LTSN

/AN

/A

TRA

NS

-5: The Project w

ould not resultin inadequate em

ergency access.LTS

N/A

N/A

TRA

NS

-6A: The P

roject would add

pedestrian trips to an intersection thathas been identified by the C

ity’s TrafficC

omm

ittee as needing improvem

ents toaccom

modate pedestrian travel safely

and efficiently.

STR

AN

S-6A

: The following shall be im

plemented:

§The P

roject shall pay its fair share of Improvem

ents to theintersection of W

est Napa S

treet/First Street W

est,identified by the C

ity of Sonom

a as part of the General

Plan U

pdate process, and the System

ic Safety Report

(March 2019) including curb extensions, striping

modifications, and enhanced signing by the P

rojectidentified as approxim

ately $6,238.§

LTS

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-24N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

TRA

NS

-6B: The P

roject would generate

bicycle trips on adjacent streets.LTS

TRA

NS

-6B: The follow

ing shall be implem

ented:§

Bicycle storage facilities should be provided on-site as

proposed.§

Should the project include any changes to the existing

frontage on West N

apa Street, such changes m

ustaccom

modate planned future bike lanes.

LTS

TRA

NS

-7: The Project w

ould addvehicular and pedestrian trips to W

estN

apa Street/Fifth S

treet West

intersection that is expected to operatedeficiently at LO

S E

during the weekday

peak period.

STR

AN

S-7: The follow

ing shall be implem

ented:Im

provements identified by the C

ity of Sonom

a through theG

eneral Plan C

irculation Elem

ent update process include asouthbound right-turn lane w

ith a signal timing m

odificationto include an overlap betw

een the southbound right turn(from

5th S

treet West onto W

est Napa S

treet) and eastboundleft turn (from

West N

apa Street onto 5

th Street W

est) at theW

est Napa/5

th Street W

est intersection. the project’sequitable share tow

ards these improvem

ents, either througha proportional share

fee of 1.1 percent of the $338,000estim

ated cost identified in the City’s S

ystemic S

afetyA

nalysis Final Am

ended Report, or city fees, shall be

collected at the time of building perm

it.

LTS

UTILITIES AN

D SER

VICE SYSTEM

SU

TIL-1: The Project w

ould havesufficient w

ater supplies available toserve the project from

existingentitlem

ents and resources, or new or

expanded entitlements needed.

LTSN

/AN

/A

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

UTIL-2: The P

roject would not require or

result in the construction of new w

atertreatm

ent facilities or expansion ofexisting facilities, the construction ofw

hich could cause significantenvironm

ental effects.

LTSN

/AN

/A

UTIL-3: Im

plementation of the P

roject,in com

bination with past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable projects, would

not result in a significant cumulative

impacts w

ith respect to water supply or

services.

LTSN

/AN

/A

UTIL-4: The project w

ould not exceedw

astewater treatm

ent requirements of

the applicable Regional W

ater Quality

Control B

oard.

LTSN

/AN

/A

UTIL-5: The project w

ould not require orresult in the construction of neww

astewater treatm

ent facilities orexpansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of w


ent effects.

LTSN

/AN

/A

UTIL-6: C

onstruction of the proposedP

roject would adversely affect the

carrying capacity of the sanitary sewer

system.

SU

TIL-6: The Project Applicant shall coordinate w

ith theS

onoma Valley C

ounty Sanitation D

istrict (SVC

SD

) toupgrade the capacity of the local sanitation collectionsystem

, such that the additional flows generated by the

project shall be fully accomm

odated, specifically during peakw

et weather flow

s. This shall be accomplished using one of

the following m

eans, or combination thereof, of w

hich thefinal determ

ination of the means to use shall be at the

discretion of the SV

CS

D:

