Turn it in report is required

Tourism  Policy  and  Planning   Politics  and  Plans  of  new  business  in  a  popular  destination  

    The  following  two  op-­‐ed  articles  represent  two  points  of  view  regarding  the   addition  of  a  proposed  as  a  59-­‐room  property  1/2  block  West  of  the  Plaza,   downtown  Sonoma.  It  conforms  to  the  requirements  of  the  General  Plan  and  has   actually  been  redesigned  based  on  community  input  from  what  is  shown  on  the   website:  http://www.hotelprojectsonoma.com     Please  read  the  following  two  positions,  one  for  and  one  against.      

For  the  measure:     What  you  should  know  about  the  ‘Hotel   Limitation  Measure’   Op-­‐Ed   By  Jennifer  Yankovich     The  citizens  of  Sonoma  deserve  a  voice  regarding  the  pace  and  size  of  hotel  growth   in  the  future.  Hotel  development  in  the  City  of  Sonoma  needs  to  be  regulated.     On  these  points  we  agree.     Both  the  city’s  General  Plan  and  its  Development  Code  provide  numerous   opportunities  for  public  input  and  require  several  layers  of  staff,  committee  and   commission  review,  including  impact  studies  for  traffic,  parking,  environment  and   infrastructure  for  hotel  development  projects.  The  process  takes  many  months  and,   for  larger  projects,  even  years  to  complete.  There  are  no  existing  “loopholes”   allowing  a  speedy  approval  without  extensive  consideration  of  community  impacts.     There  is  no  need  for  a  costly  and  divisive  ballot  initiative  to  usurp  the  existing   regulatory  process  and  the  City  Council’s  ability  to  govern  and  provide  managed   growth.  This  process  has  promoted  a  balanced  and  economically  viable  mix  of   commercial  development,  including  that  of  large  hotels  in  our  community.     The  board  of  directors  of  the  Sonoma  Valley  Chamber  of  Commerce,  made  up  of   local  business  and  community  leaders,  encourages  city  voters  to  consider  this  when   making  a  choice  about  whether  or  not  to  sign  a  petition  to  place  a  costly  and  short-­‐   sighted  “Hotel  Limitation  Measure”  on  the  ballot  for  special  election.     The  proposed  measure  does  not  provide  a  reasonable  or  inclusive  process  for   citizens  and  elected  officials  to  make  informed  decisions  about  future  hotel   development  in  the  city.  To  the  contrary,  it  includes  reactive  and  seemingly   arbitrary  conditions  that  fundamentally  hijack  the  public  process,  holding  the  City  

