Downtown density is the key

[Zeno Swijtink]

This article articulates well my opinions about the need to take energy and GHG emission reduction seriously in adapting the city's General Plan to a new reality.

I can also add that increasing in-town density is the other side of the coin of preserving open space and greenbelts between our towns. One cannot exist without the other.

Sustainability applies to the whole system, a city is not an island. We need to think regionally, we need to think with a bigger picture in mind.

Zeno

*****
Downtown density is the key

By PAUL FRITZ

Published: Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 5:25 a.m.

A well-planned city is the foundation of a sustainable society. Development patterns have huge implications for energy and resource use for years to come. The model of city planning that has evolved over the past 100 years is directly responsible for much of our inefficient energy use.

We have the opportunity to reverse this trend of energy hungry cities right here at home. The Sebastopol Northeast Area Specific Plan is an example of small town sustainable urban planning.

The area is currently zoned for mixed-use development, but rather than allow development to proceed randomly, parcel by parcel, city leaders have had the vision to authorize a planning process to determine how to develop the Northeast area in a comprehensive and sustainable manner.

The Northeast Area Specific Plan has been through an extensive public planning process, taking many disparate opinions into account. It is a plan that has the ability to transform an underutilized and largely abandoned area of the city into a vibrant, sustainable extension of our downtown.

The plan encourages mixed-use medium-density development, enhanced circulation, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and an expansion of the city's downtown retail core. A key component of the plan is to increase the number of people living downtown. More residents downtown will increase the number of people frequenting downtown businesses and would allow them to do so without depending on cars to get them there.

This is what a sustainable future looks like. This is what our long-ago less energy-intensive past looked like.

Global climate change is one of the most important issues of our time. The pattern of one- and two-story low-density suburban development, as seen across Sebastopol and most of the country, cannot continue if we are to make real progress in reducing our collective energy consumption.

There has been a great deal of discussion in regard to the allowed heights as proposed in the "smart code" that will guide development in the area. The base allowable height is two and three stories, which may be increased to three and four stories through the warrant process. Yes, four-story buildings will be taller than most buildings in Sebastopol, but if we are serious about developing the northeast area in a sustainable manner, three- and four-story buildings should be the minimum allowed.

As fearful as some people are about increasing density, it is absolutely imperative in a more sustainable world.

Higher-density development is far more efficient because it allows more people to walk more places. Successful public transportation is also dependent on higher-density development.

There is a concern that if the northeast area is developed at the proposed density and building heights Sebastopol will lose its small-town feel. There are numerous examples of small towns with three- and four-story buildings in their downtown. Most of them were developed prior to widespread car ownership, which corresponded to a decrease in density across most of the county. Healdsburg is a local example of a small town with three-story buildings downtown. Not that I think Sebastopol should be trying to mimic Healdsburg, but three- and four-story buildings can coexist quite successfully in small towns.

It is imperative that development in the northeast area occur in a sustainable manner. Continuing the pattern of one- and two-story development is not what sustainable development looks like. I am very excited about the possibilities this plan would allow for our city. I strongly encourage adoption of the Northeast Area Plan and general plan updates by the City Council.

Paul Fritz is a Sebastopol resident and an architect with Kellogg and Associates in Santa Rosa.

[Helen Shane]

This article articulates well my opinions about the need to take
energy and GHG emission reduction seriously in adapting the
Sebastopol's General Plan to a new reality.

Helen Shane responds: Yes, I saw that. The new reality is that GHG’s will not be reduced by increasing traffic in Sebastopol by 8100 cars a day.


In addition, increasing in-town density is the other side of the coin
of preserving open space and greenbelts between our towns. One cannot
exist without the other.

Helen Shane - One can increase density by “building over” on city owned parking lots, perhaps buying from the county the dilapidated Veteran’s Building (we already own the land) with its accoustically challenged main auditorium; give veterans super seniority and maybe a free ride booking their events there (what events?) put in offices and small service shops on the ground floor, affordable housing on the second story.