§P

ayment of In-Lieu Fee: The P

roject Applicant shall pay

an in-lieu fee into the SV

CS

D W

ater Conservation

Program

, specifically, the Direct Installation P

lumbing

LTS

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

2-26N

ov

em

be

r 20

19

Program

, which prom

otes the installation of high efficiencyplum

bing fixtures (toilets, urinals, faucet aerators,show

erheads) for SV

CS

D com

mercial and residential

customers. The am

ount of the fee, which shall be

determined by the S

VC

SD

, shall be sufficient to fundidentified conservation m

easures within the collection

system area that w

ould offset flows generated by the

project (38.44 ESD

).§

Holding Tank: The P

roject Applicant shall install a holdingtank if needed, near the dow

nstream end of the new

on-site sew

er service lateral. The tank is to be sized to storea m

inimum

of 8 hours of wastew

ater originating from the

project and discharge at a rate and time approved by

SV

CS

D. The final calculations for the required size to

accomm

odate 8 hours of storage shall be verified duringplan check. D

esign details shall be established duringplan check, and the tank shall be installed and operationalprior to occupancy of the P

roject site. The Project

Applicant shall develop an operations and m

aintenanceplan for the holding tank to ensure that the holding tankoperates correctly and leaks are prevented or repaired.

To address any potential secondary impacts, all standard

construction provisions that apply to the project shall be met,

including compliance w

ith the noise ordinance, traffic safetyprovisions (flaggers and signage), and storm

water control to

protect water quality.

Com

pletion of improvem

ent or implem

entation ofconservation m

easures shall be required prior to finaloccupancy of the project. Enforcem

ent Responsibility;

Sonoma Valley C

ounty Sanitation District, C

ity Engineer; C

ity of Sonom

a Public W

orks Departm

ent.

HO

TEL P

RO

JE

CT S

ON

OM

A R

EV

ISE

D F

INA

L E

IRC

ITY O

F S

ON

OM

A

EXECUTIVE SUM

MA

RY

Novem

ber 2019

UTIL-7: D

evelopment of the project

would adversely affect capacity of the

sewer conveyance system

that servesthe project site.

SU

TIL-7: Implem

ent Mitigation M

easure UTIL-6.

LTS

UTIL-8: Im

plementation of the P

rojectw

ould result in an increase in energyconsum

ption.

LTSN

/AN

/A

UTIL-9: The proposed P

roject would not

contribute to cumulative natural gas and

electrical service demands.

LTSN

/AN

/A

LAN

D U

SE AND

PLAN

NING

LU-1: The P

roject would not conflict w

ithany applicable land use plan, policy, orregulation adopted for the purpose ofavoiding or m

itigating an environmental

effect.

LTSN

/AN

/A

LU-2: The P



ould result inless-than-significant cum

ulative impacts

with respect to land use and planning.

LTSN

/AN

/A


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2-28 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 9

This page intentionally blank

November 2019 3-1

3. Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR

This chapter presents text revisions to the revised Draft EIR that have been made in responseto public and agency comments, as well as staff-directed changes. These text revisions includetypographical corrections, insignificant modification, amplifications and clarifications of therevised Draft EIR. In each case, the revised page and location on the page is presented,followed by the textual, tabular, or graphical revision. Underline text represents language thathas been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR.

None of the revisions constitutes significant new information as defined in CEQA GuidelinesSection 15088.5; therefore, this EIR does not need to be recirculated.

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page 1-5 of the revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

1.4.1 HOTEL-RESIDENTIAL (50%-50%) ALTERNATIVE

Under this alternative, the Project’s proposed building area (excluding the underground parkinggarage) of 67,478 square feet would include 50 percent as commercial and 50 percent asresidential. The proposed restaurant would be removed. In order to accommodate theresidential and hotel units within the proposed building footprints, it is assumed that the sitecould accommodate 25 hotel rooms (450 square feet per room) and 25 residential units (800square feet average size per unit), consisting of 12 two-bedroom units and 13 one-bedroomunits. ….

