Sebastopol Northeast Plan Update

[Kenyon Webster]

This is an update on the proposed Sebastopol Northeast Area Specific Plan from the City of Sebastopol.

The draft Northeast Area Specific Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were subject to an intensive review process in September, October, and November. The Plan and EIR were presented at a public workshop in September; also in September, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing on the EIR and Plan; and the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council conducted intensive policy reviews of the Plan in public meetings in September, October, and November. The draft EIR was also subject to a public comment period.

The Plan is intended to express an affirmative vision for the Northeast Area. The proposed Plan reduces residential and non-residential development potential from that currently allowed under the General Plan. Build-out under the current General Plan would generate more traffic than the Northeast Plan. The proposed Northeast Plan also calls for new streets to increase connectivity, changes allowed land uses, requires a new public square, establishes street tree, lighting and bench requirements for Sebastopol Avenue and other streets in the area, and calls for a no-net fill regulation for the Plan area. The current General Plan does not address these issues for the Northeast area.

The recent meetings and reviews followed the numerous public community meetings over the last several years where the fundamentals of the policy choices and development concepts were discussed, and where the basic policy direction for the Plan emerged. Work towards the Plan began four years ago, and there have been at least 17 well-attended workshops, public meetings, and hearings on the Plan. Extensive Plan documents have been posted on the City web site. There has been publicity about the Northeast planning process in the local newspaper, the City newsletter, flyers, legal notices, telephone pole postings, the City web site, and the Wacco web site. Hundreds of persons participated in this process, and their input, together with comments from the City Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board have shaped the draft Plan. The Northeast process has taken longer than the City’s General Plan process.

The Final EIR and a revised version of the Plan are now in preparation. When the revised draft of the Plan and Final EIR are prepared, there will be opportunities at future public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council for members of the public to provide additional comments on the environmental analysis and proposed Plan. As the citizen representatives of the Sebastopol community charged with the responsibility for City land use policy, the Planning Commissioners and City Council members will carefully weigh public comments and the Plan’s issues and policy choices as they deliberate and take action on the Plan.

It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will begin the public hearing process on the revised draft Plan and the Final EIR in February or March. An update bulletin will be issued when specific dates are known.
Please feel free to contact the Planning Department with any questions, or for more information. The Planning Department page of the City web site (www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us) also has numerous reports and other documents available for review.

-Kenyon Webster, Planning Director, City of Sebastopol

[Kunnskaping]

This is an update on the proposed Sebastopol Northeast Area Specific Plan from the City of Sebastopol.

The Plan is intended to express an affirmative vision for the Northeast Area. The proposed Plan reduces residential and non-residential development potential from that currently allowed under the General Plan. Build-out under the current General Plan would generate more traffic than the Northeast Plan. The proposed Northeast Plan also calls for new streets to increase connectivity, changes allowed land uses, requires a new public square, establishes street tree, lighting and bench requirements for Sebastopol Avenue and other streets in the area, and calls for a no-net fill regulation for the Plan area. The current General Plan does not address these issues for the Northeast area.

As a relative newcomer to the area, and thus a late comer to this particular planning process, I am struggling to understand what has gone on and the rationale behind policy and public participation actions that have and are still going into the development of the NE Specific Plan. From what I can tell from skimming the documents posted on the city's web site, it appears that the city undertook the Specific plan as a sort of blank slate upon which to a draw a new vision for the Northeast plan area, and treated the General Plan as an afterthought. To wit, your staff report to the City Council on March 2, 2004 describes implementation of the General Plan as an optional and secondary benefit of the Specific Plan ("Furthermore, development of this Specific Plan can help to insure implementation of a number of General Plan goals and policies . . .") and the Northeast Area Specific Plan: Overview document makes no reference to the General Plan at all. Instead, the latter asks the sort of questions that should be answered by the General Plan (e.g., "do we want to focus on industrial uses, residential, retail, public, or a combination of these?"; "What businesses are we lacking that may be desired by the Sebastopol community? How might this benefit the community? What effects might there be on existing businesses?"), but the implication is that these questions will be answered in the course of fleshing out the Specific Plan instead being guided by the answers embodied in the General Plan. The Northeast Area Specific Plan Background Report of March 2004 does a good job of identifying many goals and policies of the General Plan that should guide the development of the Specific Plan, but it also treats those goals and policies as optional, something that "can be implemented with the successful creation of" the Specific Plan rather than directives that must be carried out unless or until the General Plan is properly amended.

The reason I am confused by all of this is that California law plainly sets out the purpose of an optional Specific Plan as providing the details for carrying out the goals and policies of the mandatory General Plan when it states:

After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, the
planning agency may, or if so directed by the legislative body,
shall, prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation
of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general
plan. [Emphasis added]

It appears to me that the city has placed the cart before the horse by working on a Specific Plan with its own goals and policies, then seeking to find internal consistency with the General Plan where possible and amend the General Plan to fit within the constraints of the Specific Plan as necessary to achieve a measure of harmony between the two documents. As you described the process for developing the Specific Plan in the above post, the direction for the plan did not come from the General Plan, it came from "numerous public community meetings over the last several years where the fundamentals of the policy choices and development concepts were discussed," apparently without an attempt to conform to the General Plan. As I understand it, that is not the proper function of a Specific Plan, which is to be predicated upon the goals and policies of the General Plan.

I should think that it would be a simple matter to determine the relationship between the General Plan and the Specific Plan by simply reading the Specific Plan. After all, the law clearly states that:

The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.

However, I am having trouble identifying the statement in the Specific Plan that fulfills that requirement and reflects the purpose of the Specific Plan as a means of carefully guiding the implementation of the General Plan. Perhaps you can call my attention to that statement, if it exists in the draft Specific Plan.

I am also confused as to why the city went to the trouble and expense of putting together an EIR for a Specific Plan that was and is still under development. As a practical matter, it seems wasteful if not impossible to create a proper EIR for a project that has yet to be defined. But more than that, as a matter of law, it is not clear to me that the evolving Specific Plan is, at this point, a "project" within the context of CEQA. And, of course, if there is not yet a "project" then the CEQA requirements that a project receive a negative declaration or an EIR are moot for the time being.

As CERES points out, a CEQA "project" must contain one of the following types of activities:

(1) Activities directly undertaken by a public agency, which include public works construction activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and adoption and amendment of local general plans.
(2) Activities that are supported (in whole or in part) by public agency, which include contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other assistance from a public agency.
(3) An activity involving the public agency issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use by a public agency.

Clearly, the creation, or even adoption, of a specific plan does not satisfy criterion 1 because the city is not entity that is intended to alter the land in question. Also, because creating the Specific Plan does not involve the city granting financial assistance to developers, criterion 2 is not met. And, finally, because a Specific Plan does not, in itself, grant anyone the right to undertake alteration or new uses of the land in question, criterion 3 does not seem to apply. Thus, I am left wondering when and how the NE Specific Plan, which is still being created, became a CEQA project for which a valid EIR can be created.

I am hoping you can clarify these points of confusion for me, Kenyon, as imagine may be true of many readers here on WACCO. In fact, I think it would be very helpful if you would address these issues here, then include the points of clarification I have requested in the Northeast Area Specific Plan: Overview so that all of these matters will be for anyone to understand when they turn to that document for guidance. Thank you for your help with this confusing exercise in local democracy.

[Kenyon Webster]

Dear Kunnskaping--

Thanks for your post.

Cities and counties use specific plans in a variety of ways. Sometimes, the general plan calls for development of a specific plan to flesh out specific policy for an area, or to address issues deferred or unresolved in the general plan. Other times, jurisdictions use them to address new issues or changed circumstances. In either case, the purpose is to address policy issues that were not adequately addressed in the General Plan. In the case of the Northeast Plan, the City Council determined it was appropriate to reexamine land use policy for the area.