Sustainability applies to the whole system, a city is not an island.
We need to think regionally, we need to think with a bigger picture
in mind.

Helen Shane: What these urbanizers/greenbelt/affordable housing advocates fail to take into consideration that there are other, more acceptable ways to accomplish their goals without destroying our small town.

The proponents' “sustainability" does not take into consideration “carrying capacity”, which is also a fine ethic that the opponents are all for.

Sad to say, too, that the description of the Paul Fritz should have included the information that his boss, Kevin Kellogg, is chair of the Sebastopol Planning Commission, which has already given the green light to the EIR and NEAP. Privately, oh so privately, I wonder if Fritz wrote the article himself.

[Zeno Swijtink]

This article articulates well my opinions about the need to take energy and GHG emission reduction seriously in adapting the
Sebastopol's General Plan to a new reality.

Helen Shane responds: Yes, I saw that. The new reality is that GHG’s will not be reduced by increasing traffic in Sebastopol by 8100 cars a day.

For whatever this EIR traffic analysis is worth, these are not new car trips.

These are projected car trips that would happen anyhow in town, but under your alternative they would come through town on their way to further build-out rural areas and the greenbelts.

The present EIR methodology is ill-equipped to study effects on a regional scale. Under your thinking, for instance, you are going to object to railway stations along the SMART railroad - something you support - because of traffic impacts around these stations.

It's not regional thinking, it's preservationist thinking that tries to hold on to conditions of the past.

[Sybil de Ville]

We have been assured by the SPC that we can rely on Helen's authority in these matters because of her (long) past tenure on the Planning Commission, but she advises we suspect Paul Fritz because he works for someone who is on it now?

[Privately, oh so privately, I wonder if Fritz wrote the article himself.]

[Paul Fritz]

Sad to say, too, that the description of the Paul Fritz should have included the information that his boss, Kevin Kellogg, is chair of the Sebastopol Planning Commission, which has already given the green light to the EIR and NEAP. Privately, oh so privately, I wonder if Fritz wrote the article himself.

I must admit I find it quite distasteful that anyone would question the sincerity of my article because of who I may or may not be associated with. I can assure Helen, and the person who left the angry voicemail for me, that I wrote that letter from my own heart and soul. I didn't even show it to my wife prior to sending it to the paper. I am my own free-thinking person and I ask that even though you may disagree with my view, that you respect my right to express my own opinion in a public forum without being put down or accused of speaking on someone else's behalf.

[Helen Shane]

I am sorry that my reference to Paul Fritz's employer and Kellogg's position as chair of the Design Review Board was not clearly stated.

My point is that Kevin Kellogg, chair of the DRB, was one of six (only Commissioner Yvette Williams van Agellen voted nay) who have already voted to recommend approval and acceptance of the NEAP and its EIR to the City Council.

But thank you for recognizing my tenure of eight years of service on the PC.

Helen Shane

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am sorry that my reference to Paul Fritz's employer and Kellogg's position as chair of the Design Review Board was not clearly stated.

My point is that Kevin Kellogg, chair of the DRB, was one of six (only Commissioner Yvette Williams van Agellen voted nay) who have already voted to recommend approval and acceptance of the NEAP and its EIR to the City Council.

But thank you for recognizing my tenure of eight years of service on the PC.

Helen Shane

You are missing the point, Helen.

[Helen Shane]

You are missing the point, Helen.

