Sebastopol's NE Area Plan

[Larry Robinson]

I want to acknowledge and appreciate all the comments the City Council has heard and read regarding the proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan and on the accompanying Environmental Impact Report. I also want to acknowledge how frustrating the hearing process has been for some of you. When you don’t hear a response to your comment it’s often hard to know that you have been heard. It’s perhaps a flaw in how legislative bodies such as city councils work, but in order to allow for all comments to be heard and to still be able to hold our own deliberations and eventually reach a decision, we have been compelled to reserve our responses and comments until now. I do want to assure everyone that your concerns and questions have indeed been heard and taken into account.

We have heard the contention that the process itself has been unfair; that the proposed plan has been driven by the consultants and by the property owners. We have heard that there was insufficient opportunity for public participation and that the plan doesn’t reflect all perspectives.

We have heard that the proposed plan is inconsistent with Sebastopol’s General Plan and that the General Plan should take precedence over a specific plan.

We have heard your concerns about our water supply and the need to be sure that Sebastopol has sufficient water for any additional development. We have heard from some of our rural neighbors about their concerns for the impact on their wells from urban water use.

We have heard your concerns about building in a flood plain. We have heard your concerns about construction on fill and about the impact on areas that may supply the fill.

We have heard your concerns about traffic impacts both in the plan area and in neighborhoods throughout Sebastopol. We have heard your concerns that the plan doesn’t include Class 2 bicycle lanes.

We have heard that the plan doesn’t include enough automobile parking and that it includes too much parking. We have heard your concerns about allowable building heights. We have heard your concerns about seismic stability and about the insurability of new construction in the plan area.

We have heard your concerns about both sprawl and increased density. We have heard your concerns about the lack of public transportation. We have heard your wish for more public spaces and other public amenities. We have heard your concerns about protecting the Laguna.

We have heard your concerns about chain stores and their impact on Main Street and on other local businesses. We have heard your concerns about the economic viability of new development in the plan area as well as the cost to the city of providing new infrastructure and additional services. We have heard your concerns about losing the quality of life that we all treasure. I want you to know that your concerns have been heard and will be addressed publicaly as we discuss the EIR and plan in detail.

Throughout this process and throughout my ten years on this Council, my overriding concern and intention has been to help Sebastopol and Sonoma County move closer to true sustainability. This goal has informed every decision I have made and every initiative I have proposed. I would never support any Council action that I believed would jeopardize our quality of life or that of those who will come after us.

As a community, as a culture and as a species we are in a time of* unprecedented change. I believe that the next twenty years will show whether we are going to continue on the path to social and ecosystem collapse or evolve to a new level of relationship with each other and with the Earth - one of partnership rather than attempted dominance. The choices we make today will either broaden or narrow our future opportunities to adapt to a world that promises to be increasingly challenging.*

It may be that the only things we can reliably predict about the future are greater instability, more people and fewer resources to go around. But anyone who is certain about the exact shape of the future either hasn’t lived long enough to know better or hasn’t been paying much attention. In the coming years we will be facing changes and challenges none of us are, or can be, prepared for. We will need to be flexible, resilient and resourceful. But most of all we will need each other. I fervently hope that on the other side of our current disagreement about the Northeast Plan, we can learn to talk to each other, to listen to each other and to trust each other.

We know that we need to transition to a post-carbon economy; to conserve precious resources like water and agricultural land. In all likelihood we will be living much more locally in twenty years than we are today. We particularly need to make our land use decisions with this in mind.*

I understand the hope that Sebastopol can be an island of sustainability in a sea of unsustainability. We see our world on the edge of system-wide failure because of our consumption patterns and our continual disregard for the web of life that supports and holds us all. We feel more and more crowded by cars, buildings and othe people. But we don’t live in isolation; we are part of a complex web and we are inextricably linked to everything and* everyone else. As never before it is incumbent upon us to live up to our ideal of thinking globally and acting locally.

We need to remember that what we are deliberating is a plan to guide development over the next 20 to 25 years; it is not a development proposal. The proposed plan would not prohibit any current uses nor expand any areas designated for development.*

Despite assertions to the contrary, the plan would not allow development on any wetlands. This is not a pristine area; it has been developed for many years, in some cases for over a century. Under our current General Plan, development is already allowed there, including up to 500 residential units, as compared to the 300 unit limit the plan proposes. The original intention of creating a specific plan for this area has been to make sure that the development that does occur there is done in a coherent way, benefitting our entire community, rather than piecemeal, as it would without a plan.

It is important to note that the land in the plan area is privately owned and that the City cannot mandate specific uses such as a new library, a business incubator, photovoltaic arrays or a year-round market. These are all excellent ideas and would add greatly to our quality of life. The City unfortunately doesn’t have the money to buy any of the land. However, with the warrant process for increased building height, we have the potential to negotiate such community benefits.