Oftentimes, the specific plan adoption process includes amendments to the general plan to harmonize policies, thus achieving consistency. Under state law, general plans are not immutable and may be amended up to four times every year (and those amendments may be comprehensive in nature).

Pages 1-5 and 1-9 - 1-11 of the draft Plan address the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan.

In regard to CEQA, a specific plan is most definitely a 'project' under CEQA. Your citation (1) so states. The City prepared an EIR pursuant to this requirement.

I hope this information is helpful.

-Kenyon Webster

[Kunnskaping]

Cities and counties use specific plans in a variety of ways. Sometimes, the general plan calls for development of a specific plan to flesh out specific policy for an area, or to address issues deferred or unresolved in the general plan. Other times, jurisdictions use them to address new issues or changed circumstances. In either case, the purpose is to address policy issues that were not adequately addressed in the General Plan. In the case of the Northeast Plan, the City Council determined it was appropriate to reexamine land use policy for the area.

Thank you for the prompt reply, Kenyon. Nonetheless, I am still confused about several things. Please bear with me while I attempt to figure out what I am missing or what, if anything, the Specific Plan and the process used to create it is missing. So far, something does not add up for me.

I understand that Specific Plans can explore issues covered in the General Plan in greater detail as well as cover issues that were not included in the General Plan. In other words, a Specific Plan is additive and expansive relative to a General Plan, but it should not be contradictory or alternative. With that in mind, from all that I know and have read, it is not at all clear to me that reexamining policies for an area covered by the General Plan and coming up with new policies, rather than implementing the policies that exist within the General Plan, is an appropriate use of a Specific Plan. To my layman's eye, that would seem to be an effort better suited to, say, an area plan or a community plan, which are merely detailed components of a General Plan as opposed to a completely separate document defined by statute, which provides a very specific and singular purpose--"the systematic implementation of the general plan"--as is true of a Specific Plan.

So, if the point was to reevaluate and amend the General Plan, rather than provide detailed guidance as to how the General Plan is to be implemented, I don't understand why the city undertook the creation of a Specific Plan. Or, coming at it from another angle, am I wrong in my reading of the law? Is the city relying on some other authority that gives it the power to use the Specific Plan as a tool for reevaluating and amending the General Plan instead of systematically implementing the General Plan? If so, what might that authority be?

Oftentimes, the specific plan adoption process includes amendments to the general plan to harmonize policies, thus achieving consistency.

Well, of course. It stands to reason that when the people of a city get down to the details of carrying out their General Plan, they are bound to come across a few ideas that need a little tweaking or filling out in order to make sense in light of the finer granularity and wider scope set forth in the Specific Plan. But that is very different from taking a completely new start on the matters set forth in the General Plan, coming up with a whole new set of policies, and substituting those new policies for what was already adopted in the General Plan. The latter could hardly be construed as any sort of systematic implantation of the General Plan. Rather, it is the systematic revision of the General Plan. It is that tail wagging the dog nature of what I have seen of the city's approach and intent to the Specific Plan that I find confusing. Again, where is the authority for using a Specific Plan for such ends?

Under state law, general plans are not immutable and may be amended up to four times every year (and those amendments may be comprehensive in nature).

Yes, I am aware of that. But the issue I am driving at is not whether the mandatory elements of the General Plan can be revised up to four times per year, but whether a Specific Plan is a vehicle for doing so. The law seems to say no. The Specific Plan Guidelines seem to say no. Where is the city getting the idea that it has the authority to use a Specific Plan substitute a new set of policies--or simply drop policies--instead of fulfilling the policies and goals of the General Plan?

Pages 1-5 and 1-9 - 1-11 of the draft Plan address the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan.

I was afraid of that, but hoping I had missed something. The material on 1-5 makes two points relative to the General Plan: (1) the Specific plan is inconsistent with the General Plan in that it "will result in less development in the Northeast Area overall than what would be allowed under the existing General Plan," and (2) inconsistencies between the Specific Plan and General Plan will be handled by amending the General Plan to conform to the Specific Plan.

On 1-9, we find an interpretation of the legal requirement that a Specific Plan must serve to implement the city's "adopted General Plan." [Emphasis added]

At the bottom of 1-10 we find the beginnings of the following curious statement: "Although several amendments to the City’s General Plan will be necessary to allow its implementation, the objectives and recommendations contained in this Specific Plan are consistent with, and further, General Plan goals." If the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan goals, why does the General Plan need to be amended to prevent the Specific Plan from being inconsistent with the General Plan? Apparently, it is because the Specific Plan's policies are not consistent with the General Plan's policies. As such, the Specific Plan does not seem to be a way of systematically implementing the General Plan, even if there is some belief that it will arrive at more or less the same ends, if by different means.

Turning to 1-11, it says, roughly, that the General Plans provisions for redevelopment and re-use will be superseded by the policies of the Specific Plan within the geographic area covered by the Specific Plan, similarly, the map of land use designations from the Specific Plan will "replace" the map in the adopted General Plan within the Specific Plan area, the General Plan's growth management provisions shall be over ridden by the Specific Plan to allow more housing in the NE area than the General Plan allows, and, finally, traffic level service standards in the General Plan will simply be eliminated.

And that's it? Where might I find "a detailed statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan, including consistency between both plans and a comparison of goals, objectives, and policies" as well as "a discussion of how the [specific] plan implements the policies of the general plan," both of which are necessary to a legally adequate Specific Plan? For that matter, where in the Specific Plan does it indicate that its purpose is the "systematic implementation" of the adopted General Plan, as required by law, unless, as I indicated above, I am missing something? Section B, "Purpose and Intent of this Specific Plan," says nothing at all about that and, as mentioned above, the pages you have pointed to as descriptive of the relationship between the General Plan and the Specific Plan seem to contradict that notion.

I thought I was just confused. Perhaps I am. But it is beginning to appear to me that part of the problem is that the Specific Plan does not aim to do what the law says a Specific Plan must do. If you think I am not seeing how the Specific Plan does provide for the systematic implementation of the General Plan, or you believe the city has the authority to use the Specific Plan for another primary purpose, please explain and point me in the direction of the knowledge I seem to be lacking.

Thanks for your patience and understanding. Please know that I offer you mine--well, patience at least--in return.

[Kenyon Webster]

Dear Kunnskaping--

Cities may amend general plans. A specific plan is one way of performing an amendment in a very comprehensive and detailed fashion. In making an amendment, any inconsistencies between the existing general plan and the amendment must be resolved. This is the planned approach for the Northeast Plan.

-Kenyon Webster

[Barry]

Kunnskaping and others, aside from the process, do you have any comments about what is being considered for the plan?

[Zeno Swijtink]

OTHER RECOMMENDED LINKS:

https://www.seb.org/chamber.html
https://www.seb.org/kimcomment.html
https://www.hallalminana.com/project...ebastopol.html
https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/planning.shtml

********************
https://www.sonomawest.com/articles/...inions/op5.txt

LETTER: How ‘green' the valley?

EDITOR: It is my own fault I am sure for not paying attention, but it was recently revealed to me that our “green” city council has plans for what amounts to a massive new development for the Northeast Area (mostly between downtown and Morris St.) of our small city. While the need is questionable - 300 plus housing units, large amount of new retail space, new city facilities, library, a second plaza; the location dubious-flood plain, liquifaction zone, near a sensitive wetlands, covering up aquifer recharge areas and on the edge of town; and the impacts great-more traffic, congestion, unneeded retail space, four story buildings - what struck me most is how “ungreen” it is. Especially from our supposedly green city council.

