City Proposes Pine Grove Square development to replace parking lot by Hopmonk

Please be aware of a new project that the CITY OF SEBASTOPOL is proposing - PINE GROVE SQUARE.

This will be discussed at the June 6 Council meeting at 6pm at the Youth Annex, 435 Morris St.

It involves approving $30,000 to study a proposal to build 51 -69 residential units and commercial space in the current downtown parking lots on So. Main St by Hopmonk and a Willow St extension.

See staff report here

Please review and attend the meeting.

There's a big concern for affordable housing in Sebastopol, and yet this proposal allocates only 20% of the new housing as affordable. We're still not getting it right.

Even though I occasionally park there, I like the idea, especially the 'mixed use' part. Just so long as the storefronts aren't shuttered for habitation which seems to be the case on the west Sebastopol road development put in by Theisen.

And where will everyone park? What about the businesses downtown, and their customers? Etc.? This does not seem well thought out at all.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:

There's a big concern for affordable housing in Sebastopol, and yet this proposal allocates only 20% of the new housing as affordable. We';re still not getting it right.

---

This isn't SF or Oakland. We live in a rural area. Most people around here have to use cars to get around and go shopping. Even now during peak hours it's hard to find parking in the existing parking lot that this proposes to eliminate. It's laughable to think that Hopmonk would be willing to sell off it's parking lot to this development, as proposed.

If this went forward as proposed it would mean the death of business downtown, as the parking would be sorely missed and traffic would be even more congested than it already is with people driving around looking for parking spots.

I know that downtown businesses that don't have their own parking pay a fee for this parking lot. As is, the city sorely needs to build a parking structure and provide more parking in order to stimulate business downtown. Car use may not be ideal, but it's a reality in our rural environment, and as cars become less fossil fuel dependent that's less of an egregious thing. Only a small percentage of Sebastopol's customers can bike or walk to downtown, and given the aging of Sebastopol there is also a mobility issue to consider.:Yinyangv:

This is a great idea! Yeah for housing over parking! There are many many many many many likely objections to any development like this. No new housing will ever be built anywhere in California, if all those objecting have their way! Housing is a basic need - parking is not.

There's such a need for housing, that saving the lot for parking doesn't make sense. Build a parking structure. The fact that only 20% of proposed units are affordable, is a way to entice a developer to build housing. If you require more, fewer developers will be interested, as the development will not be as profitable - just the facts of life.

If the City wants the whole enchilada to be affordable, they'd need to get a developer like Burbank Housing to finance and build it... or USA Properties Fund, based in Roseville, a public/private developer which I think offers tax breaks for investors.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexandra:

Please be aware of a new project that the CITY OF SEBASTOPOL is proposing - PINE GROVE SQUARE.

This will be discussed at the June 6 Council meeting at 6pm at the Youth Annex, 435 Morris St.

It involves approving $30,000 to study a proposal to build 51 -69 residential units and commercial space in the current downtown parking lots on So. Main St by Hopmonk and a Willow St extension.

See staff report here

Please review and attend the meeting.

---

If we are to "buy local" how do you propose for us to do that if we eliminate parking for downtown and replace with housing (with only 20% low income). Unless we live downtown, we need to drive into town to access the businesses. Where would we park? The parking places in town, including the lots, are usually full as it is. Do we want a bedroom community instead of a balanced community with homes and businesses and trees?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

This is a great idea! Yeah for housing over parking! ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Norbu:

... It's laughable to think that Hopmonk would be willing to sell off it's parking lot to this development, as proposed. ...

---

Hopmonk doesn't own the large parking lot. The City does. Hopmonk only owns the small triangular lot near it's entrance.

I think the City's thinking is that the displaced parking spaces can mostly be made up for by the new general purpose lot next to CVS across the street, coupled with a projection of decreased parking demand is ride hailing (Uber, etc) grows in popularity, especially once autonomous vehicles show up.

I think converting the parking lot into a mixed-use development with housing and commercial space is a great idea. Increasing density in our towns and cities is the only way we can accommodate a growing population without filling in the rural spaces that separate our cities and sacrificing the beauty of Sonoma County. And like it or not, our population is going up, not down.

If you live outside of town, you've made a choice to rely on your car to access the goods and services you need. And now, you want those of us who live in town to degrade our quality of life to accommodate you and your car. There is parking all over Sebastopol. The CVS lot is empty most days, the lot across from the Veteran's Memorial Hall has open spaces most of the day. Dozens of parking spaces are available on South Main. If you have to walk a few extra blocks, so be it. A friend of mine likes to say, "if you complain about traffic and parking problems, then you must be in your car ... you ARE traffic and the parking problem"

Housing in center of town, close to goods, services and transit is the responsible thing to do and good for our town. 20% affordable is great. I'm all for it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:

If we are to "buy local" how do you propose for us to do that if we eliminate parking for downtown and replace with housing (with only 20% low income). Unless we live downtown, we need to drive into town to access the businesses. Where would we park? The parking places in town, including the lots, are usually full as it is. Do we want a bedroom community instead of a balanced community with homes and businesses and trees?

---

I live a few blocks from downtown, an easy stroll, and there is always parking in my neighborhood.

I have not had the time to study this proposal in detail, since my boysenberry harvest starts next week. I do
want to note that the parking lot by CVS is for all who want to use it, wheter or not they shop at CVS. I have noticed that it often has many places to park. The details about how many affordable housing would be available would be key.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sebastopolian:

I live a few blocks from downtown, an easy stroll, and there is always parking in my neighborhood.