I am saddened by the misinformation being disseminated about this process. But I am most saddened by the animosity and mistrust that is dividing our community. After years of conflict between the environmental community and the business community, I had hoped that we could come together to support a vision of the future that leads to the healing of the planet and to a sound local economy. I still believe that the Northeast Area Specific Plan, with certain modifications, will accomplish this.*

Climate change is a very real and imminent threat and it is indisputable that much of it is driven by human actions. In California, 40% of greenhouse gas emissions are from automobiles and trucks. In Sonoma County it is 60%.*Reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled is our most important challenge and the single most effective way to do that is with high density mixed-use urban infill. Density is what makes transit feasible, giving us the option of getting out of our cars.

If current rrends continue, over the next 25 years the world will add 3 billion people; California will* be adding 9 million new residents; the Bay Area will add 2 million; Sebastopol will add another 3000. They will have to live somewhere. If we don’t allow and encourage infill on existing urban footprints, development will occur on the land we will need for food production, recreation and wildlife habitat.

When we adopted our Urban Growth Boundary 12 years ago, the bargain we made was that in exchange for halting sprawl we would allow infill. This is also what our General Plan calls for. It is time for us to keep our promise. It is past time for us to think and plan regionally and systemically.*

Among other comments we have heard that the planning process was unfair, that the current draft of the plan was driven by either the consultants or by developers. The truth is that the planning process was initiated by the City Council five years ago in recognition of the fact that this area is going to be developed eventually. We agreed that it would be better to have the development be coordinated and planned in a way that offers the greatest benefit and the least negative* impact to our community and the surrounding ecosystem.

Without a plan, property owners would have far greater latitude in how they develop their properties. Current zoning allows for up to 500 units of housing instead of the 300 proposed in the plan. Individual parcels could be built on fill as we see now on Morris Street. There would be no new street grid, no public spaces or other amenities.*

We have done everything we know how to be inclusive and to let our residents and neighbors know about and be involved in the process. Over the course of 17 public workshops, several hundred of us shared our visions, hopes, dreams and concerns. At each juncture, the consultants we had engaged to facilitate the process, DCE, took the evolving consensus and brought back to us a more and more focused product.*

What we are considering now is a compromise among these various visions. It doesn’t reflect everyone’s wishes, but it does accurately reflect the vision of the overwhelming majority of those who participated in the visioning workshops. This is a plan that was developed by the people of Sebastopol; it has been fair, inclusive and exhaustive, if not exhausting. It is a plan that will restore Sebastopol’s former reputation for environmental stewardship and creative thinking.

We have a unique opportunity to create a vibrant, walkable, human scale extension of downtown that is not dominated by automobiles; an area that will enhance our quality of life while doing our part to minimize human impact on the natural world. We can show that Sebastopol can truly think globally and act locally.

[Geni Houston]

Larry, what a wonderful post - I am behind you 100%. And with our current Planning Commission, Design Review Board, City Council and all the local watchdogs, what better place to do it right and to it together!

[Sciguy]

Larry:
At the council meeting, there was a citizen plea for the council to appreciate, not denigrate, the contributions of citizens and then there was a wonderful outpouring of appreciation from the council. I had the impresstion that the councilmembers were already thinking along those lines and to me it is an example of the confluence of concerns that made that meeting the most inspiring meeting of any city council that I have ever witnessed. Congratulations to the wonderful city council that is taking its mandate seriously to be leaders in Sebastopol.

I don't know where would be the best place to make some suggestions that occur to me but Wacco seems like a community where suggestions and discussions flourish so let me try to suggest a few things.

My work is in the elimination of waste, wherever it is found. Not only in explicit discard (garbage has become the unfortunate face of intensive wasting) but in all of its unnecessariness. Zero Waste is a theory that applies to all manner of wastes and knits them together coherently.

When we extract precious fossil fuels from the ground and burn them for heat energy without ever making use of their miraculous molecular complexity first, we are wasting a gift of our planet to its sentient children. When we then burn them and (now we first begin to realize it) release the resulting carbon dioxide into an unresisting atmosphere, we waste the purity of our atmosphere, and our comfortable climate, without giving it a thought until recently. When we recognize the toll that our easy acceptance of waste takes, we don't strive to eliminate waste but we rush to carve out some sacrificial piece of our purity to contaminate legally. This is called the regulatory approach. We are so committed to waste acceptance that regulation which accepts, while walling off, wasting behaviors is considered to be desirable by those otherwise committed to a clean planet.

The planning for the NEAP includes wasting as an essential feature. It is taken for granted that there will be demolition, with vast quantities of valuable resources being put into dumpsters to go off to one of those places where wasting is accepted, even encouraged, namely the dump. The rationalizations will be quickly put forward, deemed to be inescapable, vigorously defended but through it all, a better way to handle resources, the elimination of wasting will be pooh poohed as too difficult, taking too much time, swimming upstream, something for the future (that conveniently never comes). I hope, by this writing, and future arguments, to contradict my own predictions, but past experience does guide me powerfully.

If construction and development do arrive, in the North East Quadrant or anywhere in the city, once again one of the first acts will be to call in a huge box to place more resources into, for their swift trip to the ever welcoming dump and once again the rationalizations will reside in onlooker's minds that this is normal, inescapable, there is no alternative, even though no alternative will be sought as a test of that assumption.

