City to add MORE HIGH DENSITY to Bodega Ave. and Washington Ave!!

OH THE TRAFFIC!!!! This Tuesday the City Council will be looking to adopt the General Plan Update. In so doing, they will be adopting a change from Medium Density to High Density for three parcels along Bodega, right at the bend in the road west of Washington Ave. There is absolutely no requirement for this. Furthermore, they are doing this without so much as notifying the property owners!!!

One of the property owners has requested that the density actually be changed from Medium to LOW in order to preserve the Open Space that is mostly visible and enjoyed from the Leland St. view. That property is over an acre and the prime candidate for over 20+ apartment units to be developed at a later date. The General Plan Update is reviewed and revised every 20 years. Does anyone else care to preserve the LAST REMAINING green-space in that area?!

Please join me in demanding that the City Council NOT APPROVE the General Plan Update without granting the property owners' request to retain our last remaining, beautiful Open Space. Meeting is this Tues., 6:00, at the Youth Annex.

Yes ,Sebastopol has traffic, and it can be annoying, but I would argue that the biggest issue that we are facing in Sebastopol, Sonoma County and the Bay Area is the affordable housing crisis. Average rents in Sonoma County have increased 40-45% in the last 5 years and Sonoma County has 3 times the national homeless rate.

So, while traffic may be a hassle, we have families struggling to keep a roof over their head, living paycheck to paycheck, living out of their cars, couchsurfing homeless etc. So, while traffic may be a legitamite concern I think it pails in comparison with adding more housing and especially if it can be affordable housing.

I hope we can move past the NIMBY and into the YIMBY stage. I for one, work full-time, have a Masters degree and live with my parents to be able to afford to live in the town I grew up in. Check out all the housing measures that were approved around the Bay Area. This is the direction we need to move towards---- providing opportunity for people. Link to KQED Article Bay Area Voters Approve Affordable Housing Measures, Mostly by Wide Margins

Increasing the density of downtown areas is one of the obvious solutions to the housing crisis.

This is a recommendation of the State of CA Legislative Analyst Report (3/15) titled "California's High Housing Costs".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

OH THE TRAFFIC!!!! This Tuesday the City Council will be looking to adopt the General Plan Update. In so doing, they will be adopting a change from Medium Density to High Density for three parcels along Bodega, right at the bend in the road west of Washington Ave. ....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Increasing the density of downtown areas is one of the obvious solutions to the housing crisis.

This is a recommendation of the State of CA Legislative Analyst Report (3/15) titled "California's High Housing Costs".

---

I don't doubt that it is a recommended solution by the state. And I don't doubt that it's obvious. But a solution…well, that's what I'd debate in-so-much as the only and/or best solution. Looking at it from your narrow scope- I can't argue. But I guess I'm looking at it from a bit broader perspective, not just in terms of scholarly rhetoric, but from literally standing on the last-remaining green-belts in our town, which we say is also important.

I'd like to point out that every single man in my family (father, uncles, grandfather, great-grandfather) have been carpenters living right here in Sebastopol since 1912. Our family's livelihood depended upon building. So I can not say I'm against development or the need for housing. With that said, we live in very different economic times. I don't believe that building small, cheaply built homes for the sake of solving our housing and economic inequality problems is the only/always the best solution available to us, nor do I think that housing should always "Trump" the need for preserving green-belts.

However, it seems as though it does. In which case, I would like for us to stop pretending that we want diversity in our development, or that we care about preserving green-belts and open space within our city walls, or that we want to preserve our cultural heritage and small-town charm. You can't put in a multi-million dollar, ridiculously expensive hotel, catering to the wealthy elite for your TOT and retail sales tax, and then wonder why we have income inequality/housing crisis, and keep "paving paradise to put in parking lots."

We have to rebuild the middle class a different way. One way to keep reasonable housing…stop turning all of our older downtown homes into dentist/lawyer offices and massage parlors. Instead of a hotel, put in the low-income housing in the heart of downtown along with shops that actually serve the needs of the middle-low class. Stop making it so damn expensive to build granny units to house our college kids and elderly. The only ones who make out on "low-income" housing are the developers, because they're the ones who write the recommendations from the state. They're the ones who get reimbursed- they still make the money while we continue to fail to bridge the income-inequality gap that creates the "low-income." We keep building the housing, but not the income!