Then Zeno, perhaps you can tell me the point that I missed? Thanks, Helen

[Helen Shane]

Paul - you've almost made my point for me...if what I believe "full disclosure" had been made...that is, that Kevin Kellogg, chair of the Planning Commission, which has already approved the NEAP and EIR, I would have had no fodder, in that respect, for my comment. I hold that full attribution allows the reader sufficient information to evaluate the writings. To put it in simple terms, the reader gets a clearer idea of where the writer is coming from, or, to dress it up, how the writer may

I must admit I find it quite distasteful that anyone would question the sincerity of my article because of who I may or may not be associated with. I can assure Helen, and the person who left the angry voicemail for me, that I wrote that letter from my own heart and soul. I didn't even show it to my wife prior to sending it to the paper. I am my own free-thinking person and I ask that even though you may disagree with my view, that you respect my right to express my own opinion in a public forum without being put down or accused of speaking on someone else's behalf.

[Helen Shane]

Paul - you've almost made my point for me...if what I believe "full disclosure" had been made...that is, that you are on staff of Kevin Kellogg, chair of the Planning Commission, and the PC has already approved the NEAP and EIR, I would have had no fodder, in that respect, for my comment. I hold that full attribution allows the reader sufficient information to evaluate the writings. To put it in simple terms, the reader gets a clearer idea of where the writer is coming from, or, to dress it up, how or by whom the writer may have been influenced. Thanks.

I must admit I find it quite distasteful that anyone would question the sincerity of my article because of who I may or may not be associated with. I can assure Helen, and the person who left the angry voicemail for me, that I wrote that letter from my own heart and soul. I didn't even show it to my wife prior to sending it to the paper. I am my own free-thinking person and I ask that even though you may disagree with my view, that you respect my right to express my own opinion in a public forum without being put down or accused of speaking on someone else's behalf.

[RichT]

Helen is missing several points.

Population growth - The population continues to grow. The additional numbers will have to live somewhere. We need to plan on where and how they will live, as this additional burden on limited resources affects us all. (Unless our government adopts an austerity program like China, our population will keep growing).

Traffic - As the population increases, so does the number of vehicles. The vast majority of traffic through Sebastopol goes THROUGH it to others destinations along our major thoroughfares.

Urban sprawl vs urban core density - If housing for additional population growth is not allocated within an urban core, it will be forced to the suburbs. Due to the distance from vital resources (work, food, shops), they will have no choice but to drive to those places. For our area, that means travel by car to Sebastopol, or beyond. More traffic. And we don't have a say in where or how that growth occurs. By increasing density in an urban core with existing services, the chances of residents walking to those services is greatly increased, reducing the growth in traffic. Downtown Sebastopol already has grocery stores, restaurants, entertainment (cinema, community center, parks) and shops. If people live within a few blocks of services, they will be far more inclined to walk instead of drive. (THIS IS THE POINT OF DENSIFICATION).

Private property - The parcels within the NEAP are privately owned and are already developed. The owners have the right to re-develope as they see fit, within General Plan and Zoning law guidelines. Some of the ideas expressed at City Council sound grand, but they would require application of Eminent Domain to fulfill. (Forcing a private property owner to daylight a long buried creek over their property amounts to a 'taking' that must be compensated; who will pay for that). Anything that does not offer a financial benefit to the property owner does not give them incentive to participate.

Connectivity - The current industrialization within the Northeast does not have properly constructed streets for traffic to pass through it, either East-West or North-South. And it most certainly is not inviting for pedestrians to travel through. Try walking down McKinley from the Plaza, through the Barlow site to the Laguna. I don't find it to be an enjoyable experience. One speaker at the hearings was a business owner who struggled for 2 years to survive at Gravenstein Station, but lack of pedestrians almost forced her to give up. She had to relocate to Main Street to stay in business. Take a look at the Santa Rosa Plaza and the problems that project has caused by dividing Railroad Square from Courthouse Square.

Our plan vs Their plan - What the NEAP does is amend the General Plan to give guidance as to how the NE area is eventually redeveloped. With street locations and designs specified, we control the circulation pattern of the future. By changing designated uses and setback criteria, we gain more control over what will eventually be built.