---

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/wacco...7_17-25-20.png

Housing or parking: What’s the best use of the Burnett parking lot?
By Amie Windsor, staff writer, [email protected] May 30, 2017

Downtown business owners are fired up over a proposed housing and commercial project on the city-owned parking lot at Burnett Avenue between Main Street and Petaluma Avenue.

Development schemes prepared by consultants for the city show two proposals.

The first is a 1.18-acre lot with a building hosting 51 housing units and 7,500 square feet of retail space. The second scheme shows a 1.58-acre lot with a building containing 69 unit apartments and 12,500 square feet of retail space.

The smaller project allocates 6,100 square feet of open space while the larger one allocates 7,500 square feet. The smaller building could house eight studios, 35 one-bedroom apartments and eight two-bedroom apartments with 55 onsite parking spaces and 20 street spots. The larger proposal includes 10 studios, 49 one-bedroom units and 10 two-bedroom apartments and 77 onsite parking spots and 30 street spots.

Both buildings are proposed to be three stories high, which falls in line with the city’s general plan allowing for four-story buildings in the downtown core area.

Development costs range from $12,870,000 to $18,840,000, depending on size. Operating income could near, and even top, $1 million.

The proposal won’t officially be introduced and discussed until the June 6 city council meeting, but already it’s the focal point of conversation.

“It was brought to the SDA [Sebastopol Downtown Association] members’ attention and many are concerned about the loss of parking due to the project and an apparent lack of a plan to replace said parking,” said Rei Blaser, secretary of the SDA.

Sebastopol Planning Director Kenyon Webster said neither scheme meets the general plan’s requirement for parking spaces.

“The project concepts assume some reduction in the current zoning ordinance standard,” Webster said. “The planning commission will be reviewing potential changes to the zoning ordinance standards this summer.”

According to the city’s zoning ordinance, the parking requirements for mixed use buildings is equal to all the requirements for each various use; however the number of spots needed for the use with the smallest requirement may be reduced by one-third. Additionally, the planning commission has the authority to approve a reduction in parking requirements for mixed-use projects.

Webster admitted the change in available parking would be an issue for city council, in addition to the public.

“The issue, with relationship to the new CVS parking and parking demand in the downtown generally, is expected to be discussed in the review of the Pine Grove Square project,” Webster said.

According to City Manager/Attorney Larry McLaughlin, the proposed project will provide “sufficient parking” while bringing in significant revenue for the city and increasing local foot traffic to downtown businesses.

“This [proposal] provides the most public good,” McLaughlin said.

By creating downtown living space, McLaughlin surmises downtown businesses would see more foot traffic from local people.

“There would be people living downtown and shopping downtown,” he said. “They’d be doing downtown living without a car. And there would be sufficient parking available.”

McLaughlin also thinks the estimated $1.3 million revenue could be used toward expanding the library and city hall at their current sites, fulfilling the Pine Grove Square subcommittee’s goal of constructing a larger city hall.

“This could be enough revenue to expand them both,” McLaughlin said, adding that expanding the buildings together would enable them to share resources and space.

“They could have a shared meeting room that could be used by both the library and city hall.”

The current Pine Grove Square proposal comes after months of work by the city hired consultants Linda Herman, Keyser Marston Associates and David Baker Architects. The consultants reported the subcommittee’s original plan for a new city hall at the site was not the best use of the land. Rather, the “highest and best use” of the land, according to the consultants, is mixed-use development.

The changes came as a shock to the DBA.

“The plan has morphed into something completely different than what was presented to the public last year,” Blaser said. “It’s a huge deviation.”

Before the project nears an okay from the city council, it will go through lengthy planning phases, including community meetings and public hearings, requests for proposal, bidding and additional consulting.

The project has been in the works for more than a year. The subcommittee was formed last April. Then, in July, public meetings enabled residents to provide input on what might be the best use of the lot. Throughout the fall and winter, the team of consultants worked to develop assumptions, conduct a market study and prepare a financial feasibility projection for the proposals.

The city council will discuss the project during its regularly scheduled meeting that begins at 6 p.m. at the Sebastopol Community Cultural Center. The meeting can also be watched online at https://livestream.com/accounts/14608643.

Question: Why would this tract be more attractive to a developer than the Pellini parcel was, which sat, right across the street, unwanted, for how many years? And why didn't we end up with a nice mixed use development?

I think attending to the itch of "Sebastopol could have a really nice downtown, if only.... " is worth $30,000 of City funds. But please don't throw anymore taxpayer money at the idea. The last time the City got excited about downtown development - in a negative way, the high dudgeon of CVS (horrors!) - it cost us $350,000 of taxpayer money.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Housing or parking: What’s the best use of the Burnett parking lot?

---

Where will the parking be? Will all of the housing units have garages? Where will their cars be? It’s quite an assumption to think that because they live downtown they won’t be driving. This project is beginning to sound like a big revenue scheme for the city, rather than something that will enable us to be balanced between housing, parking, local businesses, and trees.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:

Where will the parking be? Will all of the housing units have garages? Where will their cars be? It’s quite an assumption to think that because they live downtown they won’t be driving. ...

---

As I understand it (my wife, Linda Herman :beauty:, is the project consultant for the city) the project will provide for the project's parking requirements.

What's the plan?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

As I understand it (my wife, Linda Herman :beauty:, is the project consultant for the city) the project will provide for the project's parking requirements.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:

What's the plan?

