Hotel Cap Measure to go Before Sonoma Voters

The Sonoma City Council on Monday night voted unanimously to put a controversial hotel cap measure on the ballot later this year, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reports.

The Hotel Limitation Initiative aims to limit new hotels in the city to 25 rooms or less.

Sonoma voters will decide the measure's fate in a special election on Nov. 19.

The election will cost the city about $30,000, the Press Democrat reports.

The initiative is the brainchild of Larry Barnett's Preserving Sonoma, a grassroots group that earlier this year cleared the signature-gathering hurdle of 1,017 valid signatures (15 percent of the city's approximately 6,700 eligible voters) to put the measure up for a vote.

The measure would require the city's annual hotel occupancy rate to rise above 80 percent before the city would even listen to a proposal for a hotel of more than 25 rooms.

Even under those circumstances – the city's hotel occupancy rate last year was 64.8 percent – any proposal for a more expansive hotel would need the approval of a four-fifths majority on the City Council and the Planning Commission's approval.

A report commissioned by the city projected a negative fiscal impact, the Press Democrat reports, noting the cap would limit taxes the city gets from hotel guests that fund vital services.

The report was conducted by Keyser Marston, a private consultant, at the cost of approximately $17,500.

Barnett blasted the report in a prepared statement released shortly after Monday's council meeting.

"The council ordered this impact report purportedly to be better informed and to provide the citizens with more information," Barnett said.

"Unfortunately, what they received was an expensive sub-standard report from Keyser Marston with no citations referencing its sources, a previously unannounced and improperly biased report from the Planning Director, and an inaccurate summary of both reports from the City Manager.

"On top of that, three-minute segments did not provide sufficient time during this special meeting to respond to all this material properly; the public's needs were not well served. If there were ever an example of the way the system is 'broken' and why the local voter initiative process is needed, this was it."