Endorsement: No on Measure W

Environment or housing? Suburban sprawl or gated city?

To UGB or not to UGB? That is the question.

The debate over Measure W, the proposed renewal of Sonoma’s urban growth boundary (UGB), is often broken down into either/or scenarios – this or that terms.

On one side you’ll hear: If we renew a long-term strict UGB, it will close off the city to low- and middle-income home buyers. On the other: If we loosen the UGB, we leave Sonoma open to Solano County-type sprawl.

But to sum up the pros and cons of Measure W is no simple equation – and its long-term effects on the city are not easily quantified.

Measure W is an extension of Measure S, which voters passed in 2000 and expires at the end of 2020. It limits development to within what’s referred to as the city’s Urban Growth Boundary, a boundary similar to what many cities have established to protect agricultural land and open space. Perhaps, more than anything, UGBs grew out of a reaction to the type of urban sprawl that became a benchmark of 1960s and ’70s planning, when suburban communities spread their development far and wide.

Urban growth boundaries have been around since the 1950s – Lexington, Kentucky established the first UGB in the United States in 1958 – but they didn’t really come to prominence until the 1970s when the ripple effects from poor long-term planning became more evident in the growing dearth of walkable, downtown-centered suburban communities and rise in hours-long commutes to the urban job centers.

Since then they’ve become common elements of city planning code; most municipalities in Sonoma County established some form of urban growth boundary in the 1990s, with only Cloverdale dragging its heels until 2010.

Sonoma’s Urban Growth Boundary aligns largely with its city limits – though it actually extends beyond the city in small pockets maintained by the county, but considered falling under the city’s “sphere of influence.” Sonoma’s sphere of influence includes several streets near Fifth Street West and Leveroni Road, a small area near Broadway south of Leveroni and an area to the west of where Verano Avenue meets Sonoma Highway.

If Measure W passes with a simple majority vote, it will be in place for another 20 years.

It’s worth pointing out that if Measure W doesn’t pass, Sonoma’s UGB ordinance will still be in place. However, it would then be subject to change by a majority vote of the Sonoma City Council. Proponents of Measure W say this leaves the ordinance subject to the whims of an ever-changing city council, whose current or future members could be seduced by the overtures of developers pitching high-end condos on the outskirts of town.

Opponents of Measure W, however, argue the current ordinance contains provisions that do far more to prevent badly needed affordable housing than they do to curb luxury homes. Chief among those provisions, they say, are the requirement of a four-fifths vote by council members to amend the ordinance; the 20-acre limit on land brought into the UGB over the course of 20 years (with no more than 5 acres in a single calendar year); and the requirement that any land brought into the UGB be used for housing which is 100 percent affordable (with 51 percent of units for very low income).

Measure W supporters say such provisions ward off sprawl and protect the city’s small-town character; critics say it discourages needed housing and ensures the further gentrification of lily-white Sonoma.

While it’s difficult to predict the future, we think the evidence better supports the concerns of the Measure W skeptics.

Sonoma has never shown a predisposition toward urban sprawl, even prior to its UGB. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. At only 2.75 square miles in area, the city was never seduced in prior decades by the siren song of suburban expansion as were other Bay Area communities. The city even has a well-earned reputation for being difficult to develop sizeable projects within the UGB. If Measure W fails, and the already strict UGB ordinance becomes subject to amendments by council majority, the odds of any sort of “sprawl” plaguing Sonoma in the coming years seem far-fetched.

While we don’t foresee unchecked sprawl looming anywhere on the horizon in Sonoma, what is undeniable is that there is a housing crisis taking place right here, right now.

A community survey conducted in 2019 by the environmental- and equity-focused Sustainable Sonoma program found that the No. 1 issue facing Sonoma in the coming years is the need for affordable housing. The next generation of Sonomans looking to enter the real-estate market are finding themselves priced out of the town they grew up in; minority communities, on the rise in Sonoma a decade ago, are now locating to the Springs, or cities beyond.

According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, Sonoma is about 2 percent whiter now than it was 10 years ago when numbers were at 79.2 percent. Diversely, the Latino population is slightly down by 1.3 percent from when it stood at 15.3 percent in 2010.

Sonoma is losing the fight for housing equity.

Is this all down to a strict Urban Growth Boundary ordinance? Of course not. But a virtually unmovable UGB is likely one of many factors that exacerbates the problem.

In fact, there’s a real-life example at play right now. A 6.5-acre property at 285 Napa Road has long been identified as a prime location for an affordable housing project – Habitat for Humanity was proposing a 60-unit development at the site, before the sweat-equity nonprofit ran into financial straits last year and curbed all its Sonoma County projects. But the site’s potential for affordable housing remains.

Yet, under the strict provisions of the current UGB ordinance – such as the limit of no more than 5-acres brought into the UGB in a single year – such housing plans for the Napa Road property are pretty much off the table.

With situations in communities changing as rapidly as they seem to these days – whether down to fires, housing crises or pandemics – being tied for another 20 years to an ordinance that’s more reflective of the Sonoma of 2000 than 2020 gives us pause.

Instead, the city would be better served if a council majority could revisit the UGB and make reasonable amendments to provide more flexibility in the ordinance – and maybe leading down the line to a more equitable Sonoma.

We recommend a No on Measure W.

Jason Walsh, editor & associate publisher

Emily Charrier, publisher