No matter how many sustainable, green features are incorporated in the planning and design, it is still new development, sprawl if you will. The way to a “green,” sustainable, people-friendly Sebastopol is to work towards changing and improving what is here, not by building a new town. Years ago when I lived in Los Angeles I was a member of a co-housing group that had plans to build an “eco-village” showcasing all of the latest ideas in sustainability. We came to the realization, though, that no matter what we called ourselves, we were being developers, and we regrouped to try and transform the neighborhoods where we lived, not build a new city. The same idea applies here in Sebastopol.

Before this plan can become a reality, a final site specific plan and environmental impact report must be issued for public comment and then zoning regulations and the city's General Plan have to be revised, so the time to get involved is now. Watch for meeting notices, talk to your neighbors, read the plan at the library, call your city council member - before Sebastopol is changed forever.

- David Little, Sebastopol

***
LETTER: Not very green ...


Editor: I moved to downtown Sebastopol from out in the West County so that I wouldn't be forced to drive my car everywhere. I've been walking around town for about 3 years now. Imagine my surprise to learn that it isn't “walkable” and requires a coalition - and maybe even a whole new city - to make it so.

As a new, enthusiastic citizen of the city of Sebastopol, I attended the public meetings about the redevelopment of the northeast quadrant to find out what great improvements were being proposed for my town. We were presented with the plan. We were educated on the smart code and the basics of urban design. Concerns were raised about the historic/inevitable flooding in the northeast area, about the real threat of developing in an earthquake liquefaction zone, about the real problem of additional traffic. Those concerns were glossed over and the majority of the time was spent hearing about all the green building techniques that were suggested by a small but vocal group of participants who were very well prepared for the public information meetings.

I am alarmed at the Draft Specific Plan for the area that somehow resulted from those meetings: 300 units plus retail space on over 25 acres in the flood plain, apparently supported by the same City Council members who are blocking a much smaller development in a similarly sensitive area within the city limits. The image of four-story buildings on 10 foot mounds of fill (the cunning solution to earthquake risk) at the eastern entrance to the town is someone's idea of beautifying the gateway to Sebastopol. Given the current snarled traffic pattern entering town from Highway 12, and the 8,000 additional daily trips projected for the new development, everyone will have ample time to enjoy this architectural aesthetic.

I'm curious how our green City Council with “global vision” can ignore the impact of expanded water use on our neighbors on Cooper Road and elsewhere in the county, even as city wells are currently being re-drilled. I'm also curious about where the displaced flood water will end up once the mounds are built in the current flood zone. And a new civic center at the edge of town? After the developers donate land in the flood/liquefaction zone, citizens get to pay for the fancy buildings. If the City Council approves the zoning changes to allow this massive development, “walkable” Sebastopol will become unlivable.

It is important that the citizens of Sebastopol understand the many, serious impacts of abandoning our small town in favor of a city with a “new heart.” Planning for future growth is necessary and improvement is welcome, but this plan should be thought through, not pushed through.

The City Council is charged with representing citizens but they can't do that unless they hear from us. If you agree that this northeast quadrant redevelopment is a good idea gone bad, please let your representatives know so they can do the right thing: grow responsibly, respect the environment, and represent the will of the people - all the people, not just special (even green) interests.
- Gayle Bergmann, Sebastopol

***

LETTER: Where's the water?


EDITOR: I support the Northeast Plan, however I am concerned about the availability of water needed to support this project as well as other planned developments in Sebastopol.

This concern prompted me to attend two Sonoma County General Plan public comment sessions relating to water issues. After hearing comments from water experts, well owners, and people favoring restricted development, I agree Sonoma County needs a county-wide water management plan. We have to understand that groundwater taken by Santa Rosa or Rohnert Park can affect the ground water available in Sebastopol. Realizing that it will take some time to develop a plan for the county, I advocate that West County do a groundwater study.

West County should follow the example set by the people in Sonoma Valley who have just completed a water study for their area. The many competing stakeholders in the area were able to work together to produce results that were fair and unbiased.

The City of Sebastopol should take the lead in bringing the competing stakeholders together to conduct our own ground water study. Only then will we have the information to manage our groundwater supply and make informed decisions about further development and the need for conservation.

- Kathleen Shaffer, Sebastopol
--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Kunnskaping]

Dear Kunnskaping--

Cities may amend general plans. A specific plan is one way of performing an amendment in a very comprehensive and detailed fashion. In making an amendment, any inconsistencies between the existing general plan and the amendment must be resolved. This is the planned approach for the Northeast Plan.

-Kenyon Webster

Kenyon, you have already stated this opinion twice. You have also stated your belief that other California cities have used a specific plan as a vehicle to primarily amend the General Plan, rather than systematically implement it, as the law governing Specific Plans says it is to be used. Saying the same thing over and over does not make it any clearer or "truthier" (thank you, Stephen Colbert!).

I have explained part of why I think your approach is contrary to law and I have asked you to cite any legal authority that runs counter to my understanding. So far, you have not even attempted to reference such a legal authority, or even a reference to a documented customary and acceptable practice that supports your contention that you are going at this the right way. Please do so, or, barring that, please refer us to examples of cities that have (1) developed Specific Plans that are fundamentally inconsistent with required elements of the General Plans, (2) made consistent with the General Plans by amending the General Plan to agree with the Specific Plan, and (3) remove required information from mandatory elements of the General Plan and replace it with references to similar information contained in the Specific Plan, as you and the city intend to do in Sebastopol.

Let me point out that action (3), which I just mentioned above, stands to invalidate the General Plan, thus stripping the city of its proactive powers over land use until that is resolved. For one thing, the General Plan will no longer be comprehensive and inclusive of all required information for all geographic areas within the city's jurisdiction, thus rendering it legally inadequate on its face. For another, it will subvert the law you cited that limits the city to revising mandatory elements of the General Plan no more than four times per year inasmuch as the Specific Plan can be changed as often as the city chooses and required information in the General Plan shall have been substituted for a pointer to the Specific Plan, if understand your intentions correctly.

[Kenyon Webster]

Dear Kunnskaping--

A specific plan implements a general plan by providing detailed policy for a specific area of the jurisdiction, with any differences between the general plan and specific plan being addressed by appropriate amendments.

-Kenyon Webster

[Zeno Swijtink]

I have explained part of why I think your approach is contrary to law and I have asked you to cite any legal authority that runs counter to my understanding. So far, you have not even attempted to reference such a legal authority, or even a reference to a documented customary and acceptable practice that supports your contention that you are going at this the right way. Please do so, or, barring that, please refer us to examples of cities that have (1) developed Specific Plans that are fundamentally inconsistent with required elements of the General Plans, (2) made consistent with the General Plans by amending the General Plan to agree with the Specific Plan, and (3) remove required information from mandatory elements of the General Plan and replace it with references to similar information contained in the Specific Plan, as you and the city intend to do in Sebastopol.

Let me point out that action (3), which I just mentioned above, stands to invalidate the General Plan, thus stripping the city of its proactive powers over land use until that is resolved. For one thing, the General Plan will no longer be comprehensive and inclusive of all required information for all geographic areas within the city's jurisdiction, thus rendering it legally inadequate on its face. For another, it will subvert the law you cited that limits the city to revising mandatory elements of the General Plan no more than four times per year inasmuch as the Specific Plan can be changed as often as the city chooses and required information in the General Plan shall have been substituted for a pointer to the Specific Plan, if understand your intentions correctly.

I have no legal background but I fail to see the legal problems that you try to identify in the relation between Sebastopol's General Plan, and the Specific Plan for the Northeast Plan Update.

What the City seems to want to do is

1. Write a Specific Plan for the Northeast Quadrant.

2. Adopt a General Plan amended so as to be consistent with this proposed Specific Plan (like zoning changes)

3. Adopt the Specific Plan

You may not like this since it seems to make the General Plan too provisional. But I don't see anything in the law you refer to

https://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/disp...le=65450-65457

that makes this illegal.