Page 1-16 of the revised Draft EIR is herby amended as follows: Table 1-1

Impact Significance withoutmitigation

Mitigation Measure Significant withMitigation

TRANS-6A theproject would addpedestrian trips to anintersection that hasbeen identified by the

SThe Project shall payits fair share ofImprovements to theintersection of WestNapa Street/FirstStreet West,

LTS


REVISIONS TO THE REVISED DRAFT EIR

3-2 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9

City’s TrafficCommittee asneedingimprovements toaccommodatepedestrian travelsafely and efficiently.

identified by the Cityof Sonoma as part ofthe General PlanUpdate process, andthe Systemic SafetyReport (March 2019)and which mayinclude includingcurb extensions,stripingmodifications, andenhanced signing /orother similar facilities,should construct inconjunction with bythe Project identifiedas approximately$6,238 at the time ofbuilding permit

Trans-7: the projectwould add vehicularand pedestrian tripsto West NapaStreet/Fifth StreetWest intersectionthat is expected tooperate deficiently atLOS E during theweekday peakperiod.

SImprovementsidentified by the Cityof Sonoma throughthe General PlanCirculation Elementupdate processinclude a southboundright-turn lane with asignal timingmodification toinclude an overlapbetween thesouthbound right turn(from 5th Street Westonto West NapaStreet) andeastbound left turn(from West NapaStreet onto 5th StreetWest) at the WestNapa/5th Street Westintersection. theproject’s equitableshare towards theseimprovements, eitherthrough aproportional share

N/A

LTS



November 2019 3-3

fee of 1.1 percent ofthe $338,000estimated costidentified in the City’sSystemic SafetyAnalysis FinalAmended Report, orcity fees, shall becollected at the timeof building permit.

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 3-13 insert a new third paragraph:

The Project Applicant has offered the following to reduce delivery issues:

· Limiting deliveries on First Street West to before 10 a.m.· Prohibiting full size buses from passenger pick up or drop off at the hotel auto court,· Prohibiting idling in hotel driveways· Requiring exiting traffic to use the First Street West exit during peak hours

Page 3-13, Landscaping paragraph of the revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Although mature trees are proposed to be removed, oak trees, they shall be replaced ona two-for-one basis, and remaining trees would be replaced on a one-for-one basis,either onsite or through a City sponsored in lieu payment to support tree plantingelsewhere within the City, consistent with or exceeding the requirements of the treeordinance contained in the Sonoma Municipal Code chapter 12.08.

Page 3-16, 3.6.1 Required Permits and Approvals is hereby amended to include the followingbullet:

· Any sign or work within Caltrans Right of Way would require an encroachment permitprior to construction.



3-4 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.4, CULTURAL RESOURCES

Since the original Draft EIR circulated, there has been a change in circumstance to the existingsite. On April 14, 2016, the Sonoma Planning Commission approved the reconstruction of theIndex-Tribune building including the addition of a second floor. The remodel was also reviewedby the City of Sonoma Design Review and Historic Preservation Commission. The applicationincluded a March 24, 2016 study by Page and Turnbull analyzing the historic resources impactsresulting from improvements to the Index-Tribune building. The analysis found that theimprovements maintained the character defining features on the front façade of the building andthe total reconstruction of the side and rear walls would not impair the historic nature of thestructure. The rear (south) elevation was completely demolished and rebuilt with a newconcrete two story wall. The remodel was later issued all required permits and was completedin 2017. The rear (south) elevation was completely demolished and rebuilt with a new concretetwo story wall. Upon the demolition of the warehouse, the owner of the Index-Tribune buildingwill stucco the rear elevation to match the other walls of the building. For this reason, theMitigation Measure CULT-1 is no longer required, since the Hotel Project would not impact thenew rear wall.