Furthermore, there is absolutely NO guarantee that what/who develops these High Density properties are doing anything but making a buck. There is nothing to say that what goes in will serve our "housing crisis." Nothing to say they won't just be more "country" looking homes bought by our friends in the Bay and rented out for Air B-n-B's- bucks flying all around, except into the pocket of our low/middle class.

Bottom-line, if there's anything I learned from this past election, it's that we liberal elites (and I include myself in that) keep thinking we're saving the world with things like our "low-income housing" when in truth, we turn around and do all the wrong things that only go to widening the economic inequality gap, obliterating our middle-class, the people whom the men in my family built good solid homes for.


Just saw this video… Russell Brand says it better than I: https://www.facebook.com/RussellBrand/?fref=ts

While affordable housing is absolutely something we are lacking in this town there is little evidence to support the notion that high density zoning is the gateway to low-income housing projects. In fact I propose that our city council's most recent abuse of its power to bring us Sara Gurney's pet project of a $600 a night hotel, right in the heart of downtown, is the most obvious example of just how little concern, attention and interest our current public servants have for our current housing crisis. More likely I would suspect that the high density zoning changes slotted for these parcels on Bodega Ave will eventually be turned into high-end condominiums or apartments. When looking at potential tax basis for the city there is far more to reap from condominiums to be sold at a half a million dollars per unit then there is to be seen in the city coffers from affordable housing. Sebastopol is fast-tracking toward an upscale wealthy elite demographic where all the pretty people of means are visible and the working class in servitude leave the premises at the end of their shift.

One of the justifications used to change private property to high density, without any notice to the property owners, is simply that high density zoning immediately increases property values and most everyone wants that......... What does that tell you about the likely-hood of ever seeing affordable housing units going up on Bodega Ave? Currently infill is the big buzz word when discussing housing issues. How well did that work out for us in regards to the Diamond Lumberyard site? This was probably one of the most appropriate locations to implement the concepts of infill and affordable housing. But instead we will have a playground for the rich and famous. It does not appear to me that we can trust our public servants to respond to our needs. Presently the evidence suggests that they have a vision of Sebastopol all their own.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jerichsalud:

Yes ,Sebastopol has traffic, and it can be annoying, but I would argue that the biggest issue that we are facing in Sebastopol, Sonoma County and the Bay Area is the affordable housing crisis. ...

---

Nancy,
Do you own property in the area of Bodega Ave & Washington Ave?

The Diamond Lumberyard - where the new hotel is proposed - is not a good site for affordable housing. The main reason is the property is too expensive for affordable housing, being downtown - it's more suited for commercial use. As well, the site is too small, with parking & traffic issues, to be feasible for affordable housing. Affordable housing developments such as Burbank Heights, the one near the hospital, & the one across from Pacific Market, are located a few blocks from the center of town, in areas that border commercial and residential neighborhoods.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

... In fact I propose that our city council's most recent abuse of its power to bring us Sara Gurney's pet project of a $600 a night hotel, right in the heart of downtown, is the most obvious example of just how little concern, attention and interest our current public servants have for our current housing crisis. ...

---

I think the problem is that you are looking to the City government to actually build stuff. They don't do that. They enact policies that allow and/or encourage private developers to build. Private developers are in the business of building, so their projects have to make financial sense. That is even true for non-profit businesses like Burbank Housing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

It does not appear to me that we can trust our public servants to respond to our needs. Presently the evidence suggests that they have a vision of Sebastopol all their own.

---

I was on the General Plan Advisory Committee and recommended this change in response to the City's need for housing. On projects over 3 units, developers are required to build affordable units, so that's the only way we are going to get affordable housing. I don't recall anyone speaking against it during any of the dozen-or-so of meetings. BTW, granny units are entitled at the State level, it's pretty easy to get a permit for one in Sebastopol.

Lastly, we need to get over traffic. Our traffic is due to the two highways that run through town. That's the way it is and it's only going to get worse unless we get a bypass. Yes, more housing in town will increase traffic, but not significantly. As a good friend say, "if you're complaining about traffic, you are probably in a car, so you ARE traffic".