---

If you are asking about the plan for the displaced parking, that would be a good question for the City Council meeting next Tuesday, June 6th. :wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexandra:

It involves approving $30,000 to study a proposal to build 51 -69 residential units and commercial space in the current downtown parking lots on So. Main St by Hopmonk and a Willow St extension.

See staff report here

Please review and attend the meeting.

---

To clarify my initial post: The June 6th meeting is to:

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/wacco...1_21-13-42.png

The Pellini property and Pine Grove Sq are different: 1st, the City owns Pine Grove Sq, so they have the power to do what they want with it. The City did not own the Pellini property, with much less power to guide the process. I heard the Pellini property needed major upgrades to the streets & sidewalks, sewer, etc, and this is why a company with deep pockets bought it. The "small is beautiful" proposals for the Pellini property never had deep pockets. I don't know how true this is of Pine Grove Sq.

Pine Grove Sq seems more conducive to housing than the Pellini property, because it's more sheltered, being between two streets, rather on a very visible & high traffic corner. Also, thinking positively, perhaps the City learned from the Pellini fiasco, and is promoting something more appealing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by luke32:

Question: Why would this tract be more attractive to a developer than the Pellini parcel was, which sat, right across the street, unwanted, for how many years? And why didn't we end up with a nice mixed use development?...

---

Tommy's thoughtful response differentiating the Pellini & Pine Grove Sq. properties makes a lot of sense to me. Comparing those two properties would be like comparing boysenberries and watermelons--both fruit, but what a difference.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

The Pellini property and Pine Grove Sq are different: 1...

---

increasing infill in the town rather than creating sprawl out of town sounds like a great idea! it is also supportive of emerging lifestyles/values, and yes, aging baby-boomers.

Has there been any serious consideration of a free electric tram going around the downtown city center area? This would allow people from further out to park a car on the edge of town, or better yet take a bus, and then catch the tram for that last leg of the trip. For those living in the city, it would considerably increase the "walkability" and reduce the need for short car trips.

Rumor has it such a tram system is in place in Portland, OR and it has been quite successful.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mrs. Wacco:

"...Only a small percentage of Sebastopol's customers can bike or walk to downtown and given the aging of Sebastopol there is also a mobility issue to consider." All the more reason to provide housing downtown! So more people wouldn't need to get in a car every time they needed something!!

---

And I mentioned before, I am very much in support of redeveloping this parcel to housing mixed-use, but do understand that downtown needs parking and that some businesses contributed to the purchase of this lot. To resolve this, I would like to see the City make plans and pursue purchasing property now for future parking expansion in areas just outside "downtown" and a tram or trolly would be great to make that work.

The old concrete batch plant is for sale as is an empty lot behind the Feed Store. Neither are very expensive and could be used for parking if coupled with a trolly. There is also empty land behind the paint store and in a number of other places.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

increasing infill in the town rather than creating sprawl out of town sounds like a great idea! it is also supportive of emerging lifestyles/values, and yes, aging baby-boomers.

Has there been any serious consideration of a free electric tram going around the downtown city center area? This would allow people from further out to park a car on the edge of town, or better yet take a bus, and then catch the tram for that last leg of the trip. ...

---

Shepherd -
My comparison of the Pellini property to Pine Grove pertains to the essential ingredient of this entire ventire, it's economic viability. In order for someone to put up the millions? of dollars to purchase the land (I assume the City is not going to give it away), and construct the housing and retail units, that "someone" will have to see a profit in the future, a profit that would be greater than an alternative use of her or his money.

Comparing Pine Grove to Pellini is appropriate because no one saw enough profit potential in the Pellini property - about the same location, "same" -business/residential potential - to buy it until corporate CVS, with its very large coffers, came along. The scheme has got to make economic sense, And when I look at the Sebastopol business scene I see no evidence that there is any upswing in the future that would warrant a major new investment in downtown business/residential property.

Another point. Our City Council is wonderful. They volunteer lots of time to campaign, do hours of homework and sit through what must seem like interminable hours of yakking at Council meetings. But, I do not know whether they and City staff have the savvy for a large dollar, complex operation like this. I believe the City will need expensive hired assistance to help steer this venture.

Finally, an aside, what does the City do about Hopmonk's musical events and residents' desire for peace and quiet?

You bring up some very good points. These issues are important and should be part of the conversation about this development.

1. Comparison to Pellini - Pellini closed at the beginning of the recession. Unemployment was high, cash was tight, financing was impossible to obtain, rents were falling and had been flat for years and no-one was building. The financial outlook for Sebastopol is different now. We have very low unemployment, the pent-up demand for housing will continue for a few years and a new hotel is going to be built downtown. The pro forma on a development like this might finally make sense. If it doesn't pencil out, the City won't be able to find a developer to take it on (see next item).

2. City Council's Development Experience - I could be wrong, but I think the idea is to solicit development proposals from profession real estate developers, not to try to run the project from City Hall. I agree that neither our elected officials or City Hall have the expertise or the staffing to handle this project.

3. Noise - I think this is an interesting comment and one I have not considered. I live downtown and can hear music from Hopmonk, but am several blocks away, so it's never bothered me. It only happens on weekends. Living right next door will be different. That said a certain amount of noise is inevitable when living right on Main Street. Triple glazed windows and insulation can help and Hopmonk, if they don't already, will need to institute some "good neighbor" sound and performance time policies. The architects should probably be careful when planning out the orientation of the residential units too.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

...Has there been any serious consideration of a free electric tram going around the downtown city center area? ...

