City of Sonoma Measure A - Sonoma Valley Voice Document

Sonoma Valley Voice
A Rosewood in Our Midst?
and
Rosewood: Public Process Ignored

This document is available in a standard PDF document format.

If your computer can already read and print PDF files, then please click on PDF icon to the right to open the PDF version.

PDF documents look and print the same as the original publication. If your computer can not currently read and print PDF files, but you are interested in reading and/or printing this document using the PDF format, then please click on the PDF icon to the right for assistance.

A Rosewood in Our Midst? (Click Here to Jump to This Article)

Rosewood: Public Process Ignored (Click Here to Jump to This Article)

A Rosewood in Our Midst? (July-September 1999, Pages 5 and 15)

Top of Page

The proposed development of the Rosewood resort has generated much concern and debate. Passionate letters to the editor, both praising and denouncing the project, appear regularly in a local paper. Many detractors speak of the chi-chi-ization of Sonoma or the Gucci-ization of the plaza. It seems residents worry that an upscale resort will attract upscale guests, who will demand upscale boutiques, which in turn will socially and economically exclude the people who live here. It can happen. The heart and soul of many a beautiful tourist town has been sold to the highest bidder.

While we focus our attention on the possibility of a Rosewood, we are missing the Rosewood-like transformation of an existing resort. The Sonoma Mission Inn (SMI), in all its current splendor, is going through a makeover in the determined direction of a high-volume, upscale clientele. Behind the soothing message, "rejuvenating.calm," emblazoned on the construction zone privacy wrap is an ambitious project financed with very deep outside pockets.

CORPORATE UPPER CRUST

Crescent Real Estate Equities Company, which owns SMI, is a publicly held real estate investment trust from Texas. The "Trust" has purchased the famous Ventana Inn in Big Sur, the Sonoma Mission Inn and now the Sonoma Valley Golf Course. With Crescent’s fat bank account, SMI is completely remodeling the spa, adding 30 new suites, upgrading rooms, putting in a multi-level garage and developing an on-site garden park.

Rosewood’s determination to locate here and SMI’s luxury expansion reveal the "world class" trend in spas and resorts. As the middle class is whittled away in today’s international economy, there is a huge market vying for the ultra affluent.

WAGE DISPARITY

Some critics of Rosewood predict it will provide typically low paying jobs common to the lodging industry. This is the reality at most hotels including SMI. Although many staff and spa personnel receive adequate compensation, most housekeeping, garden and kitchen staff are not paid a living wage. How can these people keep up with our over-inflated housing market? These underpaid staff are faced with living in less than ideal conditions in Sonoma Valley or being forced to commute from out of town. If the investors who control SMI can afford to purchase the Sonoma Valley Golf Course and spend millions of dollars on luxury renovations, they can certainly pay a living wage to all staff if they choose to.

If the community ignores wage disparity, it will suffer too. Many social, environmental and economic problems arise from low wages. More obvious problems are substandard housing, increased traffic and pollution from commuters who cannot afford to live where they work. Less obvious problems are the social issues that stem from economic insecurity. These problems can include difficulties in maintaining a household and raising a family. Individual problems can evolve into community problems creating an increased demand on social services. Do we really want to experience these consequences of misplaced corporate values? When one sector of the community suffers, we all lose.

FINALE

So where do we draw the line? Do we want to preserve the public domain? If so we need to support local ownership and maintain local representation that serves the true needs of the community.

Do we want to preserve our quality of life? If so, we need to look out for the underpaid and exploited. We as a community can help the under-privileged by demanding better pay for them, through public pressure and living wage legislation. Improving other peoples’ quality of life improves our own.

Return to Top of Page

Rosewood: Public Process Ignored (July-September 1999, Pages 5 and 15)

Top of Page

The Sonoma City Council made a mistake last summer when they met in closed session under the real estate provisions of the Brown Act. They authorized Rosewood Resorts to access the publicly owned upper cemetery property for a site analysis of a private 105 unit resort hotel. At least three of the four council members who attended that meeting have publicly admitted they made a mistake by meeting in closed session to discuss the topic. That’s not the only mistake the city appears to have made. Apparently nobody on the city staff looked at the state regulations regarding the lease of publicly owned land . In the Planning Director’s summary of his contacts with Rosewood Resorts to the City Manager dated January 13, 1999, he mentioned that if Rosewood Resort found the upper cemetery site acceptable, the City Council, as property owner, could sign the development application allowing the project to start through the development process. Luckily, Council members Brown and Barnett convinced the Council to postpone their decision on whether or not to accept the application until after the community could be heard regarding the use of the upper cemetery site.