Ted

I'm no expert but I don't think that projects over three units needing to include affordable housing (inclusionary zoning) is the only way to get affordable housing and yes government and local government can provide funding for affordable housing such as with TOT dollars, Sebastopol can up the TOT amount and dedicate money to housing such as what was just approved by voters for unincorporated Sonoma County, or a bond, which probably needs to be approved by voters which was done in several Bay Area counties, LA, Seattle etc for affordable/low-income/w0rkforce housing. In fact, I think that is a big part of why there is a Homes for All Summit taking place tomorrow in Santa Rosa with close to 500 RSVPS, to start considering how Sonoma County can build more affordable housing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

... On projects over 3 units, developers are required to build affordable units, so that's the only way we are going to get affordable housing. ...

---

I agree that the Diamond Lumberyard site was too expensive. Perhaps it was overpriced. Basso has wanted to sell that property for the past 10 years but there it sat, vacant, with the exception of the Tractor Store, without any interested buyers willing to pony up $3 million. Then, like a gift from the gods, a hotel developer appears. Except the gods were two of our city council members, Sarah Gurney & John Eder, and one citizen, the spouse of John Eder, Marsha Sue Lustig. This was their pet project as far back as 2012. Lucky Basso, he now has, at taxpayers expense, a marketing team, inclusive of brochure design and printing. With his personal power trio at the helm, actively seeking out a high-end hotel, it suddenly became a 1.25 acre lot worth $3million. Another scenario might have just as easily been that the city required Basso to keep his property cleaned up for the past ten years in response to the complaints that it was an unsightly downtown “junkyard” eyesore. Perhaps that responsibility and expense would have encouraged Basso to lower his asking price years ago. I'm not suggesting that this act alone would have paved the way for an affordable housing development but it might have opened the door for some options other than our town's current conversion into a Dubai-style wonderland.

Please don't misinterpret my comments Tommy. The points you make are valid, but not without scrutiny. Marsha-Sue stood up at both public hearings addressing the hotel, the Planning Commission hearing in Sept and the recent Nov 15 City Council hearing and gave lip service to the idea that while “we” welcome this hotel, she cordially put them on notice that our community will expect the two smaller lots next to the hotel site to be used for affordable housing projects. This idea was echoed by a few of our City Council members at the Nov 15 meeting. So if your observations are accurate then how are we able to consider smaller parcels, also downtown, also with the same traffic & parking problems, for affordable housing where this particular neighboring property is deemed inappropriate?

The 2013 SDAT report, that was commissioned by our City Council, specifically cited for the Diamond Lumberyard location a mixed use project with residential units and market-viable public amenities. This was obviously not what Sarah Gurney, Marsha Sue, and John Eder had in mind. I'm merely suggesting that our elected officials may not be in concert with our desires to build a strong local, working-class community. Typically developing a tourist town for wealthy elites does not include affordable housing in close proximity to the center of town. “It is too expensive for affordable housing” will likely also apply to the Bodega Ave properties now being changed to high density, and we will just nod our heads in acceptance. After all, these are just the facts of economics; a suitable explanation. It is one that soothes our senses as we passively watch the exodus of our long time local residents, our small farmers, our working-class families and our neighbors struggling to keep their homes.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

The Diamond Lumberyard - where the new hotel is proposed - is not a good site for affordable housing. The main reason is the property is too expensive for affordable housing, being downtown - it's more suited for commercial use. ...

---

Why is there so much conspiratorial sentiment on this forum? It's so easy to sit back, not participate, then judge in hindsight and try to shame our elected (and volunteer) officials. I know the people you mention and truly believe they volunteer their incredibly valuable time with the very best intentions of representing our community. Painting them as the masters of some dark conspiracy is just plain wrong and ill informed.

Where you one of the hand-full of people at all the General Plan Advisory Council meetings? Did you attend the SDAT and planning workshops for the lumber yard? Did you lobby the City to make Basso clean up his property? Have you offered to sell YOUR property at a discount to house working class people? Are you volunteering your time on one of the City's boards or commissions? Did you run for City Council during this last election, when we barely had enough people to fill the empty seats? If so, then I sincerely thank you for doing so. If not, then it's time to put some words into actions.