---

Not that I am aware of. However, when I was on the board of the Chamber, I helped initiate a free shuttle service around the holidays. Hopefully, that will continue and expand.

I think the long term solution will be Uber autonomous electric vehicles doing the shuttling, hopefully with a free/cheap autonomous mass transit option.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by luke32:

...I believe the City will need expensive hired assistance to help steer this venture.

---

Yep, such as my wife, Mrs. Wacco! :wink::beauty::love:

Quote:

---

Finally, an aside, what does the City do about Hopmonk's musical events and residents' desire for peace and quiet?

---

Thankfully, the main music room does not adjoin the development. Clearly, the future residents will be aware of the possibility of some "noise" coming from Hopmonk when they choose to live there. I hope Hopmonk stands up firmly to maintain their current operating conditions.

there is also a special noise-dampening wallboard available. It is called "quiet rock" or something like that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mrs. Wacco:

3- A certain amount of noise is inevitable when living downtown. You mitigate most of the noise with window glass of a higher STC rating. I just completed a project in Oakland, at the foot of a bridge, on a very busy road, and it is AMAZING how quiet the units are that face the street.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

...3. Noise ....

---

country mouse vs. city mouse. I'm ruined after being here for decades; noise didn't used to bother me but now when I visit a city and stay with friends/family, the normal city sounds keep me awake. But when I lived in towns, it was animal noises that kept me up. Now I hardly hear them, even roosters.

I don't think that issue will be a deal-breaker, though if I was running Hopmonk I'd make sure that the new residents knew what they were getting into. Someone moving from an outlying part of the county to be closer to services might not anticipate the loss of quiet.

As someone who has a significant amount of sound trauma from my military experiences, this post makes a lot of sense to me. I am easily triggered and much of my behavior is to avoid sound. When I bought my rural paradise 24 years ago, its quietness at the end of a dead-end street was a major factor. For most of my adult life I have lived on deadend streets.

For those of you interested in sound issues, I have chapters in the following two books: "Sound Shy" in "Veterans of War, Veterans of Peace," edited by Maxine Hong Kingston, 2006, and "Noise Pollution" in "The New Holistic Health Handbook," l985, which I edited for Penguin Books. Other good books on sound include a couple about Highly Sensitive Persons.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

country mouse vs. city mouse. ...

---

I am concerned about the loss of public parking. Many people including the customers of Hopmonk use that parking lot. Of course there is plenty of parking at CVS, but still the loss of public parking is an issue.

Housing is more important than parking. Cars are a big problem. Walking is part of the solution. I lived in the Boston area decades ago when the city decided to close the downtown core to traffic. At first the business community objected. Then more people came to that area, walked around, and bought things. Walking is good.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde:

I am concerned about the loss of public parking. Many people including the customers of Hopmonk use that parking lot. Of course there is plenty of parking at CVS, but still the loss of public parking is an issue.

---

Very good point. Let's hope this is affordable housing for lower middle class and Section 8 folks.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Housing is more important than parking...

---

No!

I went to the discussion last evening and was surprised at the number of people who interpreted "replacing the parking lot" as losing parking. I thought the Council made it clear that they wanted to retain the commercial parking.

I think this is an opportunity to do something unique. For instance, put both residential and commercial parking on the first level, with separate entrances of course. This would eliminate any surface parking and free up that space for more housing or green space. Provide spaces in the garage for car-sharing vehicles so residents don't need cars but can use a car-share vehicle for a day trip to the ocean or to visit an out-of-town friend. Provide bike parking. Have a design competition to make a beautiful exterior on the garage (art opportunity). Have kiosks at the pedestrian entrance/exit of the garage with a large map of the town identifying all shops and restaurants possibly posting menus, calendar of events and exhibiting art. A solar roof is a no-brainer.

What else? We could have a design workshop for the community where plan outlines are provided and tables of people brainstorm. Maybe we can think of how to develop this site without having a typical profit-making developer carry it out.

Have you ever tried to look for a parking place in that area? It is terribly packed, most all the time. I can't imagine using that area for structures, with parking as difficult as it is already. Build housing in housing areas, not commercial areas. We need to keep the downtown area as downtown. My personal opinion.

I disagree. Boston's downtown core thrived when they stopped cars from coming there. We are two-footeds and it is healthy for us to walk. I have never seen the large CVS parking lot, open to all, even half full. As a 72-year-old, I am one of many people who would prefer eventually to move downtown. Mixed-use, rather than segregating into commercial and housing areas, is the way to go, in my environmental opinion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by bushin:

... Build housing in housing areas, not commercial areas. We need to keep the downtown area as downtown. My personal opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Janice Gendreau:

I went to the discussion last evening and was surprised at the number of people who interpreted "replacing the parking lot" as losing parking. I thought the Council made it clear that they wanted to retain the commercial parking...

---

I was at the meeting, too. What the council asked the consultants to study a project that accommodated the project's parking demand. So that would replace the current general use parking spaces.

However, the new CVS parking lot which is all general use, is only 25- 30 spaces smaller than the parking that is being considered being developed.

At the end of the council discussion, after the public comments, it appeared that the plan was to authorize the consultant to continue to study the possibility of developing the parking lot, but reordering their workplan to include some sort of parking study in their next phase. The council's subcommittee (Larry, Sarah and Patrick) was tasked to reformulate the focus and cost for the next phase and bring it back to the council sometime soon.

You can see the livestream video of the meeting here. This item starts at 48:35.