Wasting behavior permeates our daily lives while we incessantly offer peans to sustainability, without ever recognizing the clash of intentions this sets up. Zero Waste offers many better ways of thinking about wasting and sustainability. When will we rise up and say that explicit wasting is no longer going to be accepted in our community.

Many people will immediately think that recycling provides some answer but it does not. Recycling is a management plan for DISCARDS, not for resources. If we eliminate discard, we have no need to manage it. Others will immediately assume that Zero Waste requires gigantic funding of projects but since when does the intelligent application of resource efficiency suggest huge funding? It is wasting which requires huge funding. What is Sebastopol's annual garbage bill? Could not those millions of dollars be better used in this intelligent and progressive community to stanch the flow of unnecessary waste to a pit in the ground?

Climate change is another environmental concern often expressed but this is once more a subset of Zero Waste thinking. Discharging huge amounts of carbon dioxide into our groaning atmosphere without any regard for its fate or the need for doing so is a waste of our essential atmospheric resource, on which all life depends. Zero Waste wraps up most environmental assaults because wasting is so universal.

Other approaches need rethinking also. There is a ready assumption that simple, conventional, numerical measures must be used. But my work in Zero Waste tells me that FUNCTION is the controlling consideration in design. The first idea for a design is seldom the best. I am thinking of the tension being put forward for 200 or 300 versus 500 new apartments in the Northeast Quadrant. Is number the best way to measure apartments? I doubt it. What is the thinking behind the numbers? I would say that building apartments controls resource impacts and resource opportunities. The impacts are things like using up scarce utilities such as water or fire prevention services while the benefits are customers for local business and the creation of new citizen-job connections (assuming new occupants will be able to be employed in Sebastopol). These kinds of considerations are far more meaningful than assigning some arbitrary number of apartments to be permitted. Can we not think about growth and permit methods which continually monitor available resources and needs and build according to those factors? Of course there will be an accompanying count of apartments but are there not some different kinds of living arrangements that can and should be accommodated if they serve our needs better than preassigning a certain number of apartments independently of needs and resources?

Of course in this short writing I can't do justice to these ideas but I hope they will be discussed and fleshed out in the future.

Paul Palmer

I want to acknowledge and appreciate all the comments the City Council has heard and read regarding the proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan and on the accompanying Environmental Impact Report. I also want to acknowledge how frustrating the hearing process has been for some of you. When you don’t hear a response to your comment it’s often hard to know that you have been heard. It’s perhaps a flaw in how legislative bodies such as city councils work, but in order to allow for all comments to be heard and to still be able to hold our own deliberations and eventually reach a decision, we have been compelled to reserve our responses and comments until now. I do want to assure everyone that your concerns and questions have indeed been heard and taken into account.

We have heard the contention that the process itself has been unfair; that the proposed plan has been driven by the consultants and by the property owners. We have heard that there was insufficient opportunity for public participation and that the plan doesn’t reflect all perspectives.

We have heard that the proposed plan is inconsistent with Sebastopol’s General Plan and that the General Plan should take precedence over a specific plan.

We have heard your concerns about our water supply and the need to be sure that Sebastopol has sufficient water for any additional development. We have heard from some of our rural neighbors about their concerns for the impact on their wells from urban water use.

We have heard your concerns about building in a flood plain. We have heard your concerns about construction on fill and about the impact on areas that may supply the fill.

We have heard your concerns about traffic impacts both in the plan area and in neighborhoods throughout Sebastopol. We have heard your concerns that the plan doesn’t include Class 2 bicycle lanes.

We have heard that the plan doesn’t include enough automobile parking and that it includes too much parking. We have heard your concerns about allowable building heights. We have heard your concerns about seismic stability and about the insurability of new construction in the plan area.

We have heard your concerns about both sprawl and increased density. We have heard your concerns about the lack of public transportation. We have heard your wish for more public spaces and other public amenities. We have heard your concerns about protecting the Laguna.

We have heard your concerns about chain stores and their impact on Main Street and on other local businesses. We have heard your concerns about the economic viability of new development in the plan area as well as the cost to the city of providing new infrastructure and additional services. We have heard your concerns about losing the quality of life that we all treasure. I want you to know that your concerns have been heard and will be addressed publicaly as we discuss the EIR and plan in detail.

Throughout this process and throughout my ten years on this Council, my overriding concern and intention has been to help Sebastopol and Sonoma County move closer to true sustainability. This goal has informed every decision I have made and every initiative I have proposed. I would never support any Council action that I believed would jeopardize our quality of life or that of those who will come after us.

As a community, as a culture and as a species we are in a time of* unprecedented change. I believe that the next twenty years will show whether we are going to continue on the path to social and ecosystem collapse or evolve to a new level of relationship with each other and with the Earth - one of partnership rather than attempted dominance. The choices we make today will either broaden or narrow our future opportunities to adapt to a world that promises to be increasingly challenging.*

It may be that the only things we can reliably predict about the future are greater instability, more people and fewer resources to go around. But anyone who is certain about the exact shape of the future either hasn’t lived long enough to know better or hasn’t been paying much attention. In the coming years we will be facing changes and challenges none of us are, or can be, prepared for. We will need to be flexible, resilient and resourceful. But most of all we will need each other. I fervently hope that on the other side of our current disagreement about the Northeast Plan, we can learn to talk to each other, to listen to each other and to trust each other.

