Coffey Park residents wary of grand plans

Regarding the rebuilding of Coffey Park:

- Shirley Zane, Sonoma Co Supervisor, was quoted in the SF Chronicle: "the rebuilt neighborhood should include 'grocery stores, dog parks, smarter senior housing, single-family homes, higher-density stuff.' She added that 'we have to respect the homeowners, but I do think a lot of people — particularly the newer generation — are open to something other than this suburban sprawl we are all so stuck in.'"

- One resident: “I want them to build back Coffey the way it was and to build it as fast as possible … The last thing I want is somebody re-imagining my neighborhood.”

- Mayor Chris Coursey acknowledged the homeowners there must undertake a great rebuilding effort, but “I don’t think that gives the greater community the right to tell them what to do with their properties.”

Analysis of California's housing crisis & shortages, recommends higher density development, especially along coastal areas, such as Sonoma County. See last years' CA Legislative Analyst Report on Housing. The problem is that current residents of coastal communities, such as Coffey Park, don't want higher densities. The result is a shortage of housing and rising prices. Higher densities in the Bay Area can be found at new construction near transit lines. However, existing communities have resisted higher densities.

Plz see the PD article below.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7...-of?artslide=0

City officials said they don’t plan to initiate discussions on redeveloping Coffey Park.
Does that sound scary to anybody but me? How do YOU spell "Agenda 21?"
:heart:

Higher density, gas stations, senior housing, dog parks and other high density as Supervisor Zane is promoting needs to be included in Fountaingrove rebuilding if politicians truly believe it is the best for All neighborhoods.

Diversification of neighborhoods creates welcoming neighborhoods....not cookie cutter development.
Supervisor Zane is not to be trusted as she sold out a women's shelter, bird sanctuary and wellness center to a big developer in the Chanate hospital sweet deal. Would be interesting to know if the big developer supported her political campaign

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Regarding the rebuilding of Coffey Park:

- Shirley Zane, Sonoma Co Supervisor, was quoted in the SF Chronicle: "the rebuilt neighborhood should include 'grocery stores, dog parks, smarter senior housing, single-family homes, higher-density stuff.' She added that 'we have to respect the homeowners, but I do think a lot of people — particularly the newer generation — are open to something other than this suburban sprawl we are all so stuck in.'"
....

Plz see the PD article below.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7...-of?artslide=0

---

Yes it is thick and deep. Money, campaign contributions, and more. Look at the appointment to the planning commission for the 3rd district, Oakmont Senior living spokesperson and project manager Komron S.

From the Press Demo-

Feb 6, 2017 - Developer Bill Gallaher and his team would pay as much as $12.5 million in cash ... Chanate Road in Santa Rosa to a prominent local developer who wants to build .... Komron Shahhosseini, project manager for the proposed ...

Planning commissioner Komron Shahhosseini 3rd District [email protected]

And look at this embarrassing nonsense involving Komron:

https://www.northbaybusinessjournal....ion?artslide=0

https://www.northbaybusinessjournal....YPE=image/jpeg


Oakmont Senior Living under new investigation following Santa Rosa fire

Workers entered a locked-down fire zone in Santa Rosa last week with an excavator and dump trucks and began demolishing a Fountaingrove senior care facility before the ruins had been searched for bodies and toxic materials, according to city and county officials.

“We were very much trying to act in good faith and do what was required of us, and we did,” said Komron Shahhosseini, director of site acquisition and development for Oakmont Senior Living.

You were caught with your pants down Komron, cut the nonsense.

I'm pretty sure the "big developer" in question is Bill Gallaher and he's got his fingers in lots of local political pies. I think I read recently that he's even involved in the re-building talk.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by juna:

Higher density, gas stations, senior housing, dog parks and other high density as Supervisor Zane is promoting needs to be included in Fountaingrove rebuilding if politicians truly believe it is the best for All neighborhoods.

Diversification of neighborhoods creates welcoming neighborhoods....not cookie cutter development.
Supervisor Zane is not to be trusted as she sold out a women's shelter, bird sanctuary and wellness center to a big developer in the Chanate hospital sweet deal. Would be interesting to know if the big developer supported her political campaign

---

what can we say about Shirlee Zane that's even a little flattering, maybe the way she does her hair. zane is always imagining things shirlee's way. one doesn't hear her going on and on about whether FountainGrove shouldn't look (again) like a sprawling monstrosity for the rich with homes that are ridiculous or that it's, perhaps, just not a good idea Shirlee to repeat the fire corridor just to favor the wealthy. but, Shirlee has bent over for the wealthy for a long time whether that's the wine industry or business. she has no moral compass, and is a Supervisor for the privileged, it's always about the $$$
Zane opposes any oversight of law enforcement and that is my main gripe about her. she groveled over Freitas every chance she got, she would Never oppose any $$$ requests they came to the BOS with no matter how ridiculous their requests. she approved $200k simulator for them for no good reason and doesn't help the police or the public whatsoever and she actually says, the public should never have input on police or review their policies because they need to be governed by their own like the "military"
really, really! shirlee doesn't seem to grasp that the Police are NOT the military and we don't want Military Police.
so, i'm gonna go so far to say, that Shirlee might have her screwy vision of Coffey Park, and then we can have the fun/fun deputies police the area to make sure it stays in tip-top shape.
and if you think i'm being a bit harsh, it's just that i watched her in action for over the last 3 years at the BOS and when i realized that Chanate was an opportunity for so many more uselful projects for the communities that need better serving, like for women, or the homeless, or a clinic, etc, i realized she was never going to do the right thing, and we're never get any leadership from her.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by juna:

Higher density, gas stations, senior housing, dog parks and other high density as Supervisor Zane is promoting needs to be included in Fountaingrove rebuilding if politicians truly believe it is the best for All neighborhoods.