The General Plan can be amended four times a year, as you point out. Specific Plan can be amended without limit, so as long as there are at most four amendments of a Specific Plan that require a change in the General Plan, this seems all to be within the law.

As long as there is an open process with plenty of public input and the required public hearings about documents that are finished and available sufficiently early to study, the limitations in how often the General Plan can be amended seems to provide enough guarantee that citizens can foresee and plan developments in town, while keeping the flexibility we need in this ever changing world.

[Kunnskaping]

Dear Kunnskaping--

A specific plan implements a general plan by providing detailed policy for a specific area of the jurisdiction, with any differences between the general plan and specific plan being addressed by appropriate amendments.

-Kenyon Webster

Yes, Kenyon, I agree. However, your statement avoids all of the issues I have raised. Here they are, again, in summary form.

1. The Draft Specific Plan is legally inadequate on its face because it lacks "a detailed statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan, including consistency between both plans and a comparison of goals, objectives, and policies" and "a discussion of how the plan implements the policies of the general plan." [Emphases added.] Both of these criteria are described in Part I of The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans, published by the Office of Planning and Research as among the "the minimum requirements of the statute" (Government Code §65450 et seq.) "in order to be legally adequate." In this thread, I have asked you where one might find those components of the Draft Specific Plan. So far, you have not been responsive to my request.


2. The Draft Specific Plan seeks legally required consistency with the General Plan by standing the lawfully intended hierarchy of the two on its head. The laws pertaining to Specific Plans are clearly written with the understanding that Specific Plans are subordinate to General Plans and Zoning Ordinances are subordinate to both General Plans and Specific Plans. (I will be glad to spell out in detail--as time allows--why I believe that to be so if anyone reads the laws and guidelines pertaining to General Plans and Specific Plans and comes away with a different understanding.) However, from the outset, the N.E. Area Specific Plan has been treated as a mechanism for coming up with new policies (and even inviting new goals) to govern the section of the city in question rather than a means of "systematic implementation of the general plan," as required by §65450. In 1990, the California Supreme Court opined in Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, "[t]he Planning and Zoning Law does not contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The general plan is the charter to which the ordinance must conform." Similarly, I believe, the law does not contemplate that the General Plan will be amended to conform to an optional and subordinate Specific Plan, the purpose of which is to implement, not redefine, the General Plan. Unfortunately, Sebastopol seems to me to be on a capricious course to become a party to the litigation that will define the relationship between General and Specific Plans as clearly and pointedly as Lesher defined the relationship between General Plans and Zoning Ordinances. Again, Kenyon, I have asked you to cite any legal authority that supports your view that the General Plan's policies should be amended to conform to new ones developed in a Specific Plan, or even some examples of other California cities that have done so, but you have not responded to me request.

3. Because the Draft Specific Plan is legally inadequate on its face and at cross purposes to its intended function set forth by law, it is not ripe for consideration as a CEQA project subject to an EIR. Simply put, the need for an EIR hinges on the prospect of adoption of a given, lawful Specific Plan. The Draft N.E. Area Specific Plan does not contain even the beginnings of necessary components specified in point 1, above, and as mentioned in point 2, the city has yet to name the policies of the General Plan that logically require a Specific Plan for their systematic implementation--which is the one and only purpose of Specific Plans according to the very first sentence of the state law pertaining to them. On those bases, no matter how otherwise compelling may be the content of the document, the Draft Specific Plan does not satisfy the rudimentary definition of a lawful Specific Plan and cannot be supported as such by an EIR until it is fleshed out and oriented to meet the minimum standards of the California's specific plan legislation. Despite your contention to the contrary, Kenyon, I have provided, and know of, no legal citation that argues otherwise. I invite you, again, to provide one.

4. By replacing necessary information contained in mandatory elements of the General Plan with references to whatever is provided in the corresponding content of the Specific Plan, the General Plan shall be subject to invalidation. I am not sure if I understand the nature of the proposed amendments to the General Plan properly, but it appears to me that the idea is to amend the General Plan such that (1) the General Plan is subplanted by the Specific Plan insofar as it pertains to "redevelopment and re-use in the northeast area," (2) the General Plan's land-use designation maps shall be replaced with SmartCode maps and designations only in the N.E. Area and a reference is to be inserted into the General Plan that says whatever is contained in the N.E. Area Specific Plan regarding land-use shall be governing for that area (only) regardless of what may be in the General Plan, among other things. If I have that right, then I think the city has it wrong. That type of content needs to be in the General Plan itself where it needs to take precedent over whatever may be in specific plans or planning ordinances and, further, it needs to be comprehensive throughout the Sebastopol. The Specific Plan is not a part of the General Plan. If you remove necessary information from the General Plan and put it in another document, you set up the General Plan to be invalidated on that basis, whether or not you note in the General Plan that the required information is no longer where it belongs but can be found somewhere else. Further, as I mentioned in my previous post, if such an arrangement was enacted, it would undermine the intent of the law you cited, Kenyon, which limits the number of revisions to each required element of the General Plan to no more than four per year. That is because the mandatory information would be contained in the Specific Plan, which can be amended "as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body" (§65453(d)). I am sure that is not what is intended by the law and, on that basis alone, I should expect such a scheme to fail a legal challenge.



Kenyon, those are the points I have presented to date to which you have not had a discernible response that I can see. Let me add one more that follows on point 4, above.

If the General Plan is amended such that it is dependent upon the Specific Plan for any of the information contained in any of the seven required elements of a general plan, then any flaw in the Specific Plan that causes it to be invalidated (for instance, a failure to amend the specific plan to keep current with general plan amendments, or the discovery that the Specific Plan incorporates a planning horizon that exceeds by several years that of the governing and guiding General Plan, as is now being proposed), the entire General Plan may be subsequently invalidated and with it all of the city's land use authority until the Specific Plan can be corrected through the amendment process. I cannot imagine why the city would set itself up for that sort of trouble, which could be easily avoided by following the intent of the law and keeping the General Plan whole, comprehensive, consistent, and unmistakably superior to and directive of all other planning documents, policies, and laws. I can only hope I have misunderstood the nature of the amendments to the General Plan that are intended achieve harmony with the Specific Plan.

[Zeno Swijtink]

In 1990, the California Supreme Court opined in Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, "[t]he Planning and Zoning Law does not contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The general plan is the charter to which the ordinance must conform." Similarly, I believe, the law does not contemplate that the General Plan will be amended to conform to an optional and subordinate Specific Plan, the purpose of which is to implement, not redefine, the General Plan. Unfortunately, Sebastopol seems to me to be on a capricious course to become a party to the litigation that will define the relationship between General and Specific Plans as clearly and pointedly as Lesher defined the relationship between General Plans and Zoning Ordinances.

If, as I suggested, the General Plan is amended before a Specific Plan is adopted, in a manner that satisfies the rules of amendments, I don't see that the tail is wagging the dog, as in Lesher where a zoning ordinance change was adopted before a General Plan update was carried through.

[Kunnskaping]

If, as I suggested, the General Plan is amended before a Specific Plan is adopted, in a manner that satisfies the rules of amendments, I don't see that the tail is wagging the dog, as in Lesher where a zoning ordinance change was adopted before a General Plan update was carried through.