We know that we need to transition to a post-carbon economy; to conserve precious resources like water and agricultural land. In all likelihood we will be living much more locally in twenty years than we are today. We particularly need to make our land use decisions with this in mind.*

I understand the hope that Sebastopol can be an island of sustainability in a sea of unsustainability. We see our world on the edge of system-wide failure because of our consumption patterns and our continual disregard for the web of life that supports and holds us all. We feel more and more crowded by cars, buildings and othe people. But we don’t live in isolation; we are part of a complex web and we are inextricably linked to everything and* everyone else. As never before it is incumbent upon us to live up to our ideal of thinking globally and acting locally.

We need to remember that what we are deliberating is a plan to guide development over the next 20 to 25 years; it is not a development proposal. The proposed plan would not prohibit any current uses nor expand any areas designated for development.*

Despite assertions to the contrary, the plan would not allow development on any wetlands. This is not a pristine area; it has been developed for many years, in some cases for over a century. Under our current General Plan, development is already allowed there, including up to 500 residential units, as compared to the 300 unit limit the plan proposes. The original intention of creating a specific plan for this area has been to make sure that the development that does occur there is done in a coherent way, benefitting our entire community, rather than piecemeal, as it would without a plan.

It is important to note that the land in the plan area is privately owned and that the City cannot mandate specific uses such as a new library, a business incubator, photovoltaic arrays or a year-round market. These are all excellent ideas and would add greatly to our quality of life. The City unfortunately doesn’t have the money to buy any of the land. However, with the warrant process for increased building height, we have the potential to negotiate such community benefits.

I am saddened by the misinformation being disseminated about this process. But I am most saddened by the animosity and mistrust that is dividing our community. After years of conflict between the environmental community and the business community, I had hoped that we could come together to support a vision of the future that leads to the healing of the planet and to a sound local economy. I still believe that the Northeast Area Specific Plan, with certain modifications, will accomplish this.*

Climate change is a very real and imminent threat and it is indisputable that much of it is driven by human actions. In California, 40% of greenhouse gas emissions are from automobiles and trucks. In Sonoma County it is 60%.*Reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled is our most important challenge and the single most effective way to do that is with high density mixed-use urban infill. Density is what makes transit feasible, giving us the option of getting out of our cars.

If current rrends continue, over the next 25 years the world will add 3 billion people; California will* be adding 9 million new residents; the Bay Area will add 2 million; Sebastopol will add another 3000. They will have to live somewhere. If we don’t allow and encourage infill on existing urban footprints, development will occur on the land we will need for food production, recreation and wildlife habitat.

When we adopted our Urban Growth Boundary 12 years ago, the bargain we made was that in exchange for halting sprawl we would allow infill. This is also what our General Plan calls for. It is time for us to keep our promise. It is past time for us to think and plan regionally and systemically.*

Among other comments we have heard that the planning process was unfair, that the current draft of the plan was driven by either the consultants or by developers. The truth is that the planning process was initiated by the City Council five years ago in recognition of the fact that this area is going to be developed eventually. We agreed that it would be better to have the development be coordinated and planned in a way that offers the greatest benefit and the least negative* impact to our community and the surrounding ecosystem.

Without a plan, property owners would have far greater latitude in how they develop their properties. Current zoning allows for up to 500 units of housing instead of the 300 proposed in the plan. Individual parcels could be built on fill as we see now on Morris Street. There would be no new street grid, no public spaces or other amenities.*

We have done everything we know how to be inclusive and to let our residents and neighbors know about and be involved in the process. Over the course of 17 public workshops, several hundred of us shared our visions, hopes, dreams and concerns. At each juncture, the consultants we had engaged to facilitate the process, DCE, took the evolving consensus and brought back to us a more and more focused product.*

What we are considering now is a compromise among these various visions. It doesn’t reflect everyone’s wishes, but it does accurately reflect the vision of the overwhelming majority of those who participated in the visioning workshops. This is a plan that was developed by the people of Sebastopol; it has been fair, inclusive and exhaustive, if not exhausting. It is a plan that will restore Sebastopol’s former reputation for environmental stewardship and creative thinking.

We have a unique opportunity to create a vibrant, walkable, human scale extension of downtown that is not dominated by automobiles; an area that will enhance our quality of life while doing our part to minimize human impact on the natural world. We can show that Sebastopol can truly think globally and act locally.

[biannoli]

I want to acknowledge and appreciate all the comments the City Council has heard and read regarding the proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan and on the accompanying Environmental Impact Report. I also want to acknowledge how frustrating the hearing process has been for some of you. When you don’t hear a response to your comment it’s often hard to know that you have been heard. It’s perhaps a flaw in how legislative bodies such as city councils work, but in order to allow for all comments to be heard and to still be able to hold our own deliberations and eventually reach a decision, we have been compelled to reserve our responses and comments until now. I do want to assure everyone that your concerns and questions have indeed been heard and taken into account.

