The ‘other’ new hotel; Sonoma Inc.; and Super (but secret) wine promotion
After study session with Sonoma’s Planning Commission, Ed Routhier and his development team at Caymus Capital were told in no uncertain terms that their current proposal – housing, a hotel, 112-seat restaurant and swim club — was unacceptable for the 3.4-acre parcel that runs between First Street East and Second Street East, just north of Vintage House. Commissioner Bill Willers objected to the use of the Mixed Use parcel for a hotel, Commissioner Chip Roberson said the plan “does not meet the definitions in the General Plan for Mixed-Use,” and several other panel members voiced concern about the development’s scale, mass and compatibility with the neighborhood, including additional traffic. Parting words of advice from Chair Robert Felder: “You have a lot of homework to do.” … A professional developer and money guy, Routhier, who lives near the site, certainly did his math homework for the meeting. The bulk of his comments were numbers – the projected revenue and economic benefits to the Sonoma. The town’s future, he said, demands the most profitable use of the land… How much will it make – is that the prime consideration of a planning commission? In this case, refreshingly, no.
Routhier likened the City of Sonoma to a corporation that needs to make money. City government as big business – not a comforting metaphor. Arbitrary, secretive decisions. Fee and policy structures changed on a whim. Big salaries at the top, budget cuts at the bottom. Customer service? Email someone who cares. And don’t bother calling to complain – that department has been outsourced to New Delhi.
Where there’s wine with a smokey aftertaste there aren’t always fire-charred oak barrels, but the sudden resignation of the executive director of Sonoma County Vintners comes at an interesting time. After one year on the job, Carolyn Stark said she’s stepping down from the post for personal reasons. She also steps away from questions about the group’s investment, along with Sonoma County Tourism and Sonoma County Winegrowers, to be part of the Super Bowl festivities. The troika reportedly spent $1 million for member wines to be poured at official events and parties, plus a wine lounge (construction cost: $85,000) within Super Bowl City in San Francisco… The exact outlay and other details of the deal are top secret, said the group’s attorney in rejecting a written request to view the contract filed under the state Public Records Act by the First Amendment Coalition. The Napa promotional group wouldn’t share, either. Too bad. Now we’ll never know who had better seats at the game.
A San Franciscan to the core, John Martini says his ancestors include sheepherders, dairy ranchers, delicatessen owners, bankers, and no-nonsense bartenders. His family arrived in the city in 1849, and he grew up listening to stories around the dinner table about his California heritage — ranching in the 1880s, the earthquake and fire of 1906,the wondrous 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition, and legends of immigrant life passed down by the first generation of European ancestors. In his own time, Martini spent 25 years as a National Park Ranger, stationed at Alcatraz, Marin Headlands, the Presidio and beyond. Just the guy to discuss “World War II in the Bay Area,” in a February 13 lecture at Sonoma Community Center.
— Val Robichaud
One thought on “The ‘other’ new hotel; Sonoma Inc.; and Super (but secret) wine promotion”
Comments are closed.
The City of Sonoma was incorporated on September 3, 1883. It is already a type of corporation. As such, the city government has an obligation to provide services to the citizens within its incorporated area. Acquiring the money to provide those services is certainly part of its obligations. There are plenty of laws regarding public disclosures and accountability. Therefore, your criticism of Mr. Routhier’s point is not just counterfactual, it is silly, petty even.