Suppose the United States agreed to the Kyoto Protocols. Thereafter, it set about creating a plan to systematically implement its obligations under the Kyoto agreement. Suppose, further, that it ignored the Kyoto Protocols as soon as it set about creating the supposed implementation plan, asked itself anew how it would like to go about reducing greenhouse gases and by how much, and came up with a new program that included (1) a carbon trading scheme that did not conform to Kyoto's, (2) a carbon reduction target that was less ambitious than that required by Kyoto, and (3) a plan to resolve conflicts (1) and (2) by revising the terms of its obligations to match the new carbon trading scheme and targets that were developed while ignoring the actual specifics of its Kyoto agreement. Suppose, further, the U.S. declared that it's Kyoto obligation would continue to conform to whatever new mechanisms and targets the U.S. came up with in the future rather than sticking to what Kyoto says should be the means and amounts of carbon reduction.

Question: in the above scenario, did the U.S. actually create a plan to implement its Kyoto obligations or did it set out to revise its obligations and declare compliance by virtue of getting its redefinition of Kyoto obligations to conform to whatever it wanted to do irrespective of what the Kyoto Protocols actually called for when they were adopted? I think it should be clear to any reasonable person that the latter tells the true story of what went down. The supposed implementation plan did not seek to implement the extant agreement at all, it did not even ask what must be done to satisfy the agreement, it just went off on its own course and then achieved victory by changing the rules rather than working out a plan for complying with them.

And that is more or less the course the city has followed in creating a N.E. Area Specific Plan. That is the essence of the tail wagging the dog in this matter. It cannot be saved by adjusting the timing of which ink dries on which piece of paper first. The aim of the Specific Plan was and is not what the state law that makes it possible intended it to be (i.e., the systematic implementation of the adopted General Plan). The Specific Plan has been crafted as the greater vision and over riding force in this case, and the General Plan is being set up for revisions such that it will always bend to the false authority of whatever goes into certain types of content of the Specific Plan.

I think the the technical term for that approach is "backasswards." In layman's terms, it's just wrong. If the Specific Plan contained the comparison between its own goals and policies and those of the General Plan, as a Specific Plan must in order to pass legal muster, I think that should be clear to all.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Suppose the United States agreed to the Kyoto Protocols. /snip/

The analogy with something like the Kyoto Protocol is a false one. The Kyoto Protocol is protocol to implement a binding treaty between different parties.

A city's General Plan, adopted by the City Council after public hearings and citizen input, is a comprehensive, long-range policy document that guides the physical development of that city.

A General Plan is more like a family's financial plan: when unforeseen opportunities arise or disaster strikes the plan should be changed. No responsible family would do different.

That's why a city's General Plan can be changed, up to four times a year.

The City of Sebastopol has conducted many public hearings and has the citizens given many opportunities to provide input. Continued input is asked for and needs to be given.

I am not saying that the process cannot be improved. But lets not get off on some bogus legal argument and wave with the litigation flag. Remember, we're spending our own money here!

[Kunnskaping]

The analogy with something like the Kyoto Protocol is a false one. The Kyoto Protocol is protocol to implement a binding treaty between different parties.

You are missing the forest for the trees. The point of the analogy, conceived of and written very late at night before going back to bed, was to illustrate the difference between setting out to systematically implement an adopted set of big picture policies and goals (which is what a specific plan is supposed to do) and coming up with new big picture policies and goals instead.

It is not enough to conduct meetings and workshops. The city's obligations are (1) to keep the General Plan current and report such efforts to the state, which it has not, save for two of seven mandatory elements, (2) to implement the General Plan (which should be the purpose of any specific plans, though in this case it is not), and (3) to prepare an Annual Progress Report (APR) regarding the city's implementation of the General Plan and file that APR with the state's Office of Planning and Research per Government Code Section 65400--which, again, the city has failed to do (see California's General Plan Annual Progress Report Guidance for details).

You are quite right to be concerned about the money, time, and effort that is being spent going through all sorts of motions that seem to have something to do with updating and implementing the General Plan but, when compared to the intent and details of what the law requires or allows, come up short, if not completely empty, on many fronts. Far from creating an atmosphere of stability in which development can take place, the city has been violating public rights set forth in the state's planning and zoning laws and regulations and, as a result, is inviting costly, time and budget consuming legal action on several fronts. A simple way out of this would be to start following the laws instead of looking to other cities that are in violation and using those cities as models for how to prepare, update, and implement the General Plan.

As a convenient and local model, for instance, Sebastopol might look to Rohnert Park's Northeast Specific Plan, which actually has a well defined and identifiable statement of the Specific Plan's "Relationship to General Plan" [PDF] that makes the point that the plan is intended, in accordance with state law, to systematically implement the General Plan. Further, it goes on to explain that the reason for the Specific Plan is that the General Plan calls for it as a key step in its own implementation. Additionally, it provides the detailed comparisons of the General Plan's policies and goals and those of the Specific Plan that the Specific Plan Guidelines describe as being necessary to meeting the minimum standards of legal adequacy.

On the other hand, if Sebastopol wants a shining example of what not to do, they need look no further than the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, which makes no attempt at the mandatory statement of the relationship between the General Plan and the Specific Plan other than to say that specific plans can be more detailed than general plans and that the whole idea, from the get-go, was to use the Specific Plan to amend the General Plan rather than implement it as required by laws that are ignored throughout the Specific Plan.

[Zeno Swijtink]

You are missing the forest for the trees. The point of the analogy, conceived of and written very late at night before going back to bed, was to illustrate the difference between setting out to systematically implement an adopted set of big picture policies and goals (which is what a specific plan is supposed to do) and coming up with new big picture policies and goals instead.

I appreciate all the thought and research you are putting into this, and the reference to local Specific Plan processes such as in Rohnert Park and Petaluma.

I venture that the differences between RP on the one hand, and Petaluma and Sebastopol can be explained by the fact that RP is basically a city build from scratch on virgin land after WWII, and doesn't have these forgotten plots of land as the much older towns such as Petaluma and Sebastopol where ownership situations are more complex.

There is nothing in the law that forbids an update of a General Plan to accommodate a new situation that was studied in a Specific Plan development as long as one gets the time order of adoption right and provides the public will the required opportunities to provide input. I have no opinion about the filing requirements you talk about as I am simply not familiar with the details.

I am sure the city attorneys are studying your objections and will make sure we follow the law in the final wording of the Plans.

[Helen Shane]

The following statement was read at the Sebastopol City Council meeting on December 4. Anyone who wants more information about the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition may email me at [email protected].

We had previously requested of Sam Pierce, then mayor, a Council agenda item to discuss specific proposed General Plan changes and their impacts to areas outside the Northeast Plan area, and were rebuffed.

(Last night Craig Litwin and Linda Kelley were elected mayor and vice mayor, respectively.)

December 4, 2007

To: Mayor Craig Litwin; Councilmembers Sarah Gurney, Linda Kelley, Sam Pierce, Larry Robinson

From: Sebastopol Preservation Coalition

Subject: The Northeast Specific Plan

Many public meetings and workshops were held about the Northeast Specific Plan, but none of the City Council meetings, public workshops or meetings discussed details of the proposed General Plan changes or revealed the impacts to areas outside the Northeast Plan Area.

There was no more than a passing comment about the fact that only intersections immediately contiguous to the Northeast Plan area were studied and reported on. The truth is that if the Northeast Specific Plan zoning were approved, current traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards for all of downtown Sebastopol would need to be gutted or eliminated.

Further, we believe that a broader range of traffic intersections must be studied, including Sebastopol neighborhoods, Hwy 116 South, Healdsburg Ave, the Hwy. 12 corridor and Bodega Ave.

It is a blatant fallacy that the application of the current General Plan would generate more traffic and more growth. It is simply not true. This could happen only if the current General Plan Level of Service standards and building height parameters and many other limits were jettisoned to permit such overbuilding.

In communication to the public, negative impacts of the Northeast Plan as proposed must not be downplayed, minimized, or omitted, nor should its benefits be exaggerated or embellished.