Parking - I was floored when Helen suggested using City parking lots for housing. I live on the outskirts of town. I do enjoy walking to the downtown area, but it is well over a mile. My wife has knee problems and cannot walk that far. Parking is already at a premium. Downtown business relies on more than a customer base that can walk to the downtown area. Eliminate valuable parking resources and eliminate a large portion of the customer base. If I cannot park near Sebastopol's downtown stores, I will go elsewhere.

Planning means looking at the big picture as well as thinking through the fine details.

Rich

[Kenyon Webster]

A link to staff report to City Council for their ongoing deliberations on the proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan:
https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/pdfs...portNEPlan.pdf

-Kenyon Webster, Sebastopol Planning Director

[RichT]

Councilmember Gurney

3. How will our response time [LOS] for the Fire Dept. be affected by the traffic and congestion in the NE Area? The EIR was prepared in consultation with the Sebastopol Fire Department, and found that the Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on fire services. It should be noted that traffic congestion will increase with or without the Plan, and this will affect response times.
Level of Service has become an irrelevant term during commute hours. It is not due to locally generated traffic. Suburban sprawl is the main culprit and Sebastopol's main arterial routes are only a thoroughfare for workers returning home. Blocking housing developments within the City of Sebastopol forces increased population to seek housing elsewhere. This means continued suburban sprawl which has more of an impact of traffic than if the same population were cited within the Northeast area. Within the Northeast Area, services are located within walking distance, creating the possibility of residents walking instead of driving. The same population housed outside of city limits would have no alternative than to drive for those same services (groceries, shopping, restaurants, entertainment, etc.)

4. Comment on the visual displays provided by the public, especially the mock-up of the intersection of Sebastopol Avenue at Morris Street. The displays are not reflective of the Plan’s intent and standards. Unarticulated glass boxes would not be consistent with the intent of the Plan and would not be acceptable under Sebastopol’s design guidelines, particularly at the most prominent intersection in the Plan area. However, the Plan would increase allowable heights in the area, and this is an important policy issue for the City Council to consider. In addition, staff has identified several additional policy alternatives to strengthen the Plan’s intent and requirements as regards setbacks, stepbacks, articulation, and allowable heights.
The gentleman who produced the "exhibit" for Sebastopol Road stated that he was not an engineer, planner or draftsman. It was also evident that he had not studied or understood the exhibits within the smartcode section of the Revised Draft Northeast Area Specific Plan. The northwest corner of Sebastopol Road and Morris Street would only be allowed a 2 story building or a 3rd story, stepped back from the lower 2, by warrant only. The existing structures housing Bradley Video and Gravenstein Station are assumed to remain as is. Also, the alternate thoroughfare assembly BV-135-97 calls for a wider right-of-way width than already exists in order to allow for one-way side-slip parking streets in front of new developments as a means of creating on-street parking where none currently exists.

12. What can be done to reduce the number of cars circling through the NE Area? Could it become car-free, with noted exceptions for disabled etc.? The Plan addresses this concern in several ways. A key concept is pedestrian-oriented, mixed use design that facilitates alternatives to the automobile. In addition, this issue is addressed through the provision of new streets in the area that will expand circulation options, and by recommending that the feasibility of partial conversion of one-way streets be explored. However the Plan cannot change Sebastopol’s fundamental context, at the crossroads of two State highways, with no prospects for bypasses, ring roads, major new transit options, or other projects that might relieve current congestion. Given the reality of how nearly all Sebastopol and West County residents, visitors and workers travel (almost entirely via private vehicles), a pedestrian-only area would likely not be viable. This may change in the future, but at this time a pedestrian-only Northeast Area is not recommended.
Concentrating population near core services will help reduce demand for travel by car. People will be more likely to walk or bike to jobs and shopping if located close to those resources. The ideals promoted (by automakers and oil companies, among others) in the past few decades of independence and freedom of movement and travel have led us to where we are today. We live on large lots spread over large areas, yet we are still reliant upon our personal vehicles to go out and seek the resources necessary to sustain us. This has created an infrastructure ill-suited to deal with a post-oil society where mass-transit is the primary means of transportation instead of the personal vehicle (case in point - the removal of existing railroads and conversion to recreational hiking trails).
Concentrating population in an area would be more conducive to creating new transit routes. It is more efficient to have a transit stop where there is a higher demand for the service and more riders to serve. WesternSonomaCounty, West of Sebastopol is a prime example of an area where it is not economically sensible to place any transit routes due to the sprawl of large residential lots far removed from major arterial corridors.