The City’s Environmental Advisory Commission, Community Services Commission and the Planning Commission, were all given a background report from the Planning Director dated May 3, 1999 to provide the commissions with a "common basis of understanding about the current status of the property, applicable policies and regulations, and the process required should any application for development be considered by the City." This report concludes that "any application for the development of the city owned upper cemetery property would require an action by the City Council to authorize the Mayor or the City Manager to sign the application form. This would only be the first step in the review process." The report goes on to state that the public would have the opportunity to comment on the scope of environmental review of the project, analysis of potential environmental impacts, proposed mitigations or traffic, water, etc. Nowhere in that report did the staff discuss the process to lease publicly owned land for a private commercial venture or the processes to amend the General Plan land use designation and zoning district from the current "public" land use and zone to a "commercial" land use and zone.

The city staff failed to identify all applicable regulations and processing procedures that are necessary to adequately address the lease of public land for commercial purposes. Even after the public questioned the city’s processing steps, the city staff has not come forward to clarify the process for the public or the council’s benefit. The California Government Code outlines criteria for a city to lease property for a variety of uses. In the case of lease for general purposes, the state code ( Section 37380) provides that if the lease extends beyond 55 years, but not to exceed 99 years, the city shall authorize the lease by ordinance after a public hearing, (which shall be subject to referendum), and a competitive bidding process. The lease shall be awarded to the bidder that offers the greatest economic return to the city, after the competitive bidding is conducted. Specific notice criteria in accordance with state law must be met. In order to conduct an effective competitive bidding process, the City’s General Plan and Zoning regulations must clearly indicate the type of uses acceptable at the site. How can a competitive bid process be effective if the allowable uses are not identified? How can a commercial hotel bid on a site that is planned and zoned for public facilities? It can’t. A hotel is not a public use — it is a commercial use. The competitive process requires that more than one offer will be considered by the city. Why isn’t the city addressing this competitive bid process and the land use changes ?

If the City truly intends to entertain the idea of a commercial hotel on its public land, the City, as property owner, would need to initiate the general plan amendment and rezone to a "Commercial" land use and zone before the competitive bid process to grant the lease is begun. A General Plan amendment and rezone are both considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the environmental analysis may require a full Environmental Impact Report ( E.I.R.) prepared at expense to the city not the developer. The General Plan amendment and the rezoning process require review and public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. (The zone change is subject to referendum.) After the General Plan is amended, and the new zoning becomes effective, then the city could consider leasing the site and open the bid process with all potential bidders on equal footing.

The lease itself is considered a project under CEQA, and requires environmental review. There are questions as to how the environmental review of the lease and the use permit for the project would be accomplished. The city may be able to advertise the competitive bid to incorporate the environmental review for the lease together with the project with the developer meeting the full costs of a project E. I. R. Nevertheless, the lease cannot be granted until a duly noticed competitive bid process is completed after the General Plan is amended.

The General Plan Amendment/ Rezoning process and the lease process may cost the city a considerable amount of money. The costs involved in preparation of an adequate E.I.R., staff time, and extended hearings to evaluate the proposal could mount quickly. This is in addition to the $15,000 that the city has set aside for the voter initiated election to prevent the city from leasing the site for a resort hotel. These costs must be incurred by the city before a specific development application can be submitted.

The City staff may have a reason for stating that Rosewood Resorts need only submit a development application without going through the General Plan amendment, rezoning process, and public lease process. The city staff needs to come forward and explain their reasoning for the benefit of the council members as well as the community. It would be a mistake not to do so.

Return to Top of Page

PDF Assistance

This document is available in the format of a standard document suitable for the internet and almost all printers. The format is PDF, as provided by Adobe. To print the document, you must have Adobe Acrobat (it's free!). If you don't already have it, click here to Download Adobe Acrobat for free (it doesn't take long). To print the document, you first view it, then print it. Click here on the underlined text Download Article or the following icon

(Both do the same thing) to view the document. Then click on the printer icon or use the File pull-down window to print.

If you need help viewing the document (a PDF file), click here Adobe Acrobat.

If you have trouble printing, see Printing Problems.

If you just can't get it to work, then please email our Webmaster.

Return to Top of Page

To Contact Someone about this site...

Webmaster

Click here to report any problems with this site

Advertise at this site

The contents of this website (including, but not limited to images, text, and sound files) are Copyright © 1999 Sonoma Hillside Preservation Alliance, and/or ZSI, Inc. You may not download anything from this site (including images, text, and sound files) without the express written consent of the copyright holder(s). All rights reserved.