Council  and  citizens  of  Sonoma  hostage  under  its  extreme  and  exclusive  seizure  of   power.     The  newly  formed  group  proposing  this  measure,  Preserving  Sonoma,  is  chaired  by   a  former  mayor  of  the  city  (who,  ironically,  approved  the  current  General  Plan  the   measure  is  seeking  to  amend)  and  includes  vocal  members  who  do  not  live,  work  or   pay  taxes  in  the  City  of  Sonoma.     If  this  group  is  able  to  gather  enough  petition  signatures  from  registered  city  voters,   the  City  Council  will  be  required  to  hold  a  special  election  that  the  county’s  registrar   of  voters  estimates  will  cost  city  tax-­‐payers  between  $20,000  and  $34,000,  in   addition  to  staff  salaries  and  legal  costs  already  being  incurred  to  address  the   proposal.     The  measure  precludes  any  consideration  of  a  hotel  development  of  more  than  25   rooms  without  all  existing  hotel  rooms  and  other  overnight  lodging   accommodations  exceeding  an  80  percent  annualized  occupancy  rate.  This  absurdly   high  occupancy  rate  has  not  been  achieved  other  than  in  a  few,  most-­‐internationally   marketed  destinations  in  the  world.     Sonoma  currently  enjoys  a  healthy  occupancy  rate  of  nearly  65  percent.  The   proposed  ballot  measure  effectively  nullifies  the  current  review  process  to   determine  if  a  hotel  development  would  contribute  to  the  character,  local  business   mix  and  revenue  streams  to  support  city  services.     At  a  time  when  California  cities  are  still  reeling  from  post-­‐redevelopment  fiscal   realities,  the  proposal  is  even  more  unwelcome.  Paid  by  overnight  visitors,  TOT   (transient  occupancy  tax,  or  hotel  room  tax)  is  the  largest  source  of  revenue  to  the   city’s  general  fund.     One-­‐hundred  percent  of  TOT  stays  in  the  city  to  pay  for  our  roads,  parks,  police  and   fire,  as  well  as  community  youth,  senior,  arts  and  environmental  programs.   This  has  made  hotel  projects  a  natural  fit  for  Sonoma’s  organic  brand  of  agriculture,   open-­‐space  and  history,  as  well  as  supporting  its  locally-­‐owned  service  and  retail   businesses.     The  city’s  regulatory  process  has  provided  an  enviable  balance  of  large  and  small   hotels,  creating  a  consistent  and  healthy  revenue  stream  and  contributing  to   Sonoma’s  unique  business  mix.  Some  larger  hotels  in  the  city  provide  a  welcome   diversity  and  landscape  along  major  commercial  corridors  that  might  have   otherwise  been  developed  into  housing,  large  retail  or  “strip  centers.”     Larger  hotels  promote  local  retail  stores  and  restaurants,  and  some  smaller  hotels   and  bed  and  breakfast  properties  feel  they  benefit  from  their  marketing,  referrals   and  community  presence.     The  proposed  Hotel  Limitation  Measure  does  not  promote  anything  other  than  a   vocal  minority  group’s  opinion  that  a  hotel  with  more  than  25  rooms  is  bad.  

The  measure  is  too  extreme,  too  costly  and  simply  does  not  provide  an  inclusive   process  to  achieve  responsible  stewardship  of  our  community.     Sonoma  has  a  history  of  civic  involvement  by  residents  who  are  passionate  about   the  quality  of  life  in  our  city.  This  has  served  us  well.  Let’s  continue  to  be  active  in   the  process  and  work  together  to  preserve  the  unique  character  of  our  small  town.   •••   Jennifer  Yankovich  is  CEO  of  the  Sonoma  Valley  Chamber  of  Commerce.      

Against  the  measure:    

Small  hotels  are  better  for  Sonoma   Op-­‐Ed   By  Larry  Barnett     Chamber  of  Commerce  CEO  Jennifer  Yankovich’s  recent  Op-­‐Ed  piece  (“What  you   should  know  about  the  Hotel  Limitation  Measure,”  Index-­‐Tribune,  April  16)  was   notable  for  its  expression  of  faith  and  confidence  in  the  status  quo  when  it  comes  to   large  hotel  development  in  Sonoma.  The  chamber’s  record  includes  favoring   Rosewood  Hotel’s  hillside  hotel  monstrosity  in  1999,  and  opposing  the  formation  of   the  Urban  Growth  Boundary  to  stop  city  sprawl  the  following  year.  Both  initiative   measures  passed  overwhelmingly,  which  suggests  that  the  chamber  board’s  opinion   is  a  reliable  anti-­‐barometer  of  citizen  sentiment.  Jennifer’s  editorial  produced  a  nice   surge  of  new  supporters  for  our  petition,  however,  and  we  appreciate  the  PR.     Some  opponents  to  our  proposed  initiative  seem  to  have  a  grudge  against  simple   democracy  and  letting  citizens  of  Sonoma  occasionally  have  a  direct  vote  in  setting   public  policy.  They  instead  prefer  that  politically-­‐appointed  commissioners  and  five   City  Council  members  have  the  perpetual  and  exclusive  right  to  determine  what   happens  in  Sonoma,  public  opinion  notwithstanding.  In  general,  representative   democracy  works  well,  but  not  always.  In  rare  instances,  issues  are  of  such   importance  that  democracy  must  include  all  the  voters,  not  just  five.  The  initiative   process  exists  for  just  that  purpose.     Jennifer’s  characterization  of  our  effort  as  “divisive”  implies  that  difference  of   opinion  is  bad.  To  the  contrary,  it  is  the  life-­‐blood  of  democracy;  as  society  evolves,   so  must  its  rules.  Unfortunately,  the  chamber  is  divisive  when  it  labels  petition   supporters  as  people  who  “do  not  live,  work  or  pay  taxes  in  the  City  of  Sonoma.”     Here’s  the  facts:  our  proposed  initiative  is  not  a  ban  or  moratorium  on  new  hotels.  It   sets  a  limitation  on  the  number  of  rooms  of  a  new  hotel  until  such  time  as  Sonoma’s   annual  occupancy  rate  justifies  a  large  hotel  exceeding  25  rooms.  Linking  hotel   growth  with  occupancy  provides  a  rational  benchmark  for  future  growth  so  that   infrastructure  affecting  traffic,  parking  and  pedestrian  safety  is  not  outstripped  by   large  hotel  development.  It  allows  our  existing  overnight  visitor-­‐serving  