We fear that many negative impacts of the Northeast Plan will occur by omission, rather than commission.

We think it is vital to have the proposed Northeast Plan changes and their impacts to the entire town reviewed and discussed at a Council meeting.

Sebastopol Preservation Coalition, including

s/s Helen Shane
s/s Magick
s/s Clare Najarian
s/s Holly Downing
s/s Eric Johnson
s/s Gayle Bergmann
s/s Nansi I Weil
s/s Deanne Thompson
s/s Ruth Robinson
s/s Jane Nielson
s/s Lisa Pierce
s/s Steve Pierce
s/s Sylvana deJonghe
s/s Bill Kenney
s/s Ken Royce
s/s Stacey Royce
s/s Manus Monroe
s/s Jim Wheaton
s/s Carey Wheaton

The Northeast Area is big.
Let’s make the best of it, not the most of it.

[Kunnskaping]

I appreciate all the thought and research you are putting into this, and the reference to local Specific Plan processes such as in Rohnert Park and Petaluma.

Thank you. I enjoyed reading the comments you culled from the paper and the links you provided to other discussions about the Specific Plan. I think many of the comments points out how underwhelmed many people are with the proposed plan, as well as how uninformed they have been about the nature of what is really going on here: it is a major General Plan amendment that only applies to one part of the city. None of the notices or updates make that point, so it is not surprising that people are confused or that they did not (or do not) realize what is going on.

I venture that the differences between RP on the one hand, and Petaluma and Sebastopol can be explained by the fact that RP is basically a city build from scratch on virgin land after WWII, and doesn't have these forgotten plots of land as the much older towns such as Petaluma and Sebastopol where ownership situations are more complex.

I am sure there are many reasons for the differences. I think a lot of it probably comes down to two well word adages: "people get the government they deserve" and "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Because most people are too busy just trying to manage their own lives, they don't usually take much time to learn about the laws, policies, and processes that shape their communities, nor do they manage to take part in the planning and implementation activities. Instead, they remain more or less ignorant of their rights and the requirements placed upon the governments they support by working and paying taxes all year long. As a result, they don't even realize when things are going sideways, things that they might otherwise speak up about if they had some idea what should be happening for their benefit.

I am just trying to highlight some of that territory for those who want to do something other than grumble to the editor or the WACCO audience. The law affords many public rights regarding local plans and development, but all are lost if people don't speak up before the comment period closes for a proposed project, such as the Specific Plan. And, to be effective, comments need to reference the applicable laws and policies rather than just ranting about what people want or don't want to see on the ground when the dust settles. So, after asking Kenyon if he knows about some special laws or sources of authority that I have overlooked, I have been sharing some links to laws, policies, and guidelines to help people speak up for themselves as effectively as possible.

I am sure the city attorneys are studying your objections and will make sure we follow the law in the final wording of the Plans.

That would be wonderful. One way or another, all of this (and more) will end up before them, but it would be great if the city decided to be proactive and get behind the spirit and letter of the law in updating the general plan with full public knowledge, support, and participation, then actually doing a good job of implementing it instead of letting it gather dust while they react to whatever comes out of left field by making up new plans on the fly.

[Kunnskaping]

The following statement was read at the Sebastopol City Council meeting on December 4. Anyone who wants more information about the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition may email me at [email protected].



There was no more than a passing comment about the fact that only intersections immediately contiguous to the Northeast Plan area were studied and reported on. The truth is that if the Northeast Specific Plan zoning were approved, current traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards for all of downtown Sebastopol would need to be gutted or eliminated.

Further, we believe that a broader range of traffic intersections must be studied, including Sebastopol neighborhoods, Hwy 116 South, Healdsburg Ave, the Hwy. 12 corridor and Bodega Ave.

Those are some very good points, Helen. When the existing conditions were presented to the public on April Fool's Day, 2006 (ahem!), no mention was made of the fact that the General Plan has Level of Service Requirements regarding traffic woven into many of its elements, now was their any mention of the numerous policies and programs that aim to promote bicycle use, especially in the downtown area. Not surprisingly, then, the Specific Plan that has been concocted makes no mention of bicycles in its circulation policies and it not only fails to meet one of the General Plan's Main Themes--"Future growth should match available infrastructure" (which, by virtue of Land-Use program 1.2, includes "traffic flow")--it actually takes an axe to that fundamental principle by declaring on page 7-2 that the General Plan should be amended to:

Change transportation policies to eliminate level of service standards based on vehicle/capacity ratios for intersections in the downtown and the Northeast Area, recognizing that such standards do not fully and accurately reflect conditions in, nor support the community’s vision for, a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly downtown.

And where is the support for that, I should like to know. A General Plan must be supported by current data. Where is the data behind that statement. And, assuming there is data to support the notion that Level of Service standards are unworkable (despite being referenced in California's General Plan Guidlines as an effective means of dealing with traffic capacity problems), what does the Specific Plan propose to do about the identified problem of bad and worsening traffic in the Northeast Area, even before the situation is walloped with new development that is expected to add thousands of new vehicle trips?

The basic problem, here, is that the city has failed to keep its General Plan up to date, despite the fact that the plan itself says that it should be reviewed from start to finish every five years at a minimum. Clearly, that has not been done. The introduction, written before Al Gore was (wrongly) chided for "inventing the Internet," projects steady population growth from a 1990 level of 7,204 people to a 2005 figure of 8,191, when what really happened is that the population began declining at the start of the new millennium and has fallen from 7,774, then, to 7,557 in 2005. That is a big change in a fundamental trend that has important implications for most of the goals and policies in the plan, but nothing has been done to respond to it. Similarly, on page II-7, traffic demand levels between 1985 and 1990 are given, but nothing has been updated since then. How can you make good decisions about one of the most troublesome issues in Sebastopol--time and energy wasting, pollution causing, traffic jams--if you don't even bother to update the information about what is happening on the ground for the better part of two decades? As demonstrated by the out of date General Plan and the out of touch Specific Plan, you can't.

This is unacceptable and probably illegal. It should not be accepted by the people who live in and drive through Sebastopol or those who would like reasonable alternatives to driving at all.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I think a lot of it probably comes down to two well word adages: "people get the government they deserve" and "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."

A sizable part of the good citizens of Rohnert Park would not agree with this. Their City Council has made a pact with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria not to oppose the building of an Indian Gambling casino on the edge of the town. I quote from a recent letter from the opposition:

"Since the casino project was first introduced to the public four years ago, the size of the facility has gone from 350,000 square feet (2003) to 690,000 square feet (2005) to a monster 729,000 square feet with multi-story parking garages and a eight story hotel tower (2007). This project, the largest commercial development project in the region, is not even included on any General Plan, despite the fact that it will have a enormous impact on regional resources. As a result, if the casino is built, all the careful planning and hard work that has gone into the General Plans will be for naught."

Among others, by spreading money around obtained from their corporate backers from Las Vegas, Station Casinos, the tribe has gotten quite an influence in the county.

[Kunnskaping]

A sizable part of the good citizens of Rohnert Park would not agree with this.

Sounds like they just need a little more practice squeaking the right words in the right places. On its face anything of that scale within R.P.'s sphere of influence needs to be recognized in the General Plan.

It could be that they have a new squeaker or two amongst them who has not yet taken on the casino issue--or maybe they just have someone new on the planning staff who has been squeaked at somewhere else. I note that the earlier Specific Plans in Rohnert Park were not so attentive to the need to clearly state the relationship between a specific plan and a general plan, but the Northeast Specific Plan I linked to, above, was exemplary in that regard. Something changed for the better. Perhaps the same will happen with the casino issue. It's certainly possible. All it takes is a few people helping each other recognize their rights and how to stand up for them coupled with a will to do what is best (or at least better) for the community. That is usually a winning combination once the word gets out, even if the dark side tries to muscle its way to dominance by throwing money at local issues.