Councilmember Thille:

2. Language limiting big stores over 35,000 SF. This limit is in the Plan.

3. Fill: where does the fill come from and how is it monitored? Would like to see the City partner with the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation or other organizations on restoration projects that may generate fill. Net fill is presently allowed in the Northeast Area and has occurred with a number of projects in Sebastopol. There are presently no requirements that placed fill be offset with removal of material in other areas, and no requirements as to source of fill. Under present regulations developers obtain fill for their projects from available sources, depending on suitability of material, timing and cost, and proximity to the location of the project. Fill is usually obtained from other development or construction projects, either in Sebastopol or elsewhere, where there is excess excavation. Under current recommendations for the Specific Plan, a no-net-fill policy would apply, and developers would be required to provide information regarding the source of fill. The proposed no-net- fill policy does not mean that fill must be obtained by dredging the Laguna channel. The intent of this policy is that whenever fill is placed anywhere within the flood plain on lands subject to this policy, that an equivalent amount is removed somewhere else in the 100-year flood plain. There are several scenarios that might apply, such as
Removal of previously placed fill in the floodplain as part of a restoration project.
Creation of new constructed wetlands or other features that require excavation.
Removal of soil elsewhere within the same project where the fill is being placed. Development under the Specific Plan may require excavation in some areas, and fill in others. It is conceivable that these amounts could balance one another, thus achieving ‘no net fill’ within the confines of the project itself.
I personally would like to see some of the fill material placed by the City of Sebastopol in the past removed from City owned lands within the Laguna area.
Not all soils are suitable for use as engineered fill. Before determining acceptable sources for fill to be imported for use in the Northeast Area, it would be important for an applicant to determine whether this was a practicable or financially viable requirement. For example, it is not known whether any dredging or removal of material from the Laguna de Santa Rosa floodplain would be permitted at particular locations by the jurisdictional agencies or landowners, nor is it known what quantities might be obtained in this way. Additionally, soil from some areas might not meet the requirements for use as engineered fill. It is also possible that floodplain fill might be removed to create the required holding capacity, but this material might be placed elsewhere, and more suitable fill placed at a project site. An applicant would need to determine their best course of action for a given project.
Construction projects require extensive studies and a geotechnical report would specify types of soil required and methods of placement and compaction to stabilize any future project site grading work. Sediment dredged from the Laguna likely would not meet the requirements for engineered fill.
Any of the scenarios involving excavation within the flood plain would be subject to extensive engineering, environmental study and permitting by the agencies with jurisdiction in these matters.
4. What are the future options for the cement plant property? The Council may set land use policy regarding this site via the Specific Plan. The Plan maintains current zoning. One concept discussed in the public process was possible future acquisition from a willing seller, and restoration of the property.
I feel this is a prime property to explore the possibility of restoration. We do have to remember that this is private property that we are talking about and that an owner of private property must receive market compensation for their property before any such project can occur. Given our current state of the economy, the City does not have extra capital to expend upon such an enterprise.

