.
Feedback

Chateau Sonoma Luxury Hotel—Dignified Addition or Traffic Hazard?

The proposed complex on West Napa Street could bring 'international flair' and jobs, but some people called it incompatible at Thursday's public hearing.

Plans for Chateau Sonoma—a three-story, luxury hotel and restaurant complex on West Napa Street—drew a big crowd to a public study session Thursday night. Many of the speakers opposed the project planned for the Plaza vicinity, based on concerns about traffic and community compatibility, while others said the venture would bring "dignity" and "respect" to the downtown and create jobs.

The complex would include a 59-unit hotel with French architectural influences, two restaurants, a health club and spa, retail and office space, event center, outdoor cafes and a parking area. Two buildings—the current Chateau Sonoma antique store and the Sonoma Index-Tribune—would need to be torn down and others constructed to bring the vision into being.

The project sponsor is Kenwood Investments, whose founder and CEO is Darius Anderson, majority shareholder of the Index-Tribune newspaper. At the special meeting of the Planning Commission, Kenwood's president Bill Hooper said the project's benefits would include job creation and hospitality industry internships. He said many "green" aspects, including rainwater recycling and vegetated roof features, had been factored in.

Chateau Sonoma is consistent with the commercial land use designation in the General Plan, according to a report by Planning Director David Goodison. However, some aspects, such as historic preservation, design compatibility and traffic issues will need to be reviewed, he said. Due to the size of the project, its location in the Historic District Overlay zone and its proximity to the Plaza and Plaza National Landmark District, the project will receive "heightened scrutiny with respect to design and visual compatibility," he said. The proposed demolitions will need the approval of the Design Review Commission, and there will be an independent peer review of Kenwood's studies of all the buildings' potential historic significance. Kenwood found that the Lynch building was historically significant, for example.

Some residents spoke in support, saying the project will bring respect, dignity and an international flair to the downtown.

However, others talked of the project becoming a major traffic hazard.

"I am adamantly opposed to putting a stoplight in front of our plaza," one woman said. "I think this project will require this and it violates the history of our town. When people come into Sonoma, they want to see a country town, with some sophistication. "

Another woman said, "Sonoma is the Andersons' town as well and I think they'll do a good job."

Kenwood representatives talked of using "real materials" such as hand crafted plaster and terra cotta tile to create an appearance of "dignity and solidity."

However, one resident questioned whether more restaurants are needed and another expressed sadness over the height of the buildings potentially blocking the town's mountain view. One speaker asked how the project might affect the town's sewer and water resources.

Many speakers who addressed the Planning Commission had to stand in the packed Community Meeting Room's lobby, waiting their turn, while others watched the session on the lobby's closed circuit television.

No direction was taken by the commission in a general discussion of the issues.

The public will have many more opportunities to weigh in on the project. The next steps include an initial study of any potential environmental impact, a draft Environmental Impact Report, a review by the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission, a Planning Commission review and certification of the draft EIR, a use permit review, a review of the demolition permit and an architectural review. Interested citizens will be able to attend public hearings at every stage.

To see the full staff report on this project, presented at Thursday's meeting, click here to go to the city of Sonoma website.