establishments  to  increase  their  occupancy  rate  and  reduces  the  justification  for   using  tax  money  and  levied  funds  to  promote  filling  empty  rooms.     In  2013,  approximately  $758,000  will  be  spent  by  the  Visitors  Bureau  to  operate   and  help  to  promote  higher  hotel  occupancy.  This  includes  $450,000  from  a  new  2   percent  levy  on  all  rooms  that  the  Tourism  Improvement  District  has  created  with   city  approval  and  that  can  only  be  used  for  promotion.  It  also  includes  $218,000   from  the  Redevelopment  Agency  successor  and  $90,000  from  the  County  of  Sonoma.     Given  this  enormous  sum,  much  of  which  could  have  gone  into  city  coffers  as   unencumbered  TOT,  it  seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  slowing  large  hotel   growth  would  be  wise  until  room  occupancy  improves.   The  chamber  complains  that  a  special  election  costs  too  much,  but  compared  with   the  money  spent  on  promoting  hotel  occupancy,  $30,000  is  a  pittance  and  a  small   price  to  pay  to  give  the  citizens  a  voice.  A  small  group  of  us,  what  Jennifer  derisively   calls  “a  vocal  minority,”  may  have  initiated  this  idea,  but  even  big  ideas  always  begin   small;  after  the  election  we  will  be  “a  vocal  majority.”     The  intent  of  our  Hotel  Limitation  Measure  is  to  encourage  the  development  of  small   hotels  rather  than  large.  Those  who  live  near  the  Renaissance  Lodge  at  Sonoma   know  how  severe  the  impacts  of  a  large  hotel  can  be  on  the  quality  of  life.     Noise  is  a  constant  problem  from  large  parties,  events,  big-­‐rig  deliveries,  garbage   trucks  and  restaurant  roof-­‐fans.  Intrusive  noise  is  simply  in  the  nature  of  large   hotels  combining  multiple  uses  on  one  property.  Small  hotels  under  25  rooms  have   much  lower  impacts.     Sonoma’s  Urban  Growth  Boundary  expires  in  six-­‐and-­‐a-­‐half  years.  Without  renewal   (which,  based  on  history,  the  chamber  will  oppose),  vast  new  parcels  of  land  will   become  available  for  development,  potentially  with  large  hotels  if  our  measure  is   not  approved.     Of  Sonoma’s  507  overnight  rooms,  roughly  350  are  in  four  large  hotels.  Despite  the   opinion  of  the  chamber,  smaller  25-­‐room  hotels  (like  the  Sonoma  Hotel)  are  under-­‐ represented.  Encouraging  small  hotel  development  is  at  the  heart  of  our  proposal,   producing  increased  TOT  while  preserving  our  small  town  character  for  the  next   decade  or  two.     Sonoma  is  a  such  a  sweet  little  town,  and  most  residents  want  to  keep  it  that  way.   When  the  majority  of  voters  in  Sonoma  approve  the  Hotel  Limitation  Measure,  we   will  have  come  a  long  way  toward  accomplishing  that  goal.   •  •  •   Larry  Barnett  is  chair  of  the  Preserving  Sonoma  Committee  and  a  former  Sonoma  City   Council  member  and  mayor.