Page 4.4-10, 2nd paragraph of the revised Draft EIR is amended as follows:

Implementation of the Project would result in the demolition of the warehouse additions.However, improvements to the Index-Tribune building have already occurred. Therefore,the warehouse additions are no longer connected to the building and demolition wouldnot affect the Index-Tribune building because the rear wall has been rebuilt and is nothistoric. Since the warehouse additions are currently connected to the Index-Tribunebuilding if once the warehouse additions are demolished, the southern elevation of themain building is not re-constructed in accordance with the Secretary of the InteriorsStandards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the character defining features couldbe substantially altered. As a result a significant impact would occur. As a result,implementation of the proposed Project would have no potential to alter the historicsignificance of the Index-Tribune Building and Mitigation Measure CULT-1 is no longerrequired. It is recommended that the following measure be deleted:

Mitigation Measure CULT-1: To ensure the Index-Tribune building retains its historicalsignificance, the design of the altered rear (south) elevation after demolition of thewarehouse additions shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards forRehabilitation. A consultant who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s ProfessionalQualification Standards for Historic Architecture shall prepare a report on conformanceof the design to the secretary’s Standard. The report and the architectural drawings andspecifications for shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and PlanningCommission to confirm conformance before final planning approval is granted.



November 2019 3-5

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.10, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

Page 4.10-23 of the revised Draft EIR is modified as follows:

Mitigation Measure Trans-2: The hotel operator shall provide transit passes for employeeswilling to travel to work by bus, allow employees to work virtually if feasible for their jobclassification: The Project Applicant (or Project site operator) shall submit a VMT StrategyReport, prior to occupancy, of measures the Hotel shall implement once the Project isoperational, to reduce VMT from the baseline determined in the revised Final EIR. After theProject has been operational for six months, a report shall verify the reductions have beenachieved. If the reductions in VMT of 15% are not demonstrated in the report, theOwner/Operator shall implement additional strategies from Table 4-6 of the revised FinalEIR. The Project Applicant or operator shall submit an annual report to the City for the firstthree years demonstrating the efficacy of the selected TDM strategies in achieving the identifiedVMT reduction goal and proposing modifications as required to achieve the required VMTreduction goal. Compliance shall be monitored by the City.

Page 4.10-26 of the revised Draft EIR is modified as follows to clarify the distribution of projecttrips.

Conditions with project-generated trips added to existing volumes, as well as safetycriteria were reviewed in evaluating the need for turn lanes at the project driveway onWest Napa Street. It was conservatively assumed that all the traffic coming from the eastand north would enter via the driveway, and further that all site-generated traffic woulduse the project driveway, though some trips would be oriented to the parking lot on thenorth side of West Napa Street. For the trips routed from the south on First Street Westto access the driveway on West Napa Street, a restricted left-turn would be required andwas therefore not assumed. Given the turn restriction at West Napa Street, driversdestined for the parking lot that would take access from First Street West would beexpected to arrive from the south; as these trips would not include travel on West NapaStreet and would not result in a left turn at the driveway, they are therefore not includedin the left-turn lane warrant analysis.

Page 4.10-29 of the revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Truck Access

The potential for delivery activity to impact operation of First Street West was consideredin light of the planned delivery schedule. It is understood that many of the vendors forthe restaurant already deliver food and beverages to the Red Grape Restaurant andother restaurants in the vicinity, so such deliveries would result in no change fromexisting conditions. Information provided by the Project Applicant indicates that theyanticipate generating 15 deliveries per week specific to their project, or an average ofjust more than two per day. Most of these deliveries will be in 14-foot box trucks or vans,



3-6 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9

vehicles of a size that are routinely encountered in the area and would be consideredappropriate on even a local residential street, though and First Street West is designatedas a collector local street in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. Onevendor uses a semi-truck and trailer for deliveries and this would result in two deliveriesper week, or a total of four trips by trucks larger than a box truck.