I remember when the train tracks ran through where this parking lot is now. As much as I'd love to keep the small Sebastopol charm, not like to increase traffic, and am concerned about parking, what most concerns me and many others is that many people find it increasingly difficult if not impossible to continue to live in Sebastopol, Sonoma County, and the Bay Area. This project is an opportunity for Sebastopol to help address that. There are possible creative solutions to consider to address the parking and traffic and I'd love to see more of the housing that comes out of this being truly affordable for the people that help power the local economy like teachers, chefs, waiters, postal workers etc.

I really don't understand all the complaining about parking. In the 18 years I have lived here, I have never not been able to find a parking spot. And I rarely park in that lot. I go to town at all different times and can usually park within a block of where I am going. The only time that is slightly challenging is sometimes during the Sunday market.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by bushin:

Have you ever tried to look for a parking place in that area? It is terribly packed, most all the time. ...

---

Yes - agreed! Walking a block or so to your car, or walking to town or bus, bike, uber/lyft to town!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Housing is more important than parking. Cars are a big problem. Walking is part of the solution. ...

---

Living downtown seems great, mixed use seems great, but who would want to live in that area with cars constantly streaming by on three sides spewing exhaust? Can't be healthy.

Unreal. We're losing our common sense fast in this once-unique town.

I see Trams, trolleys, etc an expense that will be outdated by autonomous services within 10 years.

UofNV-Reno is working on autonomous busses with plans for use by 2019 in Reno, NV.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sealwatcher:

Good point about the air ...

---

We can walk the talk all we want but people living in any future housing (and I am one of those interested) in the Pine Grove Square will be exposed to noise and pollution until traffic is either directed away from down town or banned altogether. Palm Ave and North/South Main are the main roads through town. Not to mention intoxicated folks leaving Hop Monk in the wee hours of the a.m.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mrs. Wacco:

Trams or a jitney, or a shuttle, or..or..we have get creative, be willing to use our feet and walk the talk.

---

This project was planned way before the election. So I doubt if there was any influence by the Trump administration. I have no real issue with public private partnerships if it benefits the public.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Michael Anthony:

...Support for public-private partnerships can be derived directly from the Trump administration playbook as highlighted by the president's proposed budget. Linked here is a Time.com article speaking directly to this point: President Trump Launches $1 Trillion Initiative to Fix America's Infrastructure...

---

I am surprised that Michael would say the Pine Grove Square conceptual project is "defined" as a public/private partnership. It is not defined at all. It's in an exploratory phase. I spoke to another council member who said they would look at all potential developers including Burbank Housing, a non-profit.

I think the whole idea got off on the wrong foot due to the consultant's presentation. They could have had a footprint of the site only without putting in a small amount of residential parking which implied that all other parking would be eliminated. Many people took this too literally. Most of the public at the hearing spoke in support of retaining the parking.

I support both the concept of adding housing here and retaining the commercial parking. I am a great advocate of walking but it does take me 40 minutes round trip and that excludes shopping. You have to live downtown and nearby neighborhoods to walk everywhere. How many walk to Ace hardware? There is no way the thousands who live beyond the downtown core are going to walk downtown and yet they regard Sebastopol as their home town and shop here.

Janice Gendreau

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Michael Anthony:

...Pine Grove Square is defined as a public-private partnership...

---

Google public private partnerships and housing and you will find a ton online about this to build housing, so it would appear to be a common practice and not just something taken from "Trump's playbook". Here is a link to the Silicon Valley Housing Trust Website, which on their donors page states "It is the generous support of our donors that has allowed Housing Trust Silicon Valley to become a leading national housing trust model. With the sustained contributions from our public partners and private donors, we have realized tremendous success in creating new homes and homeowners and preventing homelessness for thousands of Silicon Valley families and individuals."

If you look at their donor page you can see donations from private corporations like Adobe, Cisco, etc, from banks etc which leverage public funds from cities, HUD, etc.

Similarly the new Sonoma County Housing Trust fund is a public private partnership that also plans to leverage public and private dollars. Learn more here- https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CDC/News...st-Fund-Paper/

From your comments at the meeting and this comment it really seems like you are trying to derail this project with any means necessary.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Michael Anthony:

...Support for public-private partnerships can be derived directly from the Trump administration playbook as highlighted by the president's proposed budget. Linked here is a Time.com article speaking directly to this point: President Trump Launches $1 Trillion Initiative to Fix America's Infrastructure...

---

This doesn't stop people from living in cities. In fact, some of the most expensive places to live in the US like San Francisco and New York City have plenty of traffic, noise, pollution etc.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by JayS:

We can walk the talk all we want but people living in any future housing (and I am one of those interested) in the Pine Grove Square will be exposed to noise and pollution until traffic is either directed away from down town or banned altogether. Palm Ave and North/South Main are the main roads through town. Not to mention intoxicated folks leaving Hop Monk in the wee hours of the a.m.

---

It sounds like whether this project will actually be a public private partnership is still up in there air. But as an another local example of public private partnerships, here is a recent Close to Home in the PD written by the Sonoma County Office of Education Superintendent with many references to public private partnerships to fund housing for teachers in Sonoma County. Close to Home: Helping Sonoma County teachers buy homes

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jerichsalud:

Google public private partnerships and housing and you will find a ton online about this to build housing, ...

---

I am aware of this. Doesn't mean we have to do it here.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jerichsalud:

This doesn't stop people from living in cities. In fact, some of the most expensive places to live in the US like San Francisco and New York City have plenty of traffic, noise, pollution etc.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by JayS:

I am aware of this. Doesn't mean we have to do it here.