And speaking of local issues, I forgot to mention in my critique/response to Helen, above, that another way the NE Area Specific Plan undermines the General Plan is that it is in stark opposition to the General Plan's Land-Use Goal 7:

Increase industrial employment in Sebastopol while maintaining the quality of the environment.

The Northeast plan area is home to a large share of the city's industrial employment, but far from building on that, the Specific Plan aims to gut yet another General Plan priority. Turning to page 3-24 of the NE Area Specific Plan, you will find that 230,000 sq.ft. of existing development is slated for removal, while 475,000 sq.ft. of non-residential, new development is planned. Care to guess how many of those 475,000 sq. ft. will go towards adding to industrial activities and employment? Answer: ZERO! Here is the breakdown given:

Use New SF
Retail 180,000 sf
Office 87,000 sf
Civic 100,000 sf
Hotel 18,000 sf
Hostel 6,000 sf
Parking 84,000 sf

But, hey, at least there will be lots of new retail space for those laid off industrial workers to buy new clothes to match their new jobs as security guards and parking attendants for the new business occupants of their old places of work!


Well, OK, so maybe times have changed (a lot!) and one of the biggest, light industrial employers is planning to move out of town. But that only underscores how important it is for the city to update its General Plan to match the reality of the 21st century instead of leading the Northeast Area to secede from its union with the General Plan and come up with something new that does not fit with the plans for the rest of the town, let alone the needs of everyone who passes through or spends time in that corner of downtown.

Meanwhile, finding numerous ways in which the proposed Specific Plan will be inconsistent with the themes, goals, and policies of the General Plan and the plans of other entities that the General Plan seeks to harmonize with is disturbingly easy, which means that the Specific Plan could probably be found to be invalid as soon as it is adopted if it remains anything like what has been proposed. Even with the proposed amendments to the General Plan, which may well serve to invalidate the General Plan itself, there are a bundle of ways in which the Specific Plan is in opposition to the General Plan. If only the city would add a clear statement of the Specific Plan's relationship to the General Plan, including a detailed comparison of the goals and policies of both, that would be easy for all to see.

[Zeno Swijtink]

A letter from Nansi Weil, a member of the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition, in this week's SW&T.

******
https://www.sonomawest.com/articles/...inions/op5.txt

LETTER: Potential merger?


EDITOR: In the spirit of cooperation I would like to offer reasons why development of the flood plain northeast of Sebastopol is a good idea; in the service of honesty, I cannot.

1. Sebastopol cannot be a small town yet expand substantially. It takes a long time driving through the edges of Santa Rosa to find your way into what was once a charming place. Some of the original town remains but is obscured. If developers are allowed to build in the wetlands northeast of Sebastopol, how long will it be before Santa Rosa and Sebastopol merge? Ardent development is contrary to the small town ethos. It is impossible to have both.

2. Can wetlands be protected by further denigrating them? The laguna is a treasure that adjacent construction will further compromise. Again: when the building begins, why would it stop with the completion of the first project? Consider Fountaingrove: a sea of construction that continues tumbling into swales, up the hillsides, down again into valleys -- and shows no sign of stopping. Any development near the laguna is a threat, not to mention an aesthetic crisis.

3. The water table sinks every year. Those paying for water can expect less of it at a higher price, and those relying on wells can expect to drill deeper and deeper, requiring lots of money and lots of luck. Climate damage is already diminishing our water supply. Does it make sense to add another burden to strained resources?

4. Why wouldn't Sebastopol's traffic problem be much worse with the addition of another small town's worth of cars? Improving "traffic flow" sounds like a bromide: more cars are more cars.

5. Frankly, the above concerns are eventualities that require no thought or attention if we think seriously only about issue number 1. Is Sebastopol a small town or not? To retain its charm, Sebastopol doesn't need mere growth limits, but a halt on further development. What's missing here? We have grocery stores, hardware stores, shoe repair shops, services of all kinds. If the remaining argument is that not everyone can afford to live in Sebastopol, I would agree it's an unfortunate reality, but does it necessarily require a remedy? I can't afford a house on the Big Sur coast but should anyone there feel obligated to do anything about it? I don't think so.

- Nansi I. Weil, Sebastopol

[Zeno Swijtink]

A letter by Kenyon Webster, Planning Director, City of Sebastopol, in this week's SW&T. Guy Wilson's column posted below.

While I agree that there have been a series of meetings with citizens while developing the Northeast Plan, the City Council has given remarkable little response to the Plan and hurried towards an EIR of a Plan that the Council has barely start discussing.

We have no detailed information what each Council member thinks of these consultant developed proposals.

In fact, since in the last election incumbents ran unopposed and there were no debates or elections, we have had no presentations by Council members of the Big Picture, at least I could find no record of anything in that direction.

Zeno

PS There are no minutes online of the session on Discussion of Goals and Setting of Priorities at the SPECIAL MEETING SEBASTOPOL CITY COUNCIL February 5, 2007 9:00 a.m.


*****
https://www.sonomawest.com/articles/...inions/op4.txt

LETTER: Not under radar


EDITOR: I read with interest Guy Wilson's column about the Northeast Plan. I agree with his suggestion that people should be more involved with development of the plan for the Northeast area of our city. But I do take exception to his comment that the development of the Plan has been ‘under the radar.'

Hundreds of interested Sebastopol area residents have taken the time to participate in the planning process and shaped the resulting draft Plan. I would hope that their work is not discounted simply because other persons were not aware of the Plan, or chose not to become informed or involved in earlier stages of the process, or because some persons have a different viewpoint from the policy direction set by the majority of participants in the community planning process.

There have been many opportunities to be informed. Extensive outreach has been performed. There have been articles in local newspapers; in the City newsletter that goes to every water customer in town; in the Chamber of Commerce newsletter; notices and flyers were sent to property owners and businesses in the Northeast area and other interested persons; notices were posted on telephone poles in the area; there were postings on the City web site; postings on the community-based Wacco web site; and an event sign posted on Sebastopol Avenue. Plan studies and documents have been placed on the City web site, are available for purchase, and were placed at the local library.

The City Council structured the process to include extensive public participation. Including the Alternatives Report process, there have been over 17 public meetings during the last four years concerning the Northeast Plan in a variety of formats structured to solicit public participation. The Northeast Plan process has taken longer than the formulation of the General Plan. At some of these workshops, the City even provided lunch and helped coordinate daycare. Certainly anyone interested in community affairs has had the opportunity to be informed, become involved and voice their opinion. There are important land use policy issues to be decided, and community discussion about the draft Plan's policies will continue in the upcoming public hearing process.

- Kenyon Webster, Planning Director, City of Sebastopol

***
https://www.sonomawest.com/articles/...inions/op3.txt

Published 11 21 07 in Sonoma West
OPEN SPACE: Northeast Plan needs public scrutiny
by Guy Wilson

The natives are getting restless over the Northeast Plan. Last Wednesday some 60 locals crowded into the Palm Drive Hospital conference room to hear an informational presentation put on by the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition, which, as its name suggests, has concerns over what will happen to the town if the Northeast Plan as currently drafted actually gets built.__

Northeast Plan has been years in the making, but few at last week's meeting knew much about the plan or how it had evolved to this point with so little community awareness of its substantial scope and potential impacts. Hardly anyone knew that Sebastopol had conducted public workshops, issued a draft environmental impact report, and posted numerous notices and documents on the town's web site._ _While a lot of under-the-public-radar planning has already taken place and a lot of reports and proposals have already been published on-line and on paper, nothing is written in stone. Not yet, at least. Now that the Northeast Plan has reached the public consciousness, scrutiny and controversy are sure to follow, as well they should.