We have heard the contention that the process itself has been unfair; that the proposed plan has been driven by the consultants and by the property owners. We have heard that there was insufficient opportunity for public participation and that the plan doesn’t reflect all perspectives.

We have heard that the proposed plan is inconsistent with Sebastopol’s General Plan and that the General Plan should take precedence over a specific plan.

We have heard your concerns about our water supply and the need to be sure that Sebastopol has sufficient water for any additional development. We have heard from some of our rural neighbors about their concerns for the impact on their wells from urban water use.

We have heard your concerns about building in a flood plain. We have heard your concerns about construction on fill and about the impact on areas that may supply the fill.

We have heard your concerns about traffic impacts both in the plan area and in neighborhoods throughout Sebastopol. We have heard your concerns that the plan doesn’t include Class 2 bicycle lanes.

We have heard that the plan doesn’t include enough automobile parking and that it includes too much parking. We have heard your concerns about allowable building heights. We have heard your concerns about seismic stability and about the insurability of new construction in the plan area.

We have heard your concerns about both sprawl and increased density. We have heard your concerns about the lack of public transportation. We have heard your wish for more public spaces and other public amenities. We have heard your concerns about protecting the Laguna.

We have heard your concerns about chain stores and their impact on Main Street and on other local businesses. We have heard your concerns about the economic viability of new development in the plan area as well as the cost to the city of providing new infrastructure and additional services. We have heard your concerns about losing the quality of life that we all treasure. I want you to know that your concerns have been heard and will be addressed publicaly as we discuss the EIR and plan in detail.

Throughout this process and throughout my ten years on this Council, my overriding concern and intention has been to help Sebastopol and Sonoma County move closer to true sustainability. This goal has informed every decision I have made and every initiative I have proposed. I would never support any Council action that I believed would jeopardize our quality of life or that of those who will come after us.

As a community, as a culture and as a species we are in a time of* unprecedented change. I believe that the next twenty years will show whether we are going to continue on the path to social and ecosystem collapse or evolve to a new level of relationship with each other and with the Earth - one of partnership rather than attempted dominance. The choices we make today will either broaden or narrow our future opportunities to adapt to a world that promises to be increasingly challenging.*

It may be that the only things we can reliably predict about the future are greater instability, more people and fewer resources to go around. But anyone who is certain about the exact shape of the future either hasn’t lived long enough to know better or hasn’t been paying much attention. In the coming years we will be facing changes and challenges none of us are, or can be, prepared for. We will need to be flexible, resilient and resourceful. But most of all we will need each other. I fervently hope that on the other side of our current disagreement about the Northeast Plan, we can learn to talk to each other, to listen to each other and to trust each other.

We know that we need to transition to a post-carbon economy; to conserve precious resources like water and agricultural land. In all likelihood we will be living much more locally in twenty years than we are today. We particularly need to make our land use decisions with this in mind.*

I understand the hope that Sebastopol can be an island of sustainability in a sea of unsustainability. We see our world on the edge of system-wide failure because of our consumption patterns and our continual disregard for the web of life that supports and holds us all. We feel more and more crowded by cars, buildings and othe people. But we don’t live in isolation; we are part of a complex web and we are inextricably linked to everything and* everyone else. As never before it is incumbent upon us to live up to our ideal of thinking globally and acting locally.

We need to remember that what we are deliberating is a plan to guide development over the next 20 to 25 years; it is not a development proposal. The proposed plan would not prohibit any current uses nor expand any areas designated for development.*

Despite assertions to the contrary, the plan would not allow development on any wetlands. This is not a pristine area; it has been developed for many years, in some cases for over a century. Under our current General Plan, development is already allowed there, including up to 500 residential units, as compared to the 300 unit limit the plan proposes. The original intention of creating a specific plan for this area has been to make sure that the development that does occur there is done in a coherent way, benefitting our entire community, rather than piecemeal, as it would without a plan.

It is important to note that the land in the plan area is privately owned and that the City cannot mandate specific uses such as a new library, a business incubator, photovoltaic arrays or a year-round market. These are all excellent ideas and would add greatly to our quality of life. The City unfortunately doesn’t have the money to buy any of the land. However, with the warrant process for increased building height, we have the potential to negotiate such community benefits.

I am saddened by the misinformation being disseminated about this process. But I am most saddened by the animosity and mistrust that is dividing our community. After years of conflict between the environmental community and the business community, I had hoped that we could come together to support a vision of the future that leads to the healing of the planet and to a sound local economy. I still believe that the Northeast Area Specific Plan, with certain modifications, will accomplish this.*

Climate change is a very real and imminent threat and it is indisputable that much of it is driven by human actions. In California, 40% of greenhouse gas emissions are from automobiles and trucks. In Sonoma County it is 60%.*Reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled is our most important challenge and the single most effective way to do that is with high density mixed-use urban infill. Density is what makes transit feasible, giving us the option of getting out of our cars.