Councilmember Robinson:

1. Is daylighting Zimpher Creek realistic? Request recommendations from staff on a parallel water infiltration system as suggested by staff, and how to incorporate this into the Plan. There would be significant design issues with daylighting Zimpher Creek in the Plan area. The existing storm drain is eight to twelve feet below existing grade. When combined with the requirement that finished first floors be at 76’ elevation, this could result in a grade differential of approximately 12 to 18 feet which may be aesthetically undesirable. In addition, an open stream channel would require adequate width and sloped sides; combined with the improved surface elevation, this could result in a needed width of 55’ to 80’. While this could be engineered, this would have a substantial impact on the proposed Plan layout, requiring redesign of street and block locations. An alternative would be a swale/infiltration/detention feature in one or more areas. The July 1 staff report included potential policy language for such a feature on lower-elevation areas of Laguna Park Way or Morris Street. There are many ways to achieve water quality objectives that are in common use. Actual design would be premature for inclusion in the plan. Policies ENV8 through ENV12, beginning on page 4-9 provide direction to developers, and to City staff, at the plan level. Any future development project proposals will be subject to specific conditioning and all the usual City process reviews and approvals before anything is constructed.
Zimpher Creek is diverted into storm drains at the intersection of Florence and Mary. From there, it works its way down (in a storm drain) Keating, North Main and McKinley. It flows UNDER the Barlow building. This creek has been diverted for many years. I think trying to mandate that it be daylighted as a part of redevelopment on the Barlow site amounts to Imminent Domain and would require compensation to the private land owner for a "taking" of private property. This, coupled with the difficulty and expense of daylighting the creek make it financially infeasible.

5. Recommendations for storm water run off standards – what is appropriate, appropriate stormwater quality standard, percentage? To specify a particular technology or product is not appropriate at the Plan level. It would be appropriate to specify a goal for stormwater quality to guide future developers. The following language could be considered, which establishes a quantitative standard for stormwater quality, and for which there is currently technology available:
Stormwater inlets shall be engineered to provide filtration that captures 80% of floating oils and 80% of suspended solids with the average size of solids being 125 microns. This filtration shall be provided before water discharges from the public storm drain system.
Storm water detention and filtration methods have improved dramatically over the past few years and are common elements in many current design documents for construction plans. This will be an important element given the proximity to the Laguna.

7. Recommended looking at a transit fee for the new development and look at subsidizing transit in that area. Review programs in other cities. A transit fee or subsidy programs should be considered at a City-wide level and is beyond the scope of work for the Specific Plan. Development of such a fee would require special study by a qualified consultant and could be undertaken at Council direction and funding allocation. See Litwin response 2 below.

Councilmember Kelley:

3. Requested an analysis of what can currently be developed in this area within the constraints of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and what would the plan allow. Chapter 5 of the EIR analyzes a range of alternatives to the proposed Plan, including a ‘no project’ alternative. This analysis found that [510 dwellings and 1,220,000 sq. ft. of non-residential square footage could be allowed under current zoning] for the area. [This is in contrast to the proposed Plan, which limits residential to 300 units, and non-residential to 391,000 sq. ft.] Thus the proposed Plan reduces development potential for the area. Current zoning also allows 3 story development as-of-right in the downtown-zoned portions of the area, and 3-story development by Use Permit in the industrially-zoned portions of the area. The Plan would increase maximum allowable number stories in most of the area to four stories, but only if the project provided substantive benefits. The Plan also counts height from the 76’ elevation, and thus in the lower elevations of the area, increases height by the differential between existing grade and improved grade. [The current General Plan does not provide a plan for improving circulation in this relatively land-locked area; the proposed Plan provides such a Plan.] Try driving or walking through the area. Is it pedestrian friendly? Do the streets provide for good circulation and connection to other streets in Sebastopol? The current General Plan does not include a plan for improving Sebastopol Avenue, which now has a poor appearance; the proposed Plan has a plan for improvement. There are no streetscape standards for the area under the current General Plan; the proposed Plan has detailed requirements for street trees, benches, street lights, bike racks and waste receptacles. The proposed Plan also mandates a higher level of environmental regulations as compared to current regulations, included more demanding stormwater and green building requirements. Current regulations also allow ‘net-fill’ in the entire area. It should be noted that existing General Plan traffic Level of Service standards would act as a brake on development that might otherwise be allowed under current zoning, and while the specific trigger point has not been identified, this could preclude development of large parcels such as the former lumber yard, empty areas of the former Barlow property, or the former Ford property, leaving them vacant or underdeveloped, which would be undesirable from an economic vitality perspective. [Most cities consider empty, deteriorating structures as blight and harmful.] I don't find these structures to be very appealing. Is this part of the "charm" of Sebastopol people keep mentioning? To allow for redevelopment and improvement of the area, the Plan proposes to eliminate the LOS standards for the Northeast and downtown areas.
The attempt to hold onto LOS is ridiculous. Most of the traffic in town is from vehicles passing THROUGH town. I think it makes more sense to attempt to mitigate the impacts of future population growth by an increased residential density in an area with services readily available, reducing the need for vehicle trips. Ignoring or denying population growth will not make it go away.