---

'we' don't (have to live in a city) but some obviously would like to. And in a county where more miles per person are driven than almost anywhere else, a little more in-town living would be something to encourage.

??? I agree, but my response was to jerichsalud. Just because New York and San Fran have residences on major streets, exposing residents to all that pollution, doesn't mean we have to do that here. We are starting from scratch and can change or influence how we do in town housing.

I'm all for in town living. I would love to live back in town after being evicted from my 15 year residence because the rental (to) management (mbe) company wanted more money, but I would not live in the proposed Pine Grove Square with the current high traffic and it's related health damaging pollution.

To you who are arguing it's such a great idea; would you and your children live in this proposed housing development with the high traffic moving through town and it's related pollution? I doubt it.

Sebastopol needs by pass surgery.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

'we' don't (have to live in a city) but some obviously would like to. And in a county where more miles per person are driven than almost anywhere else, a little more in-town living would be something to encourage.

---

Here's the Sonoma West's write up of the meeting:

Council, community weigh in on Pine Grove Square

Letter by Vice Mayor Patrick Slayter regarding the Pine Grove Square concept
Sent to the Sonoma West Times & News,
in part as a reply to this letter, published in the Times and News
Reprinted with permission.


It is widely known that a subcommittee of the Sebastopol City Council has been working on a concept known as Pine Grove Square, part of an exploration of the highest and best use of City-owned land located in our downtown area. The area under study is bounded by Burnett Street, Petaluma Avenue and Main Street. A subcommittee report was recently made to the entire council and the community at large. As this work has progressed, the subcommittee has relied on valuable feedback from our consultants, City staff and the residents of Sebastopol.

It appears there is misinformation and some inaccuracies in the public conversation about this project, and a recent letter (from a resident of Santa Rosa) to this publication [Sonoma West] , as well as two recent articles, serve as a useful base to present up-to-date and accurate information. The letter contained several incorrect assumptions and failed to grasp the current stage of work. This is an opportunity to share what the subcommittee has learned and dispel some fallacies floating about.

The writer indicates one of the members of the subcommittee is involved in the real estate industry. (Like this would be a bad thing? I would beg to differ.) Neither council member working on the subcommittee works in the field of real estate; one is a mediation and collaborative attorney and the other is an architect who specializes in the design of single-family residential new construction and remodels.

The writer incorrectly assumes the massing studies presented to the community and council are a final design; they are anything but. Rather, using logical assumptions for the sizes of possible spaces, they are a useful tool to see what fits on the site in order to calculate financial feasibility (which most reasonable people would agree is an important thing to calculate before charging forward unencumbered by facts). The two massing studies are in no way design, architecture or reality and to assume this validates a lack of understanding.

The writer, as well as members of the Sebastopol Downtown Association, say the possible project would eliminate parking, and this was a concern the subcommittee heard during the recent presentation as well. Rather than make assumptions or use anecdotal evidence, the subcommittee has commissioned a parking study to obtain professionally derived parking data. It is true some parking spots could be relocated and some changed in orientation, but to complain about a perceived current lack of parking and then scorn a parking study searching for solutions to a potential problem is a conundrum not easily understood. The creative thinking required to answer this question is not beyond us.

The writer decries the potential lack of parking and then derides the 103 unrestricted, publicly available new spaces located right across the street from the area under consideration (in the “CVS lot”). This parking, which is newly added downtown capacity within the past few months, is free of cost to the City and the residents of Sebastopol, with all construction and maintenance costs borne by the private owners of the parcel. Every single owner and employee of every single business in the downtown can park in this convenient lot all day, at no cost, leaving street parking and other municipal parking lots open for their customers.

The writer states “everyone” uses the existing Burnett Street parking lot and then asks who hasn’t lost time driving around looking for a parking place. A suggestion to the writer, as well as everyone else, would be to park at the curb in front of the Chamber of Commerce where there are, with very few exceptions, always several spaces available. Also, there are always completely unrestricted spaces available in the CVS lot, and the single block distance to Main Street is actually closer to many downtown destinations than the Burnett Street lot.

The writer correctly states that the extension of Willow Avenue to Petaluma Avenue is a concept under consideration. This extension could provide a significant number of parking places (rather than, as the writer stated, “eliminate up to 15 additional spaces”), allow for much improved vehicular circulation in the downtown, reduce vehicle counts at the two most congested intersections in town and provide another 230 feet of storefront space along a pedestrian-scaled block that would align with the trailhead of the Joe Rodota Trail. At this early stage of study, the ultimate cost of this work is unknowable, as is the possible funding source, but to assume it would be paid by the general fund is fallacy.

The writer believes the concept continues the process of making Sebastopol look like an “ugly SoCal-type city." If a pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined, small-scale downtown where people live, work and recreate is “SoCal-type,” then sign me up. The proximity of the site would allow for easy, walkable access to the library, the Barlow, many restaurants, Main Street retail shops, grocery stores, the hospital and many medical providers (which would only help with the writer’s “potential ulcers” and bouts of “giant heartburn”). It has been erroneously stated (in the public record by Councilmember Carnacchi) that a denser downtown will somehow lead to an increase in GHG emissions. This is thinking that induces sprawl, which Sebastopol has stated many times it wishes to fight through its Urban Growth Boundary, its support of community greenbelt separators and countless times in the newly adopted General Plan. Compact, walkable downtowns have been shown to be highly sustainable, with significant greenhouse gas benefits due to a decrease in automobile use, financially successful, popular and populated.

