Resort wins round in court; VOTMA to appeal
In a June 14 court hearing, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Knoel Owen handed the county and Auberge Resorts a victory in their goal to build a large resort in Kenwood, rebuffing arguments by a local community group that the size of the project is too large and that the environmental analyses were flawed.
The ruling may have cleared the way for a $30 million resort approved by the county’s Board of Supervisors last August, slated to be built on part of the Graywood Ranch off of Highway 12 in Kenwood.
But board members of the Valley of the Moon Alliance (VOTMA), a Kenwood-based community organization, said they will appeal the case to the State appellate courts, a process which could take up to a year to resolve.
“We feel we have an excellent chance to prevail,” said VOTMA board member Karl Keener, who said VOTMA will continue to focus on traffic and water issues, as well as argue that the county failed to consider feasible alternatives to the project as proposed.
Les Perry, attorney for Auberge, said he was disappointed that VOTMA made the decision to appeal so quickly without, “any attempt to discuss it with us.”
“The environmental review was exhaustive and the county’s attention to environmental laws was the most detailed I’ve ever seen,” said Perry. “To continue litigation in the face of that is really unfortunate and does a disservice to the Kenwood community and to the county.”
Perry said the developer will seek permits to conduct work on the project. Though it is unclear how quickly the county will process permits, Perry said, “the first dirt to be turned,” would occur before the appellate process is complete.
VOTMA’s Keener said if Auberge begins construction work on the resort, VOTMA will go to court to try and stop it until there is final adjudication of the case.
The proposed Sonoma Country Inn project, on the southeastern 186 acres of Graywood Ranch, includes a 50-room inn, spa, and 125-seat restaurant located on a plateau area up a hill, a winery on the valley floor, and eleven home sites.
VOTMA filed a lawsuit last November under the state’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). VOTMA’s arguments have included charges that the county did not adequately study the environmental impacts of proposed center turn lanes at the intersections of Highway 12 and Lawndale Rd., and Highway 12 and Randolph Ave., the installation of which the county has said will mitigate any significant impacts the resort has on traffic. VOTMA has said such middle lanes – to be used as storage areas for people making turns – will cause serious safety problems at those locations, where cars are traveling at high speeds.
VOTMA also has argued that there has not been sufficient study of the water impacts of the resort, and that the county did not adequately study the feasibility of making the resort smaller, moving some of the project off the hillside, or moving the project to some different location in the county altogether.
Auberge and the county had countered that alternatives to the current resort configuration were adequately considered, and were determined to not be economically feasible for the developer, or meet most of the county’s objectives in approving the project, including the generation of significant hotel tax monies.
At the June 14 court hearing, Judge Owen, after reviewing the lengthy administrative record of the project, came squarely down on the side of the county and Auberge, determining that VOTMA failed to prove that the county “prejudicially abused its discretion” when it certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved the project.
“Most of the evidence cited by the Petitioner is simply comments made by its members or attorney, constituting conclusions, lay opinion and so on,” said Owen in his decision, “or statements that are taken within only a partial context, or which ignore the discussion thereafter. This has little evidentiary value.”
In any event, Judge Owen said, even if VOTMA was able to meet its burden of proof, the county and Auberge still would prevail.
“Their evidence includes reports, studies, and opinions of experts, and carries more weight than that evidence offered by (VOTMA).”
At the hearing, VOTMA’s attorney, Susan Brandt-Hawley, argued that the question is not whether some kind of resort project will occur on the Graywood property, but what the size of it will be, citing the fact that even county planning staff had recommended that a smaller project be moved off the hillside and onto the valley floor.
“(Auberge) wants a high end resort, and wants to make a very large profit,” said Brandt-Hawley, “…the law doesn’t allow that at the expense of the community or the environment…we need to look at a more reasonably sized project.”
Auberge’s Perry argued in court that there was lengthy study into the possible project alternatives, which determined, among other things, that reducing the amount of rooms was not economically feasible. Also, said Perry, the county agreed that the resort would not fit the site on the valley floor, thus that option was not feasible.
As for the appeal, VOTMA’s Keener said the group has a responsibility to see the case heard by another court.
“We have an obligation to the community,” said Keener, “to do everything we can to protect the hillside, and we would be remiss if we did anything less.”
Editor & Publisher
Email: alec@kenwoodpress.com