The plan is nothing if not ambitious with its vision of constructing over 300 new housing units along with extensive commercial and city government space; raising height limits to allow for four story buildings in most of the area; reconfiguring street designs and redirecting traffic flow; and adding enough parking at or below street level to accommodate the vehicles that the new development will bring.

Most area residents would agree that the biggest challenges facing Sebastopol are finding ways to decrease traffic, increase affordable housing, preserve our small town character, secure public safety, protect the Laguna, manage water resources, and maintain a stable infrastructure._

_Does the Northeast Plan help meet these challenges - or deepen them?

On traffic, it is hard to see how adding some 8,000 plus daily car trips will relieve downtown congestion, even with a new scheme to create better flow.

_On affordable housing, most of the new units would be sold at market-rate - priced out of the reach of everyday workers, teachers, civil servants, younger families, and entry-level buyers.__

On small town character, it is counter-intuitive to find that an influx of over 1,000 new permanent residents and hundreds more new daily business visitors will do anything other than make us bigger.

_On public safety, there will be that much more public to keep safe, and the worst case scenarios are daunting - the area lies in a flood zone and may be prone to liquefaction in an earthquake.

_On protecting the Laguna, it is difficult to see how the plan will relieve any existing pressure on the wetlands, let alone do anything to restore them, with such massive new construction going up nearby._

_On water resources, it is unclear that our underground water supply can handle the increased demands that the new development would bring. This is a complex question, but according to the Sebastopol Water Information Group (SWIG), which is an alliance of local residents and well-owners headed by a professional geologist, the draft environmental impact report is based on inadequate water supply data and its conclusions are flawed.

On infrastructure, the plan would, of course, require increases in all town services in proportion to the increased population and intensified use of streets, sewers, and public agencies._

_None of the foregoing, viewed separately, necessarily represents an insoluble problem. But the cumulative potential impact of the Northeast Plan seems immensely problematic. The key word there is "potential." We should not prejudge - or approve - the Northeast Plan before we know what we are getting into. It is time for everyone to take a much closer look at the Northeast Plan, become informed, get involved, and play a role in determining the future of Sebastopol.__- Guy Wilson is a Sonoma West Times & News columnist

--


NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Helen Shane]

Sebastopol Preservation Coalition

Update

For many, the meeting last Wednesday, December 5, at Palm Drive Hospital was the first time they¹d heard in detail some consequences the Northeast Plan might bring to the community, well beyond the Northeast Quadrant.

The number of people who’ve attended SPC meetings confirms the deep concern in this community about the proposed Northeast Plan.

People were very animated. Good, incisive points were made, many question asked, discussed and answered. We will keep all of you up-to-date about the common ground we share and our plans to keep democracy alive in this process.

During the two hour meeting, the group arrived at strong consensus on the following:

1. We request an authentic, well documented Water Supply Assessment. Considering the SWiG critique and the constant reports of inevitable, imminent water shortages in all of California, we request that the NE Area Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report be put on hold until a satisfactory, complete WSA can be created

2. We support a revitalized NE Area - but within the constraints of the current General Plan, particularly in the following areas:

a)Traffic Levels of Service b) Growth Management Ordinance
c) building height limitations d) maintenance of the character of Sebastopol and small town community values as described in the General Plan e) 25% inclusion of affordable housing in new developments.

3. We support an enhanced light industrial complex within the NE Area.

4. We urge restoration of the east side of the NE Area (including the west side of Morris St.) to wetlands, a flood zone and a community garden, to enhance the historic biological functions of that area and enhance the health of the Laguna.

5.We request an economic impact analysis of the NE Area now that addresses the following: its economic viability as a development project; its financial contribution to the community; its impact on other historic Main St. businesses; and whether it would actually be of benefit or a cost to the city in terms of its affect on city revenues/expenses. The information in the plan to date addresses the costs of development itself and not the impact on the community.

Action Items:

Attend the next scheduled City Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 15.

As many of you have noticed, it is apparent that the recent spate of letters to the editor apparently moved Sebastopol’s Planning Director to write his own letter to the editor to defend the city’s efforts to spread the word about the Northeast Plan among the community.

Letters to the Editor and to the City Council indicate to Councilmembers that all is not right with the Northeast Plan, and the rush to approve it is premature, not founded on sound information, both to the City Council and from the City Council and staff to the community.

Write [email protected] to put your email address on announcements re the NE Plan or for a petition with which to inform friends and neighbors

Call Magick for general info about the Northeast Plan at 824-1394.

To receive City Council meeting notices, agendas and minutes, email City Clerk [email protected] and request that your email address be added to the list of recipients of these notices. Everyone is entitled to do so.

The Northeast Plan area is very big.
Let¹s make the best of it, not the most of it.

[Helen Shane]

Sonoma West 12 13 07

LETTER to the Editor:

NE Plan under ‘scope

EDITOR: No one is disputing Planning Director Kenyon Webster's claim that there have been numerous public hearings on the NE Plan. But the point of Guy Wilson's recent article was that the public remains largely unaware of important details, like the magnitude and impacts of this project - by far the largest development ever proposed for Sebastopol - and that it is time for close scrutiny.

And why is the public so unaware, in spite of multiple City newsletters, website postings and announcements of workshops? Perhaps because descriptions have been masked in glowing terms, by both the City and the local press, as “a wonderful opportunity for revitalization of the Northeast Quadrant” with “green building technology.”

Positive, yes, but hardly a balanced picture. Nor was critical scrutiny welcome at those workshops. Both the consultant and ardent supporters actively squelched questions or concerns about possible traffic increases, depletion of groundwater resources, or the doubtful wisdom of further building in a flood zone next to an impaired waterway. Discussion of zoning changes and General Plan exemptions for this 54 acre area was totally absent.

So now the Environmental Impact Study has been published and we have some facts and figures about traffic increases (8,113 new trips daily), building heights (4-story in many areas), housing (300-320 units starting at over $500,000) retail/commercial (391,000 sf) including a hotel, parking (84,000 sf), and demolition of existing light industrial buildings (230,000 sf). Isn't it high time for people to not only be allowed, but encouraged, to ask the difficult questions - like what are the potential impacts? And is this what we want for Sebastopol?

- Holly Downing, Sebastopol

If you, reader, have concerns about the Northeast Area Plan, let's hear from you, too. Helen Shane

[Helen Shane]

Sebastopol Preservation Coalition

Greetings:
If you’ve been pondering what you can do regarding your concerns about the Northeast Plan development, here’s an easy one.

Visit with your neighbors on both sides of the street in a one or two block area. Let them know of your concerns about the increased traffic, the water supply, building in the wetlands, four story buildings.

For a map of the area, email or other documents email [email protected]

For more information,
call Holly at 823-6286; Magick at 824-1394 or Clare at 823-1405.


Sebastopol Preservation Coalition
meets Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at Palm Drive Hospital
beginning at 7:00 p.m.




Come. Help prepare for the

Sebastopol City Council Meeting on January 15, 2008

The Northeast Plan Area is very big.
Let’s make the best of it, not the most of it.

[Kenyon Webster]

The Sebastopol City Council will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Sebastopol Community Center on the proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan, EIR and related General Plan and Municipal Code amendments. Interested persons are welcome to attend and speak, or to submit written comments.

-Kenyon Webster, Sebastopol Planning Director

[Kenyon Webster]

Here is a link to the City of Sebastopol staff report to the City Council for the May 20, 2008 hearing on the Northeast Area Specific Plan (7:30 p.m. at the Community Center): https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/pdfs...rt05-20-08.pdf

The staff report, along with other related documents, can be found on the Planning Department page of the City of Sebastopol web site.

-Kenyon Webster, Sebastopol Planning Director