If current rrends continue, over the next 25 years the world will add 3 billion people; California will* be adding 9 million new residents; the Bay Area will add 2 million; Sebastopol will add another 3000. They will have to live somewhere. If we don’t allow and encourage infill on existing urban footprints, development will occur on the land we will need for food production, recreation and wildlife habitat.

When we adopted our Urban Growth Boundary 12 years ago, the bargain we made was that in exchange for halting sprawl we would allow infill. This is also what our General Plan calls for. It is time for us to keep our promise. It is past time for us to think and plan regionally and systemically.*

Among other comments we have heard that the planning process was unfair, that the current draft of the plan was driven by either the consultants or by developers. The truth is that the planning process was initiated by the City Council five years ago in recognition of the fact that this area is going to be developed eventually. We agreed that it would be better to have the development be coordinated and planned in a way that offers the greatest benefit and the least negative* impact to our community and the surrounding ecosystem.

Without a plan, property owners would have far greater latitude in how they develop their properties. Current zoning allows for up to 500 units of housing instead of the 300 proposed in the plan. Individual parcels could be built on fill as we see now on Morris Street. There would be no new street grid, no public spaces or other amenities.*

We have done everything we know how to be inclusive and to let our residents and neighbors know about and be involved in the process. Over the course of 17 public workshops, several hundred of us shared our visions, hopes, dreams and concerns. At each juncture, the consultants we had engaged to facilitate the process, DCE, took the evolving consensus and brought back to us a more and more focused product.*

What we are considering now is a compromise among these various visions. It doesn’t reflect everyone’s wishes, but it does accurately reflect the vision of the overwhelming majority of those who participated in the visioning workshops. This is a plan that was developed by the people of Sebastopol; it has been fair, inclusive and exhaustive, if not exhausting. It is a plan that will restore Sebastopol’s former reputation for environmental stewardship and creative thinking.

We have a unique opportunity to create a vibrant, walkable, human scale extension of downtown that is not dominated by automobiles; an area that will enhance our quality of life while doing our part to minimize human impact on the natural world. We can show that Sebastopol can truly think globally and act locally.

Mr Robinson,
This could be the most self-serving response I have encountered in a long time. I was at City Council and had to absent myself to get away from your loquacious diatribe.
Those of us who want the plan to actually REFLECT our community know exactly where you fall and your long recitation did nothing to enlighten. You are our representative and you must be wary of moving ahead on this plan without substantial guidelines for development...or we will remain mired in the muck of the current plan.
I can hardly see you as the environmentalist that you put forth when you wish to approve 180 thousand feet of retail, to name one example. What business can afford to be there? Chains? Is that what we want. Have you seen the Petaluma retail mess...a lot of empty space.
We all must imagine what the future holds with this plan and then do the real work to dissect it's pieces so that we do have a true, sustainable plan that may not work for everybody but at the least, is environmentally sane.
This means do your homework...look at Sustainable developers, developments and try to parse those pieces for Sebastopol.
Thanks for your time.
Barbara Iannoli

[theindependenteye]

>Mr Robinson,
>This could be the most self-serving response I have encountered in a long time. I was at City Council and had to absent myself to get away from your loquacious diatribe.
> Those of us who want the plan to actually REFLECT our community know exactly where you fall...

Friends--

There's a lot to be said on this issue, even beyond what's already been said. But I would urge that we all restrain the crying need for ad hominum attacks. Unless you truly have evidence that city council members are taking payoffs from developers or have quantifiable mental deficiencies or are using this as a springboard to the Governorship, please give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of a desire to do what's best for Sebastopol. Talk about the issues.

I was at the Council meeting as well, and I was interested in what the Council had to say, especially the vast range of the questions they addressed to the staff. It's strange to walk out on a Council member's speech and then complain that he doesn't listen to you.

For myself, I feel that most of the arguments against the NEAP are addressable and that the Council raised a vast number of pertinent questions. How they address all these without a staff the size of the Pentagon I have no idea -- thank all the gods I will never be on the City Council -- but I sure didn't hear the stonewall echo you'd get in 95% of the nation's city councils.

And on the other hand, when I look at the developers' renderings, it's scary to imagine someone building this little designer town three blocks away from the current downtown and still have a town we remotely recognize. Frankly, despite lots of great shops, our current downtown -- with its slo-mo freeway cutting through and its parkinglot/square -- is pretty ugly. Put an entirely new "downtown" ten minutes' walk away, and I can't imagine how these businesses will survive. This may be addressed in the plan, but I haven't deciphered it yet.

In any case, however much one may hate parts or all of NEAP, let's keep the debate on the issues.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[theindependenteye]

Friends--

I don't always navigate the buttons of Wacco well, and my last post went out before I'd finished it. I didn't intend it to end so abruptly. So I'm pasting the full text below. My apologies if you've received both in full.

Cheers--
Conrad

***

>Mr Robinson,
>This could be the most self-serving response I have encountered in a long time. I was at City Council and had to absent myself to get away from your loquacious diatribe.
> Those of us who want the plan to actually REFLECT our community know exactly where you fall...