The writer (who is member of the Board of Directors for the Western Sonoma County Historical Society) assumes the Western County Historical Society’s boxcar will be removed and lost. It bears repeating that the concept is not developed enough to know what would happen to the boxcar. The subcommittee is certainly aware there are existing conditions which need to be responded to and respected. The West County Museum, which is on the national registry of historic places, is a gem and this project could allow for greater office, workspace and storage so the mission of the Western Sonoma County Historical Society can be enhanced. The archives contained in the boxcar are valuable, shouldn’t they be stored in an environment that is fully ADA accessibility with adequate workspace, appropriate lighting and environmental controls for the irreplaceable materials as well as for the comfort of the invaluable museum volunteers? The relocation of the train car to another prominent location is a definite possibility, and to assume it will be lost to the sands of time is a significant leap into fantasy.

The writer states he believes the West County Museum will be engulfed by potential new construction and makes assumptions that particular building materials (however fantastical and inappropriate) are already being ordered. Architectural sensitivity to the existing fabric of our downtown, and especially to the existing historic features, is of upmost importance to the subcommittee. While the zoning ordinance now allows three and four story buildings in our downtown, this absolutely doesn’t mean three and four stories everywhere. The allowance is for creative architects and designers to maximize the use and benefit of a site while responding to and respecting the existing built environment.

The writer charges the subcommittee with a lack of “one shred of respect, or even a nod of acknowledgement to the styles that are dear to most of us.” This, simply, is false. To date, there has been no discussion of style, no renderings and no architectural design. The subcommittee believes creating places for people is important; that we have a vital downtown, yet it has significant untapped potential; and, that this concept can only improve our city.

The writer discusses the existing land uses in and around the study area. Through the work of the City Council’s Housing Subcommittee (of which I am also a member), the need for additional workforce and senior housing in Sebastopol has become blindingly apparent. The financial feasibility and space massing studies state that somewhere between 50 to 70 housing units could potentially be constructed as part of Pine Grove Square. This would be a boon to our entire community, and especially to young professionals, seniors and empty nesters who are looking to rightsize their housing. The ripple effect would allow many in-town single family dwellings to become available.

The writer asks his readers to contact the City Council; I am in agreement with this request. Please contact your City Council and let them know you are in favor of a pedestrian-friendly downtown, that you are in favor of workforce and senior housing, that you are in favor of a comprehensive parking plan that addresses the true needs of businesses and patrons, that you are in favor of interesting and delightful architectural and landscape design, that you desire an sprawl-fighting optimal urban form with higher densities at the core tapering to less dense near the edges of town, that you desire mixed uses, mixed incomes, mixed ages and a more vital and alive downtown, that you prioritize humans over cars, and that you see the potential and possibilities for Sebastopol’s unique, authentic and special downtown.

You gotta love Sebastopol's politicians. First they try everything, including a losing lawsuit that cost city taxpayers more than $300,000, to stop the CVS project and now when they want to develop a city-owned parking lot they suggest folks use the nearby CVS parking lot to make their own project more feasible.
My understanding of most zoning laws is the number of parking spaces a city requires of a development are based on the type of residential/commercial uses such a development proposes. Thus the CVS project and whatever is proposed to eventually be built alongside it would have been required to include a certain number of parking spaces to accommodate those uses.
If that's so, the parking spaces set aside in the CVS project site would be needed once that project is fully developed. Zoning laws are largely to insure one project doesn't place an undue burden on adjacent developments. Slayter's suggestion that those who now use the city parking lot simply use the CVS lot that he and other council members fought like hell to stop is hilarious. Some might even say hypocritical.
Still, it's good for a laugh.

Mr. Slayter's letter is calm collected and well thought out, tugs at the Sebastopol groovy liberal heart strings and in theory sounds great, but It's B.S. The reality is, unless we redirect car traffic around or away from downtown, the proposed housing in the Hop Monk parking area will be a health nightmare. And, there is no way the downtown area will be bicycle or pedestrian friendly as long as two major highways run through town. This is an idea proposed by those who don't live downtown. Councilman Carnacchi is correct in his assessment. I suggest we listen to him.

Since parking seems to be your biggest issue, I'm guessing you live outside of town and rely on your car to get here. I live downtown, two blocks from Pine Grove and one block off that "unhealthy" highway and think its wonderful. My dear neighbor lived here for half her life and was incredibly healthy until she passed away in her mid nineties. Not bad for a life spent in a "health nightmare". People live in busy cities and towns all over the world and seem to do just fine. We've sacrificed our pedestrian and bike friendliness to cars for the past decades and it's time to reverse that mistake. Yes, we can and will make Sebastopol more pedestrian and bike friendly, and in the process it will likely become much less friendly to cars. Some of the most desirable places to be in the world are difficult to get to in cars. Something has to give, and I think sacrificing vehicular convenience is a good price to pay.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by JayS:

The reality is, unless we redirect car traffic around or away from downtown, the proposed housing in the Hop Monk parking area will be a health nightmare. And, there is no way the downtown area will be bicycle or pedestrian friendly as long as two major highways run through town.

---

Actually, I know that several of our City Council members and many of our Planning Commissioners and Design Review Board members live downtown.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by JayS:

This is an idea proposed by those who don't live downtown. Councilman Carnacchi is correct in his assessment. I suggest we listen to him.

---

I completely disagree with your low opinion of Concilman Slayter and our elected officials. I think our City government did absolutely the right thing and represented their citizens (us) well in the CVS mess. If you saw the first proposed design, you would know that what we ended up with is VASTLY superior.

