PDA

View Full Version : PD: City at a crossroads (Sebastopol NE Plan)



Barry
06-02-2008, 08:14 AM
City at a crossroads

Plan for new residential, commercial development near downtown could shape city's future

By ROBERT DIGITALE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Monday, June 2, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, June 2, 2008 at 5:31 a.m.

Original Article (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080602/NEWS/806020310/1350&title=City_at_a_crossroads)

<!-- /PUBDATE --> <!-- ARTICLE -->
It remains merely a plan, but strong support and intense opposition have followed the city's blueprint for transforming Sebastopol's old apple-packing district.

The proposal for a new civic square and retail/residential buildings of up to four stories tall could be acted on this month by the City Council. After five years of discussions and meetings, Tuesday's council meeting may be the last chance for the public to influence the plan's fate.

Redevelopment typically engenders controversy when it threatens historic buildings or involves government taking over private property. But in Sebastopol, the disagreement involves fundamentally different visions of the city's downtown for the next 20 years.

In a city with strict growth controls and, until recently, a majority of Green Party members on the council, a key issue has been whether redevelopment of an old apple-packing plant translates into too much growth.

The Northeast Area Specific Plan takes a "new urbanism" approach to redevelopment, similar to the transformation of the city cores in Windsor and Petaluma. Among the concepts are a compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood with shops on the ground floor and residences above.

The plan would allow 300 residential units and nearly 400,000 square feet of new business and civic space between the Laguna de Santa Rosa and Sebastopol's downtown.

Most of the land remains in a flood zone, and the plan proposes that instead of filling in part of the area, the buildings and the public square would be constructed on "podia," or stilts, with parking underneath.

Supporters envision more people coming to shop, work and live in the town and keeping pace economically with the rest of the region. They note with concern that Sebastopol's sales tax revenue dropped nearly 10 percent for the nine months ending in April, mostly due to the closing of an auto dealership.

Critics object to adding an estimated 8,000 car trips a day through town. They raise concerns about the adequacy of ground-water supplies and about the impacts of adding so many new housing units.

They also question the need for such tall buildings. They maintain that the resulting development could end up becoming a drain on city coffers, especially if the retail spaces or a possible new hotel remain empty.
The redevelopment hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Sebastopol Community Center, 390 Morris St.

You can reach Staff Writer Robert Digitale at 521-5285 or [email protected]

Helen Shane
06-14-2008, 06:44 AM
Sonoma West June 12, 2008

COMMENTARY: Let’s have another Plan


The lion’s share of speakers at the June 3 Council Meeting on the Northeast Area Plan argued to preserve our small town character. About 250 community members attended. Clearly the majority of citizens present were not knee-jerk reactionaries against change. Far from it. The room was brimming with alternative ideas to raise tax revenues without developing our town into a cookie cutter Windsor or Healdsburg. Of those present, 95 percent argued individually to honor the current General Plan for sound, legal reasons and to promote economic vitality.

There are wise restraints built into the General Plan: protection from traffic gridlock, the Growth Management Ordinance, the prohibition against building in the floodplain, and {totally out of character} four story buildings for our ‘arty, aggie, quirky’ town as one person described us (Don’t you love it)?

Contrary to the characterization by some, the current General Plan will prevent this extreme density, horrendous traffic, floodplain development and canyon-making buildings.


<table class="thumb" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td><!-- AdSys ad not found for sonomawest/letters_and_opinions:instory -->
</td></tr></tbody></table> In the sage words of a former Planning Commissioner/Council Member mentor, “Always consider cumulative impacts” when evaluating new project applications.” “How will this single project affect the whole town?” We must beware of sneaky “me too’ers”. Unless cumulative impacts are identified and considered, other developments can tag along on the first variance. People will come out of the woodwork to cry “Why-does-that-person get-special-treatment?-I-want-it too.” It’s the inevitable path to over-building and over-burdening our infrastructure.

The Northeast Area Plan--really an illegal challenge to the General Plan--solves all these pesky limitations by simply nullifying the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance protections that ensure our small town character, environmental safety, adequate carrying capacity and the health of local stores.

Surely the Council doesn’t want a lawsuit against the town based on C.E.Q.A. (See California Environmental Quality Act’s website).