Friends--

There's a lot to be said on this issue, even beyond what's already been said. But I would urge that we all restrain the crying need for ad hominum attacks. Unless you truly have evidence that city council members are taking payoffs from developers or have quantifiable mental deficiencies or are using this as a springboard to the Governorship, please give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of a desire to do what's best for Sebastopol. Talk about the issues.

I was at the Council meeting as well, and I was interested in what the Council had to say, especially the vast range of the questions they addressed to the staff. It's strange to walk out on a Council member's speech and then complain that he doesn't listen to you.

For myself, I feel that most of the arguments against the NEAP are addressable and that the Council raised a vast number of pertinent questions. How they address all these without a staff the size of the Pentagon I have no idea -- thank all the gods I will never be on the City Council -- but I sure didn't hear the stonewall echo you'd get in 95% of the nation's city councils.

And on the other hand, when I look at the developers' renderings, it's scary to imagine someone building this little designer town three blocks away from the current downtown and still have a town we remotely recognize. Frankly, despite lots of great shops, our current downtown -- with its slo-mo freeway cutting through and its parkinglot/square -- is pretty ugly. Put an entirely new "downtown" ten minutes' walk away, and I can't imagine how these businesses will survive. This may be addressed in the plan, but I haven't deciphered it yet.

In any case, however much one may hate parts or all of NEAP, let's keep the debate on the issues.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[PeriodThree]

The NEAP area is adjacent to the current downtown:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...58382&t=h&z=15

Across the street from the plaza. Surrounding the movie theatre.

It seems to me that the questions of whether or not we want development in down, or what impacts that development may have are valid, but the question of where that development should occur, if it does occur, seems obvious.

And on the other hand, when I look at the developers' renderings, it's scary to imagine someone building this little designer town three blocks away from the current downtown... ... Put an entirely new "downtown" ten minutes' walk away

[shellebelle]

Okay thats what I thought - all that space that "feels" abandoned right?

Right up to and possibly including Guayaki?


This picture shows a great deal of the area right?






This is a Gigapan image. Drag the image to pan, double click to zoom in, shift double click to zoom out.
Open full screen viewer
View on gigapan.org

The NEAP area is adjacent to the current downtown:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...58382&t=h&z=15

Across the street from the plaza. Surrounding the movie theatre.

And if thats the space how in the world do you consider it 10 minutes from downtown? Geeze we walk from Coffee Catz and Starlight to the Farmer's Market in like 5!

theindependenteye wrote:
And on the other hand, when I look at the developers' renderings, it's scary to imagine someone building this little designer town three blocks away from the current downtown... ... Put an entirely new "downtown" ten minutes' walk away

[theindependenteye]

>>Across the street from the plaza. Surrounding the movie theatre.

Yes, I understand that the edge of the huge area itself is directly adjacent to the current edges of "downtown." But is there anything in NEAP that actually specifies that the retail & human-traffic "center" is in this area or blocks away, or is that just left to the judgment of the developers?

Granted, it might make sense to be integral, but then too it might have made sense to build that big grotesque blob of a movie theatre with a bit more organic connection to the rest of the world rather than have its ugly fat ass facing us. Somebody had some reason for doing it that way which presumably seemed sane at the time.

Certainly, all the details of the developers' design aren't the province of the City Council deliberations. But apart from other general impacts (water & traffic questions, etc.), the actual integration or separation of the new business district would -- it seems to me -- have a profound effect on Main Street.

If I were the developer, I might see a well-planned integration as an enhancement to my properties. Or I might go on the model of a completely separate shopper-destination, several blocks away, an interior-exterior shopping center, with a bigger-n-better bookstore, music store, etc.

My question is whether there's anything within the boundaries of the negotiations that addresses this concern. Not raising this as ammo on either side of the question, just wanting to know.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[shellebelle]

>>
My question is whether there's anything within the boundaries of the negotiations that addresses this concern. Not raising this as ammo on either side of the question, just wanting to know.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Thats a valid point. Though I thought this "plan" was to place some reasonable boundaries on use. Since "we" as a collective don't own the land and neither does the city I can't imagine its possible to dictate what goes where or who does what.

I would think it would be possible to say there are only X number of major and franchised stores in Sebastopol and set the number to total whats already in existence.

I would think it would be possible to change the 500 residences to 300. Or even go farther and minimize density with so many per square mile or acre and limiting the number of total multi family residences in existence (of course according to Federal and State laws) within the city limits.

I would think it would be possible to place restrictions so that all new building had to be some percentage green.

I would think it would be possible to place recycling and other parameters on all builds both new and remodels to improve the re-use ratio.

The neat thing about doing this in a general plan is that it in should in theory apply every where not just in one limited space. And potentially it can apply to remodels as well and use modifications.

So potentially a market could not partner with Peet's if there is a clause that fits major and franchised stores.

No more Subways, no more Starbuck's etc.

But to determine what and how a developer will use his land is not possible except by zoning. And that is not truly a determination in many ways.

On the other hand a developer that is truly invested in the city will seek the towns consideration before building.