The segment of First Street West between West Napa Street and West MacArthur Streetcarries approximately 1,200 vehicles per day, including about 115 vehicles in bothdirections during the p.m. peak hour. The project would be responsible for 52 daily tripson this segment, some of which already occur due to existing businesses that will bereplaced with the Project. However, even if all 52 daily trips were new trips, the roadwaywould have a volume of approximately 1,250 daily trips, which is well below the industry-standard of 2,000 trips per day at which the residential character of a street begins tobreak down.

Given the limited number of additional truck trips, their scheduling during the earlymorning hours when traffic is generally light, and the volume that is well below thethreshold indicating a change in character for local streets, designation of First StreetWest as a collector street, which has a purpose of linking arterials to local streets andcommercial and public destinations, the impact due to delivery activity is expected to beless-than-significant.


The existing network of sidewalks are generally adequate to serve pedestrian trafficassociated with the proposed Sonoma Hotel, though modifications are needed at theadjacent intersection of West Napa Street/First Street West to safely serve the additionalpedestrians that would be generated by the project, including employees traveling to andfrom the off-site parking lot. This intersection, which provides the most direct pedestrianconnection between the site and Downtown destinations, also encounters highpedestrian crossing volumes during busy periods, resulting in high crosswalk use thattends to create traffic congestion along West Napa Street. Based on these factors, thisintersection was identified as a “hot spot” in the City’s 2003 Traffic Calming Plan, whichrecommended that curb extensions be considered as a means of increasing pedestrianvisibility and reducing crossing distances. Preliminary concepts for reducing the crossingdistance and improving pedestrian/bicycle access at West Napa Street/First Street Westare currently under consideration by City staff. Figure 4.10-7 shows a potentialconceptual design for the intersection that includes bulb-outs. The design of the curbextensions at the intersection of First Street West/West Napa Street should must be inconformance with applicable design standards and City policies; be consistent withpotential future bicycle improvements; and take into account potential impacts on truckmovements, as well as the potential to adversely affect the operation of the intersectionby reducing vehicle speeds or by causing increased delays at the stop-sign controlledlegs.



November 2019 3-7

Page 4.10-31, Figure 4.10-7, is revised as shown on the following page to include three newfigures (Figure 4.10-7, 4.10-7a and 4.10-7b) showing the conceptual layout of bulb-outs.



3-8 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9



November 2019 3-9

Figure 4.10-7a Commercial Truck Access



3-10 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9

Figure 4.10-7b Firetruck Access

[new figure]



November 2019 3-11

Page 4.10-32, Mitigation Measure TRANS-6A, of the revised Draft EIR is hereby amendedas follows:

Mitigation Measure TRANS-6A: The following shall be implemented:

§ The Project shall pay its fair share of Improvements to the intersection of West NapaStreet/First Street West, identified by the City of Sonoma as part of the General PlanUpdate process, and the Systemic Safety Report (March 2019) and which may includeincluding curb extensions, striping modifications, and enhanced signing /or other similarfacilities, should construct in conjunction with by the Project at the time of buildingpermit identified as approximately $6,238.

The funds will be retained in an account specifically for construction of the identifiedimprovements. The amount to be contributed by the hotel project is just 1.1% of the totalestimated cost. The remaining funds for construction would be based on City-wide priorities forproject funding.

Page 4.10-36, Table 4.10-11, is hereby amended as follows:

TABLE 4.10-11 SUMMARY OF FUTURE AND FUTURE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTIONLEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS

Study Intersection

Approach

Future Conditions Future plus Project ConditionsPM Peak Midday Peak PM Peak Midday Peak

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS1. W Spain St/FirstSt W 29.9 D 26.7 D 30.2 D 26.9 D

2. W Napa St/FifthSt W 61.7 E 44.6 D 61.9

(+0.2)E 44.9 D

Mitigated (add’lSB RT lane,phasing changes)