A few of the proponents at the last meeting characterized those opposed to the NEAP as being against all change. Most of us in opposition are Progressives in a diverse community. We applaud innovation and urge revitalization of the Northeast Area. It can be done without the irrevocable, design disaster that is the present NEAP

Let’s not continue on this path just because we’ve paid a lot of money for it. Rather, consider that we spent money to find out what WON’T work. It is a cheap price to pay for putting us on the right track. Here are some Best Of Ideas from that Council Meeting:

Make Midtown improvements; cluster development adjacent to Main St., rather than creating a new downtown.

Create truly low-income housing over city-owned parking lots.

Revamp the old Barlow site: create exciting, forward-thinking light industry such as solar and wind plants; use it as a teaching tool to educate school children and serve as a model of our eco-conscious community for the entire state.

Daylight our creeks. Let them run through town to attract people and add to Sebastopol’s green cachet.

Expand Sebastopol’s Farmers Market -- make it better: more attractive, creative and lucrative than even Marin’s Farmer’s Market.

Refurbish older buildings. If the venerable Pine Cone can get a new lease on life, so can many of our businesses!

The last Council meeting was recessed until June 17. Our Council members have heard our criticisms. Come to this 11th hour hearing with smart alternatives. The Council has the Solomon-like task of ‘keeping the lights on’ and defining our town’s next legacy. Help our leaders to lead. That’s participatory, collaborative democracy.



That’s Sebastopol Progressive.


:Clap:


- Bill Roventini – former Sebastopol Mayor
- Helen Shane – former Sebastopol Planning Commissioner
- Jane Nielson – PhD, (Geologist)
- Ruth Robinson – Sebastopol resident
- Sheila Lawrence—Sebastopol Realtor
- Marianne Fleischer—Sebastopol resident

Angel
06-15-2008, 09:35 AM
What time June 17th?

PeriodThree
06-15-2008, 02:16 PM
Helen,

It is wonderful that you have a different view of how our town should be than NEAP proponents.

On the other hand, it is not wonderful that in your advocacy for a different view of our town you resort to misrepresentations of the NEAP.

But some of your assertions seem to be not entirely true. I would respectfully ask you to either support these points with evidence, or stop making these specific claims.



The Northeast Area Plan--really an illegal challenge to the General Plan


As near as I can tell, the General Plan was adopted by the City Council, and so it can be amended by the City Council.

Accusing people of illegality without evidence seems wrong.



Make Midtown improvements; cluster development adjacent to Main St., rather than creating a new downtown.


The Northeast Area is directly adjacent to our existing downtown. Looking at maps I can see no land for development that is not already developed which is 'adjacent to Main St' which is not within the Northeast Area

Arguing that we should restrict development in order to maintain the character of town seems fine, but if we are to develop in Sebastopol the Northeast Area is the place for that development.


Here is a link to a map I prepared:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=114831704696609462591.000449b3ec8180ea58382&t=h&z=15

Barry
06-15-2008, 03:45 PM
It's interesting to see you opining with Bill Roventini, Helen!


Sonoma West June 12, 2008

COMMENTARY: Let’s have another Plan

...

- Bill Roventini – former Sebastopol Mayor
- Helen Shane – former Sebastopol Planning Commissioner

Howard
06-16-2008, 04:30 PM
Period Three caught some of the absurdity and misrepresentations in the letter starting this thread. I would like to add a couple myself.

The letter states that the current General Plan prevents "floodplain development, extreme density and horrendous traffic." To put it most kindly, this is a total fabrication.

Floodplain development is now permitted with fill. The new buildings at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Morris Street/Sebastopol Avenue</st1:address></st1:Street> and in front of Gravenstein Station were built on fill in the floodplain. All of the buildings on <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Morris Street</st1:address></st1:Street> were built on fill in the floodplain. As a matter of fact, all the buildings constructed in the northeast area are built in a floodplain with all the ones built since the 1980’s on fill. The NEAP requires no net fill, which is a vast improvement over existing policies.

The density of development is not extreme unless you consider up to three and four stories extreme. I think that is a bit of an overstatement since current policies allow three stories in most of the area with no additional review and three stories in the balance with additional review. The consultants did a great job of listening to the majority of those that participated in the public meetings and allowed an additional story on some of the new buildings if they provide some very significant benefits to the public.