Diversification of neighborhoods creates welcoming neighborhoods....not cookie cutter development.
Supervisor Zane is not to be trusted as she sold out a women's shelter, bird sanctuary and wellness center to a big developer in the Chanate hospital sweet deal. Would be interesting to know if the big developer supported her political campaign

---

This does sound harsh, and personal... even mentioning her hair? God help any man who would have made those comments. I don't attend alot of BOS meetings, & I don't follow the details going on at the County level. I did attend a few of the public meetings on the Chenate property, and that process involved the public in setting priorities for development of the area. I think Shirlee has been supportive of efforts to help the homeless. She is a skilled leader in building consensus to move forward... which doesn't mean that everyone's favorite projects get approved.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:

what can we say about Shirlee Zane that's even a little flattering, maybe the way she does her hair. ...

---

What was the point of even starting this topic, I don't understand? It seems the first, originating post, suggests that Coffee Park should include more high density housing.

A county supervisor seems to, at one point at least, suggest it be re-zoned. That the whole area could be treated like a redevelopment zone, property re-zoned. Probably including mixed use. Grocery store with high density apartments within a very short walking distance, and single family homes. A mix of housing types with the highest density closest to the store and retail.

It's all private property though, with existing zoning firmly in place. And property owners and former homeowners understandably got charged up at the suggestion their properties could be played games with.

Maybe when it is rebuilt it could include some granny units above garages. But any thoughts of playing with zoning would get very contentious. Even just changing some single family homesites into duplexes would change the character of the neighborhood and add congestion so it would be contested.

I don't understandi what is being suggested here. The lots are already owned by private individuals for the most part. They will rebuild or sell their lots. I don't see the city or anyone else saying they can't. That would be a very good way to get thrown out of office, the thing most poliicians fear above all else.

Some of us don't like Zane or the BOS, and have a good reason to be critical and cynical when it comes to their intentions, and we're entitled to our opinions and feelings. For some of us (especially longtime SoCo residents) who are feeling the economic squeeze and are seeing the unique character of SoCo vanish before our eyes, it feels personal. Each time the BOS acts on behalf of their own political and financial interests, it feels personal. In fact, I think I would question how much someone truly loved living here if they didn't feel a twinge of resentment towards Zane and her colleagues and didn't voice any dissenting views.

I started the thread, to explore ideas in a PD article, regarding rebuilding Coffey Park, and Sup Zane's comments about changes to the neighborhood, to include a grocery store, and higher density housing. Related issues raised are the high cost of housing, the homeless, and Sonoma Co Bd of Supervisors policies.

While "talk may be cheap"... talk is the nature of this forum, and public discourse in general... tho obviously civil discourse is often hijacked by extreme views or those with the loudest voices.

The City of SR and the County made housing a top priority a year ago or so. The City created a plan, identifying potential development sites, ones that were stalled, etc. The County moved forward on supportive housing, creating the possibility for more 2nd units and shared housing. The County build a tiny house community (12 houses) on County land, for the homeless. They opened more shelters last winter. The City has continued to push the homeless out of downtown. There is a non spoken reticence to be more helpful to the homeless, our of fear of attracting more homeless. The State has passed or is in process with millions of funding for affordable housing. All these improvements started with "talk". Any of these can be criticized as not enough or contentious. Any government official can be slammed with accusations and criticism, regardless of how well intentioned. These government representatives didn't create the problems or the homeless - they deal day by day with solutions.

Where does this leave us? The way forward is to work for more housing, more affordable housing, higher density housing, and housing for the homeless. I'm sure there will be some talk involved...

I love the idea of some "redesign" in that large single family subdivision. Of course it must be with property owners permission. But I have a feeling many will not want to rebuild there or can't wait for the time it will take. Those people could sell their lot to a developer that might be able to merge some lots to build some higher density housing (more housing for local residents), some mixed use, some retail. Maybe even cohousing! It could make the neighborhood even better than it as with willing sellers of course.

Also with a developer building multiple houses at one time, it might be faster to get people back into homes.

Coffey has some big lots. If Santa Rosa just waived permit and development fees, and cut people a break on increased assessment (for affordability), rebuilding would be more dense than what was there, through the choices of current owners and new investors. So far a little bit of the first part, none of the second. The biggest obstacle to this simple plan is local democracy. Would you want 4 condos next door in what was a 1/4 acre sfr?

I've split off the homelessness discussion that emerged from this thread into its own thread ("Homelessness after the fires"). Let's use this thread for any comments about the Coffey Park rebuild.

According to good recent article in the PD ("Santa Rosa’s Coffey Park neighbors begin organizing, plotting rebuild") Coffey Park residents are organizing to coordinate their rebuilding efforts, but more focused to keeping costs down rather than changing the design of their neighborhood.

Given that there's a different property owner per lot, it would seem difficult, but not impossible, for adjacent property owner to band together and decided to build a multi-unit building or other large scale departure from the single family units that were there originally.