49.7 D 34.0 C 49.8 D 34.1 C

3. W NapaSt/Second St W 40.3 D 29.2 C 40.6 D 29.4 C

4. W Napa St/FirstSt W* 55.2 F 45.7 E 58.3

(+3.1)F 48.7

(+3.0)E

NorthboundApproach 11.3 B 12.0 B 11.4 B 12.2 B

SouthboundApproach 11.6 B 13.2 B 11.6 B 13.3 B

5. NapaSt/Broadway 80.7 F 36.5 E 82.2

(+1.5)F 38.2

(+1.7)E



3-12 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9

TABLE 4.10-11 SUMMARY OF FUTURE AND FUTURE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTIONLEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS

Study Intersection

Approach

Future Conditions Future plus Project ConditionsPM Peak Midday Peak PM Peak Midday Peak

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS6. E Napa St/First StE 19.8 C 22.4 C 20.1 C 22.7 C

Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersection are indicated in italics; Boldtext indicates unacceptable operation* Average for intersection based on analysis as if all-way stop-controlled.Source: W-Trans 2018.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-7: Page 4.10-37 is amended as follows:

§ Improvements identified by the City of Sonoma through the General Plan CirculationElement Update process include a southbound right-turn lane with a signal timingmodification to include an overlap between the southbound right turn (from 5th StreetWest onto West Napa Street) and eastbound left turn (from West Napa Street onto 5th

Street West) at the West Napa/5th Street West intersection. The Project’s equitableshare towards these improvements, either through a proportional share fee of 1.1percent of the $338,000 estimated cost identified in the City’s Systemic Safety AnalysisFinal Amended Report, or City fees, shall be collected at the time of building permit.

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4.12, LAND USE AND PLANNING


Existing ConditionsThe Project site is developed with commercial uses, including the Lynch Building, the Sonoma-Index Tribune Building, and a metal building that was previously used for newspaper productionby the Sonoma Index-Tribune. The Lynch Building contains seven residential units. In addition,rear parking is located behind the Tribune Building. The Project site is located in downtownSonoma, California, and is surrounded by urban development.

An existing retail building known as the Feed Store at the southwest corner of West Napa Streetand First Street West and its parking lot located on First Street West are located directly east of



November 2019 3-13

the Project site and are not included in the proposed Project. The Feed Store contains at leastone vacation rental.

Downtown Sonoma contains a broad mix of uses, including boutique shops, hotels, restaurants,wine tasting rooms, a shopping center, and other commercial uses, such as a gas station andconvenience store. Additionally, there are some residential neighborhoods nearby but notadjacent to the Project site, consisting primarily of single-family and mixed-use residential units.

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 6, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

Page 6-2 of the revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

§ Hotel/Residential (50%-50%). Under this alternative, the Project’s proposed building area(excluding the underground parking garage) of 67,478 square feet would includeapproximately 50 percent as hotel and 50 percent as residential. The proposed restaurantwould be removed. In order to accommodate the residential and hotel units within theproposed building footprints, it is assumed that the site could accommodate 25 37 hotelrooms (450 square feet per room) and 25 residential units (800 square feet average size perunit), consisting of 12 two-bedroom units and 13 one-bedroom units.1 Based on a Projectsite area of 54,000 square feet (or 1.24 acres),2 25 residential units would be the maximumnumber of units permitted under the applicable Commercial Zoning District, which permits20 units per acre. To meet the City’s parking standards, the underground parking garagewould be expanded to add 12 additional parking spaces. Overall, the building would beincreased by 8,750 net square feet. All other Project components would be the same as theproposed Project.

1 Michael Ross, AIA, NCARB, RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, email correspondence with David Goodison,City of Sonoma. December 19, 2017.

2 Although the Project site is 71,000 square feet (1.63 acres) in area, because no changes are proposed to theLynch Building or Tribune Building, the affected area is limited to 54,000 square feet (1.24 acres).

hotel sonoma final eir - storage.googleapis.com€¦ · 2.1.3 report organization this revised...

Documents