As far as horrendous traffic, I'm not quite sure what this means. If you are saying that the current General Plan intersection levels of service (LOS) should not be violated, then the signers of the letter have been misled. The General Plan LOS levels at two of our downtown intersections are now at unacceptable levels and many more will be within the next decade (as stated in the EIR). Any new development anywhere in town, will add to this problem, as at least some of the signers of this letter to the editor should know. They call for "Midtown improvements; cluster development adjacent to <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Main St</st1:address></st1:Street>" and "creat(ing) truly low-income housing over city-owned parking lots." Both will add to this "horrendous traffic" situation.

By the way, I would like an answer to where this new "Midtown" area is that is adjacent to <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Main Street</st1:address></st1:Street> that is not within the northeast area!

PeriodThree
06-16-2008, 04:54 PM
I got an email notification of a public post from Helen which never appeared in the thread. She didn't think she had deleted it, but it isn't here :-/

She mentioned the lumber yard across the street from the plaza.

I didn't get a reply when I said that appeared to be within the plan area.



By the way, I would like an answer to where this new "Midtown" area is that is adjacent to <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Main Street</st1:address></st1:street> that is not within the northeast area!

Barry
06-16-2008, 07:09 PM
Forward any information about this to me and I'll look into it.


I got an email notification of a public post from Helen which never appeared in the thread. She didn't think she had deleted it, but it isn't here :-/

She mentioned the lumber yard across the street from the plaza.

I didn't get a reply when I said that appeared to be within the plan area.

RichT
06-16-2008, 10:10 PM
It has been entertaining, but also painful to watch these hearings before the city council. While I do not agree with all aspects of the proposed NEAP, I do find it to be a well thought out planning document. It is hard to watch as so much mis-information is repeated.

The photo shopped picture purporting to show the future view down Sebastopol Ave is especially upsetting to me. Table 5-3 on page 5-16 shows a proposed 135' R/W. The existing store front of Bradley Video is less than 40' from centerline; this would yield a R/W of less than 80'. Have the opponents of the plan who placed a poster sized reproduction of this ever read the plan in full to attempt to understand it.

I live over a mile from the downtown area. I enjoy walking to the Main Street stores, the cinema and the town square. However, the northeast area as it currently exists does not welcome pedestrians to pass through it. One business owner spoke of having to relocate from Gravenstein Station in order to survive. The shops in that area must be the destination for their customer base; it is not inviting to pass from the downtown shops to go there. NEAP has some good ideas fro creating connectivity. This is vital if any redevelopment is to succeed.

The northeast area is already developed. We need some further guidelines if the city is to have control over how these parcels are redeveloped in the future. One must remember that these parcels are privately owned and that the owners have the right to develop within the guidelines of the general plan and zoning law. Right now the guidelines are rather broad, giving developers control over what may occur.

Some of the ideas expressed for what is desired for the area sound noble, but to implement them would require compensating property owners for "taking" property value from them. Daylighting the long buried creeks sounds great, but the historic paths cross developed private property. How are we to pay to compensate owners for taking of their land, and then creating a new natural channel. The city of Santa Rosa can consider restoring Santa Rosa Creek beneath when they own the land and do not need to invoke imminent domain to accomplish this; Sebastopol does not have this option.

Talking about alternative options for the Barlow site is great, but what is economically viable for a developer. They will not be interested in a project if it does not benefit them financially. It certainly is NOT suitable for a wind power plant. I would find it quite objectionable to place windmills of the size required to produce any significant amount of energy.

As I mentioned, I enjoy walking the mile plus to downtown. My wife has a hard time walking that far. When we go together, we drive. We need places to park, as do other visitors who do not live in the downtown core. If you build housing on city owned parking lots, how will out of town visitors come to shop. Business owners have a hard enough time already surviving here. If you eliminate parking, how are we to draw in visitors to support local business.

The problem behind most of the problems currently facing Sebastopol, Sonoma County and the rest of the world is population growth. We have been unable and unwilling to stem our burden on the planet. I personally would prefer to plan for growth and manage it in a sensible manner. To ignore the reality of growth is to invite chaos and complete gridlock. Is this what we really want?

Lenny
06-17-2008, 09:40 AM
I got an email notification of a public post from Helen which never appeared in the thread. She didn't think she had deleted it, but it isn't here :-/

She mentioned the lumber yard across the street from the plaza.
I didn't get a reply when I said that appeared to be within the plan area.

I may be in error but I believe that yard was, or is, owned by Mr. Basso, the same fellow that sits on the Tree Board. What did she say about it that yard?
I think it would be an IDEAL place to put up a Senior Living Apartment, and have the windows face the Town Square. Real nice way to spend one's waning years!