What do you think about the proposed Chateau Sonoma complex? Tell us in the comments.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sonoma Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ralph Hutchinson May 18, 2013 at 08:51 pm
I still say the People will be wise to these bush league tactics and the residents of Sonoma willRead More vote against the destruction of the Plaza and our small town feel. We won''t sell out like Napa or Healdsburg and certainly we're not like the 101 corridor.
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 09:38 am
Another Cuban party perhaps in the works at the Kenwood Ranch, chompin on contraband cigars, etc?Read More Grand prize trips to Cuba with Californians Building Bridges and rub elbows with fatcat Politicians? Or maybe Kings tickets?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:37 am
What kind of conflicts of interest are present with Nancy Simpson? She is on the County Landmarks,Read More formerly affiliated with Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau and Wendy Peterson? Are all these agencies and bureaus interlocked some receiving TOT tax revenues, and all standing to benefit from anything Darius Anderson can build?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
Is Darius really after a casino in Sonoma either at General Vallejo State Park next to his RamekinsRead More location or up valley at Sonoma Development Center?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
Ms. G doesn't even live in Sonoma does she? Isn't it Cloverdale? Wasn't she a big proponent of theRead More bypass in her town?
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
The Sonoma Sun's website (but not SunFMTV) has been down for hours. What's happening ?
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:25 pm
Did Darius Anderso agree to buyout The Patch and have the archives and comments removed as part ofRead More this new software update? Afterall "Cows Not Casinos", Measure A Rosewood Hillside hotel, and Measure C Hospital Eminent Domain would be better if the People of Sonoma forgot all about it and let his hotel venture fly easier.
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 03:20 pm
When Bolling "lost" his comments on Sonoma Valley Bank and then the whole archive heRead More blamed a glitch yet they have never been restored. That has benefitted the Hotel Index-Tribune and allowed a cover up of key historical dates and facts. Please hurry and restore the Patch's missing blogs and comments ASAP so that the confidence the Sonoma Patch has attained is not damaged. Thanks
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:09 pm
The comments to various articles and blogs are also completely missing. Please restore asap.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 09:37 am
I write about the issue of the BRACA test, because I am someone who developed breast cancer, and whoRead More needed the test. Even though I already had breast cancer, the decision of whether to have a bilateral mastectomy (rather than just a removal of the cancer with a "lumpectomy" or the removal of only one, effected, breast) was dependent upon the results of that test. If I had a genetic marker that indicated I was likely to develop more breast cancers, there would be no reason to avoid having both breasts removed at once. Even though my doctors recognized the importance of getting this test done before surgical decisions were made, the insurance company was resistant to providing coverage for the test. There were many heated phone conversations with the insurance company, and many letters of documentation before I was finally allowed to have the test. The basic test for BRAC I and BRAC II (the 2 main genes identified) cost $3,000. However, there are even more specialized tests for the smaller BRAC genes (rare genes that are less common) that cost thousands of dollars extra, and would have been helpful because of my family history. I was not able to fight with the insurance company for permission to obtain those extra tests, since I was already weak and ill from the chemotherapy, at that time. It is not reasonable or acceptable for women to have to fight to get necessary tests performed, because of excessive charging for those tests, and resistance of the medical insurance companies to provide coverage to obtain them. This situation needs to be changed. I hope that Angelina Jolie's story will bring attention to this issue, and will help our Supreme Court to recognize the unfairness in allowing a company to lay claim on a "patent" of our genes. The main research to provide the exact mapping of our genes was provided by the "Human Genome Project", which was primarily paid for by the US taxpayers, via that extensive NIH study. The Myriad company did some further research to refine knowledge on the BRACA genes; but they should not be allowed a total patent which blocks all other US labs from performing tests on that same part of our DNA. That is unreasonable in terms of the amount of profit they are claiming, and unfair to US humans who should be able to claim ownership of their own DNA.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 08:50 am
I am not used to Hollywood-types having the type of integrity and honesty, that Ms. Jolie displayedRead More with her NY Times revelation. I commend her for having the courage to act proactively with surgical removal of her breasts, in addition to the planned removal of her ovaries. She lost her beloved mother to the disease, and she clearly understands the devastation that would befall her own children (if she were to develop the types of cancers that her genetic makeup render her vulnerable to). I agree with her decision, and hope that I would have the same strength, if confronted with the genetic evidence that she was able to have documented with the BRACA testing. Unfortunately, many women who would benefit in the same way, from advance knowledge about their genetic vulnerability to those cancers, are denied the ability to get the tests. The company that "owns" the test, by virtue of their assertion that they "own the patent" on that identified portion of our DNA, charge $3,000.00 for the test. That cost is too high for most women in the US to easily afford, and our health insurance typically refuses to cover the test for most women. There is currently a case before the US Supreme Court challenging the idea of a medical company owning our genes. Many of us are hopeful that the court will halt this company from claiming this patent, so that laboratories all over the country can provide the test to us inexpensively, and therefore it will be available to all who should have it. The costs for the type of very sophisticated plastic surgery/ breast reconstruction that Ms. Jolie underwent, are also extremely high. It is doubtful that insurance or Obamacare will provide coverage for that type of costly prophylactic surgery. Those are battles that women will need to fight in the future, when more women become informed about their personal risks and choices.