Ted

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

This was obviously not what Sarah Gurney, Marsha Sue, and John Eder had in mind. I'm merely suggesting that our elected officials may not be in concert with our desires to build a strong local, working-class community.

---

Hey Ted,

I appreciate your perspective and I do understand that city government does not directly “build stuff”. However in addition to enacting policies to encourage private developers to build, city governments also will advocate for, as well as provide funding for, development of specific projects. In this way I think it fair to say that city government does, at least indirectly, build stuff. Regarding the new hotel, our city government took an extreme front seat position steering us toward a sweetheart deal for Basso. Now to add insult to injury the hotel developer is requesting financial considerations from the city. This could include agreements such as building fee deferrals, waving of fees, TOT kickbacks etc. It was decided that a sub-committee be appointed to review these and other ideas before a Development Agreement is signed. Patrick Slater and Una Glass will lead the sub-committee. Whether or not there will be additional citizen participation and/or if this review process and the final agreement will be open to public comment is unclear. Presently Patrick Slater is not opposed to the idea of negotiating TOT kickbacks to the developer as well as fee deferrals. As I recall one of the primary justifications expressed for approving this luxury liner hotel was the desperately needed revenue it will generate for the city. Now our city government is willing to negotiate the loss of some of those “much needed” revenues to provide financial assistance to the developer for his $600 per night hotel extravaganza.

Ah, but I digress, sorry..... Back to the density issue. I understand the rationale for the recommendation to change zoning from medium to high density on Bodega Ave. It does not surprise me that there was no opposition to this suggestion considering the fact that the property owners were not notified of the recommended change regarding their personal properties. Does it not seem to be an unfair stretch of government authority to change zoning on privately owned parcels without any notice to the affected property owners? I realize that the unspoken dogma is that land owners would want this change as it increases the value of their property. But as we know, there are no absolutes when dealing with personal preferences. I question a city government that does not exercise public notice greater than the minimum requirements when proposing changes to private property. At the very least, provide special notice to all property owners directly affected and give them an opportunity to come forward with any questions &/or opposition. I am aware of one of those Bodega Ave properties whose owner did not want their land to be changed from medium to high density. In fact the owner applied for a change to low density. Our Planning Commission made a recommendation to our City Council to approve their request. In the end, on Nov 15, all of the parcels in question on Bodega Ave were approved to be changed to high density.

Considering the handout our council is seemingly poised to give the hotel developer, coupled with the dismissal of our Planning Commission's recommendation to approve a local resident's request for a density change, it seems fair to suggest that perhaps we cannot trust our public servants to respond to our needs and vision for our town.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

I think the problem is that you are looking to the City government to actually build stuff. They don't do that. ...

---

A new hotel at the Diamond Lumberyard, similar to the H2 Hotel in Healdsburg, could be a cool place. There's nothing wrong with good taste. Hopefully, it'd have valet bike parking, you could go there for a cocktail or an herbal shake, visit the spa, sit on the sundeck, organize to do away with the Electoral College, etc.

Sure, we can say that its peoples fault for not coming and informing the process, but all too often we know that they don't make it to the table. I think this article, The Key to Making Economic Development More Equitable Is Making It More Democratic, may highlight some of how the Hotel project may be the wrong project if we care about inclusive economic development that supports working class residents and families and how an improved process might lead to different results. Yes, people often don't show up and represent their interests, but maybe it should be governments role to make sure that is happening. Also, as the article also suggests, the concern is that officials "skew too far towards privatization and overly friendly collaboration with developers, industry, and the economic elite." I think that is also true for this project, because as pointed out by Rustie, in the SDAT done for Sebastopol as well as the "Lumberyard workshop notes" there is plenty of feedback that housing be included in the project. Just because it is easier to fund and find developers for the hotel project doesn't mean that that is the project we should go with. We are in the middle of an unprecedented housing crisis and the hotel is only going to exacerbate it for residents of Sebastopol.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

...Where you one of the hand-full of people at all the General Plan Advisory Council meetings? ...

---

Hmmm… you bring to mind Trump telling the cast of Hamilton how disrespectful they are and how they need to apologize, I mean really; who are they?! It's not like being an actor on Broadway is like being Vice President elect of the US of A!

I mean really, who are we, here on wacco, to criticize?! It's not like we selflessly volunteer our time for the benefit of the community like you and the people you know! ….

