Sonoma voters say no to resort

Sep. 22, 1999

By MATT WEISER
Press Democrat Staff Writer

SONOMA -- A ballot measure to protect a prized Sonoma hillside from resort development won an easy victory Tuesday, creating what supporters called a clear mandate for preservation.

Measure A won with 76.6 percent of the vote, 2,607 to 795. The initiative forbids hotel and resort development on 60 acres of city-owned land overlooking the Sonoma Plaza. If Measure A had been rejected, a formal application to develop the land could have been presented to city officials.

"We didn't know it would be this big, but it really sends a message to everybody,'' said Gary Edwards, a Sonoma marketing consultant who led the Yes on Measure A campaign.

"It's a mandate. The people have spoken in Sonoma and we're very happy about it.''

Only 23.4 percent of voters opposed Measure A. A small number of absentee ballots remain to be counted, but it won't be enough to sway the outcome.

About 59 percent of registered voters turned out for Sonoma's single-issue ballot.

A $62 million, 105-room resort had been proposed on the 60-acre site. It would have been built and owned by a wealthy Mexican investor who is a member of the family that owns Grupo Televisa, the largest media conglomerate in the Spanish-speaking world. The resort would have been managed by Rosewood Hotels & Resorts, a widely acclaimed hotel management company with properties on five continents.

The No on Measure A campaign, funded entirely by the developers, outspent the Yes on A camp by more than 10 to 1. But the results show that few voters were swayed by their expensive campaign. Many saw the Measure A election as a symbolic referendum on larger issues of urban development and habitat preservation.

"I just don't want to see everything all built up,'' Sonoma resident Deanna Johnson said after voting Tuesday afternoon. "The vineyards are taking over everything else, so if we can keep it open, let's keep it open.''

The land forms part of the scenic backdrop to Sonoma's historic plaza and offers sweeping views of the city and the Sonoma Valley. Moss-draped oaks and verdant meadows alternate on the property, the only city-owned hillside in Sonoma.

The developers claimed their project could bring more than $2 million in tax revenues to the city annually to help balance Sonoma's budget and fund city services. Opponents cited the importance of preserving scarce open space and note that other new hotel projects have already eased the city's budget.

"This hotel could have meant so much to Sonoma,'' said Alexis Gray, owner of the Modern Eve Sonoma women's clothing store on the plaza and chairwoman of the No on Measure A committee.

"It would have put us on the map as one of the most world-class destinations in the United States and even the world. Most towns would kill to have a hotel like this. I think it's a really sad thing for the city of Sonoma.''

The land was virtually unknown to many residents before resort developers came forward, but their plans awakened a strong interest in preserving the site.

With room rates proposed at $700 a night, others feared the project would change the city's character from a quiet family town with healthy seasonal tourism into an enclave of the wealthy.

"I don't want the town becoming a side-issue for this big resort,'' said voter Jahnavi Shields. "I don't want everything in town geared toward this resort and their needs. Personally, I like empty lots and woods.''

Some "no'' voters said they had not made up their mind about the project, but said the developer deserved an opportunity to present a formal plan to the city.

"I don't see a reason why they shouldn't get a chance,'' said voter Becky Jacobsen. "I trust the city to handle it responsibly.''

Like others, Jacobsen fears the developers will simply take their project outside city limits, leaving Sonoma with many of the same traffic, parking and other potential problems caused by a resort but none of the revenues from it.

The developers have said they intend to build somewhere in Sonoma County, though the city property was their first choice. They have so far declined to reveal any alternative sites, but considered the city-owned land the only suitable property in the city of Sonoma.

"I'm sure we'll be in the county's eyes for quite some time ... because we do intend to pursue a business plan that includes Sonoma County, regardless,'' developer Hal Thannisch said.