Mayor Litwin:

2. Questioned if language could be incorporated to mandate public transportation in the Plan? The specific nature of this concept is unclear.[ Transit issues including any possible transit impact fee would be best addressed at a City-wide level]. AND on a regional level. It should be considered as a partner to SMART, feeding to major hubs on that transit route. While higher-density development in the area would facilitate additional transit service, provision of public transit is an expensive and complex public service and the scale and phasing of Northeast development (15-20 years or longer) would likely not be adequate to fund major new transit service to or within Sebastopol.

[Helen Shane]

I'm somewhat busy working on Guy Wilson's City Council candidate campaign, and I had decided I would let others comment on Wacco. But the fire responses time so intrigued me that I had to go back to the Draft EIR to recollect what is, to me, a very strange and strained conclusion that the impact to fire response time caused by the NEAP is less than significant.

What follows are several snippets that one can obtain by going to the DRAFT EIR on the city's website and then using the "find" tool, with "response time" as the key. I call your attention particularly to the point that is made in the Draft EIR, and that is, after all is said and done, the final paragraph herewith states:

In addition, as previously explained, the City’s growth management program would ensure that level of service standards are maintained by requiring annual level of service monitoring and reporting and, if
necessary, suspension of issuance of further dwelling unit allocations until the level of service standards can be met. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed Plan on are less than significant.

The only problem, friends, is that the NEAP requires doing away with the Growth Management Ordinance for the NEAP.

So, are we to conclude that, given no GMO for the NEAP, any suspension of building permits, in the event of a poor LOS report, would occur in areas of the city other than the NEAP?

Who is in charge, here?

Please, someone, reconcile this. Helen Shane

"In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives forfire services, the proposed Plan would result in a need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

The existing fire station site could accommodate expansion of the garage to add a fourth bay. Were the Department to change to full-time firefighters, the existing site could accommodate further expansion.
The environmental impacts associated with expansion of the station at its existing location would be evaluated at the time the project was funded for design.
The fire station at 7425 Bodega Avenue is one-half mile from the Plan Area, which is close enough to provide adequate response times without the need for a new station location. Additionally, existing fire flows in the Northeast Area are adequate to accommodate the new development projected under the proposed Specific Plan.3
In addition, as previously explained, the City’s growth management program would ensure that level of service standards are maintained by requiring annual level of service monitoring and reporting and, if
necessary, suspension of issuance of further dwelling unit allocations until the level of service standards can be met. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed Plan on are less than significant.

[RichT]

LOS is already failing at some intersections in Sebastopol.

Traffic congestion continues to worsen due to travel through town to outside destinations (commuters using the travel routes passing through town).

The City of Sebastopol has no control over this source of traffic and no alternative routes to bypass town are planned.

Is using LOS to deny development or redevelopment according to General Plan and Zoning Code legally enforceable?

If not, what costs might be encountered by the City (and the taxpayers within the City) attempting to defend a project denial in court on the basis of failing LOS levels?