You're right, for the most part (myself excluded).

The reason why it's the same damn people at all of those various "community involvement" options that you listed is because other members of our community are tending to their ailing parents, doing homework with their kid who still needs to be reminded it's bath time, or they're tired from literally breaking their back every day because they're still f*ckin' hustling at 65 years of age because they're still trying to recover from 2008, or they use to pay attention, but they've since learned and are too fed-up to care anymore…. THEY ARE THE "DIVERSE PEOPLE" THAT THOSE OF YOU WHO VOLUNTEER ARE SUPPOSE TO BE REPRESENTING, PROTECTING, HELPING!!!!! But we don't want to think that we might be part of the national problem we are all faced to recognize, but at the local level.

Save us the "Well, where were you?!" argument because those of us that are around…I go to the meetings, I scribed for SDAT, I was at the hotel open houses (both of them), I was going to the Prelude to the PGU meetings before going to at least half of the GPAC meetings, I am involved and pay attention and inform the rest my community, people who are just simply trying to live their lives as they trust that their elective representatives will do the right thing , those of us who were at the council meeting last Tuesday….we know, we've seen, we've heard, we've experienced… it really only takes once.

Not notifying a property owner of the change in their Land Use Density, but then not listening when a 91 year old has something to say, and that say is "No, thank you?" But rather, our selfless volunteers/elected representatives say, "Sit in that there hard seat until we get around to you, or go home and come back later if you like- we gots ourselves a busy night!" Our council "taking notes" while some sweet soul is trying to apologize for her behavior at the previous meet, storming out, but (ironically) she just felt like she wasn't being heard. Yeah…. we're the problem.

Here's a thought… what if our representatives/selfless volunteers started actually 1. talking to people besides themselves and those they "know" 2. listening to them intently 3. taking them seriously.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

Why is there so much conspiratorial sentiment on this forum? It's so easy to sit back, not participate, then judge in hindsight and try to shame our elected (and volunteer) officials. ...

---

Look, I don't think you, or anyone else for that matter, is at their core, a bad person- we ALL think we wear the white hats. I just think GPAC/ Council, much like John Eder last Tues. taking notes while that poor woman was trying to apologize, aren't listening when people other than your friends are talking….Or if you are listening, actions like the hotel and what was done to Ms. Juanita last Tues. indicate you don't care.

You are making a lot of assertions and assumptions here Ted. First of all I made no accusations implying conspiracy, dark or otherwise. That's a convenient word used when folks wish to discredit that which displeases them. I would suggest addressing specific points that you take issue with and we can discuss them directly. Secondly, you ask me if I've offered to sell my property at a discount to house working class people. I'm curious, why do you assume that I own property? More to the point, is that an idea that you actually believe has merit when addressing our affordable housing crisis? Third, your rapid fire questions regarding my attendance at meetings and workshops or time volunteered on committees implies that these are the only valid means of participation in civic governance. I come to this interpretation by your closing comment stating that if I have not participated in these specific ways, “then it's time to put some words into actions.” I take issue with this implication. To begin with, your cited list of options are not the only acceptable means of valuable participation. In fact our council frequently invites the public to participate via the city website, email, telephone and the city's Livestream coverage of all public hearings. Additional forms of civic action may also include neighborhood outreach, petitions, rallies, fundraisers, editorials and let's not forget social media forums such as Wacco.

Many members of our society do not have the economic means allowing them the luxury of participating in our city governance via your prescribed action list. The single mom with 2 or 3 jobs, or the low income family barely making ends meet probably don't have a lot of discretionary time on their hands to attend meetings and volunteer for committees. Should their voices be excluded? This put up or shut up tactic functions to disenfranchise a huge segment of our society. Your specific action list of what it looks like to participate assumes that everyone has the physical and economic ability to “attend”, when in fact this is far from reality. I do not want to design a system of acceptable participation that silences the masses leaving our civic governance primarily in the hands of our elite citizenry. Perhaps the most someone can do is sign a petition on their way in or out of the grocery store. To them, I sincerely say thank you for doing so.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

Why is there so much conspiratorial sentiment on this forum? It's so easy to sit back, not participate, then judge in hindsight and try to shame our elected (and volunteer) officials. ...

---