So in the end maybe what needs to go before council and before the city residents is a plan that allows for expanse but within strict guidelines.

[79paul]

.."Granted, it might make sense to be integral, but then too it might have made sense to build that big grotesque blob of a movie theatre with a bit more organic connection to the rest of the world rather than have its ugly fat ass facing us. Somebody had some reason for doing it that way which presumably seemed sane at the time."...

That big blob of a theater used to be an apple processing plant that sat empty for many years. Instead of tearing it down, it was reconfigured into the movie theater. From my perspective, that's the "green" thing to do, instead of sending tons more old concrete to the landfill. Yes, it's made for some odd hallways and cramped spaces, but I love having our little theater in town.....

[theindependenteye]

>>That big blob of a theater used to be an apple processing plant that sat empty for many years. Instead of tearing it down, it was reconfigured into the movie theater. From my perspective, that's the "green" thing to do, instead of sending tons more old concrete to the landfill. Yes, it's made for some odd hallways and cramped spaces, but I love having our little theater in town.....

Glad to know the history, being a relative newcomer. I was operating off memories of big crackerboxes that were designed that way from the get-go. I agree completely about the wisdom of reconfiguration, and also glad that it's there as a theatre.

Cheers--
Conrad

[galephil]

That "grotesque blob of a movie theater" started out many years ago as Speas Apple Brandy Distillery. It was recycled to provide the movie theaters.

Peace and joy to you too,
Gale

[Helen Shane]

Sebastopol Preservation Coalition

The Council asked its preliminary questions at the July 8 meeting.

In the staff report for the July 15 meeting the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Planning Director respond in writing to some of the questions posed by the Council members.
Go to http:www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/citycouncil.shtml to read them.

We urge you to attend the Council meeting,
July 15th,
on
the Northeast Area Plan.
Youth Annex, Morris St. 7 p.m.

Some of the Council’s questions will be answered at the July 15 meeting.
Below is Kevin Dwan’s excellent, on-point letter regarding the costs, both declared and hidden, if construction as set forth in the Northeast Plan were to happen.

Attend the meeting. Your presence has made all the difference. Don’t let up now.

******

‘Paying the Piper’
Surprisingly little attention has been paid to what the proposed Northeast Area Specific Plan would cost. We know that money is tight at all levels of government: this November, the Sebastopol City Council will probably be putting a utility surtax on the ballot to balance the City’s five million dollar budget. Just ask some of the non-profits working for good causes about what’s happened with their requests for help.
Hiding in Plain Sight
A fraction of the Plan’s capital costs is clearly identified in the NEAP. Page 7-5 of the document shows a cost to the City of $5,306,000. How will the City raise this money, half of it required before any tax benefits can be expected, in addition to what we’re raising and spending now?
…Or Just Plain Hiding
$5,306,000 isn’t the real total: on page 7-17, the Plan has an important disclaimer: it says that the cost estimate “does not include site-specific costs such as in-tract improvements, on-site parking, land fill requirements or environmental clean-up. Although these costs are regarded as site-specific, they will ultimately need to be considered in an evaluation of overall project feasibility.”
Let’s look at just one of these undisclosed costs—land fill requirements. An experienced Bay Area contractor estimates that fill costs $20 to $30 per cubic yard. The NEAP may require 500,000 cubic yards.
That’s $10,000,000 to $15,000,000. In-tract improvements, on-site parking construction, environmental clean-up, and other infrastructure will cost even more. The consultant hasn’t attempted to estimate how much more, investment plan: “It is estimated that about half of the project-wide public infrastructure costs will need to be incurred before the development of Phase I [emphasis added].” And then, “A significant up-front investment in project-wide infrastructure” will be needed before any of the claimed benefits of the Plan will be realized. In other words, the City will have to somehow come up with about half of a number much bigger than $5,306,000, up-front, before our investment in the NEAP generates any of the hoped-for revenue.

Don’t relax now.Keep the faith.

[Kim Atkinson]

Hello friends. I noticed in the newspaper the other day that the city of Sebastopol wants to buy the land where the camping and trailer area is on the south side of the bridge as you go toward SR on Hwy 12, and apparently make it into a park. From the article I read, some money seemed to be available. This seems incongruous, with everything else going on. Does anyone else know about this?

thanks

Kim Atkinson

[Kenyon Webster]

The City has already purchased this property, and previous to that, had a grant application in progress. The grant would allow for restoration and conversion of the campground and undeveloped portions of the property to become part of the City's Laguna Preserve. This will take 2-3 years to implement. The grant would not apply to the trailer portion of the property, which may take 10 or more years to convert to park uses, since the City intends to vacate it by attrition.

-Kenyon Webster, Sebastopol Planning Director

Hello friends. I noticed in the newspaper the other day that the city of Sebastopol wants to buy the land where the camping and trailer area is on the south side of the bridge as you go toward SR on Hwy 12, and apparently make it into a park. From the article I read, some money seemed to be available. This seems incongruous, with everything else going on. Does anyone else know about this?

thanks

Kim Atkinson