And now, I think they are doing exactly what City officials everywhere should be doing ... taking proactive and creative action to address the housing issues our community faces. Our downtown is a wonderful place to live. I know, I live here and think more people should. Downtown, people can walk to grocery stores, shops and restaurants that everyone else has to drive to. Downtown, they can walk to a bus stop to catch a bus to Santa Rosa, Petaluma, or to the SMART train.

While other Cities Councils wring their hands and do nothing, ours is thinking, working and coming up with solutions. While you are complaining about traffic and parking, they are volunteering their time to try to make a positive difference. Instead of complaining, how about sharing your proposal on what do do about soaring housing costs, increasing population, traffic and parking. I think we have an obligation to build housing and the best place to do it in the center of town, close to goods and services.

Our City Council has my full support and admiration for trying to do the right thing, and I hope they will continue their excellent work.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by twodogs:

You gotta love Sebastopol's politicians. First they try everything, including a losing lawsuit that cost city taxpayers more than $300,000, to stop the CVS project and now when they want to develop a city-owned parking lot they suggest folks use the nearby CVS parking lot to make their own project more feasible.
My understanding of most zoning laws is the number of parking spaces a city requires of a development are based on the type of residential/commercial uses such a development proposes. Thus the CVS project and whatever is proposed to eventually be built alongside it would have been required to include a certain number of parking spaces to accommodate those uses.
If that's so, the parking spaces set aside in the CVS project site would be needed once that project is fully developed. Zoning laws are largely to insure one project doesn't place an undue burden on adjacent developments. Slayter's suggestion that those who now use the city parking lot simply use the CVS lot that he and other council members fought like hell to stop is hilarious. Some might even say hypocritical.
Still, it's good for a laugh.

---

In my opinion, parking is not the/my biggest issue. Fighting for parking is for whiners who can't get close to where they want to go. My issue is making this town accessible via walking or cycling and keeping cars out of down town, thus a REAL down town friendly environment. Right now down town is not friendly for cyclists or pedestrians and is not going to happen in a healthy or safe fashion as long as vehicular traffic is winding it's way through Sebastopol via two major highways. And now we have a four story hotel down town?! That's going to reduce vehicular traffic? Sure.
Regarding many of our Planning Commissioners and Design Review Board members live downtown..okay, fine. Probably not on N or S Main, or Pet Ave. Would they live in the proposed Hop Monk housing? Doubt it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

Since parking seems to be your biggest issue, ...

---

Slayter slays, but what? My experience with the guy is he can listen, only after you hit him upside the head. And he put his head out here. My prediction, and yes i have been wrong (example creeper corrillo), is this proposal is doa. Like the neighbors dont want it, and they are businesses. If it was the chamber vs everyone else it might have a chance, example cvs. But the chamber has allies, the city council stands almost alone, they will be corrected.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Letter by Vice Mayor Patrick Slayter regarding the Pine Grove Square concept
...

---

I appreciate your concern about having a friendly downtown environment for walking and biking. I spoke out publicly against the hotel and would have done the same about the CVS but I was living out of the area at the time because in my mind the cons of those projects outweighed the pros for my hometown.

If we weren't in the extreme housing crisis we are in I would probably not be in favor of this housing project, but I believe that the reality is that the crisis is so extreme that we need to take advantage of the limited opportunities to build housing where we can or many more people will be pushed out of our communities and/or end up on the streets. I would love to see this and other projects actually 100% affordable housing too.

This project will likely have added benefits that the tenants will live downtown and be able to easily walk, ride bikes, and take public to many places. The bus that goes to Santa Rosa as well as to Graton, the River and Occidental passes right by this site and of course there is the bike trail to Santa Rosa and Forestville. And yes, I regularly took those buses myself to get to the SRJC and Sonoma State and sometimes also commute on those bike trails to work.

I think given the housing crisis that is affecting so many people myself included we have to think about changing our hopes and expectations.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by JayS:

... My issue is making this town accessible via walking or cycling and keeping cars out of down town, ...

---

This article in today's Sonoma Sun while specific to the City of Sonoma highlights the seriousness of the housing crisis in Sonoma County and Sebastopol and why housing projects like this one in Sebastopol may be so important.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...3_09-20-01.png

A closer look: affordable housing
A SUN staff report — Why is there a need for more affordable housing

The simple answer is that the residents who work here in the Valley are finding it impossible to afford or even locate suitable places to live. The dominant hospitality/tourism sector provides mostly low-paying jobs at or slightly above the minimum wage. Similarly, restaurants generally offer low-paying jobs lacking significant benefits. Agricultural workers are among the lowest paid workers in Sonoma Valley, and also lack meaningful benefits.

Even teachers and health professionals, fire department personnel and mid-level professionals are finding themselves priced out of housing. About 50 percent of school district employees do not live locally, and less than that are employed in local government. Such employers find filling employment positions difficult because fairly-priced housing is so hard to find. Only 16 percent of the people who work in the City of Sonoma live in the City of Sonoma.

Continues here

Business owners in downtown Petaluma seem to think that availability of parking is directly related to their success.

Downtown Petaluma parking solution sought

Folks, when you choose to live in a growing town positioned at the nexus to two major intra-county highways east-west (Hwy 12-Bodega Avenue) and north-south (Hwy 116-Gravenstein road), and want to continue to pretend you are just a little "one-horse" farm village with one lane roads... bless you all but you are delusional.:crazysmile:

I admire wanting to keep the small town feel and look, and struggling to match that with the demands the city faces are a challenge, and I suggest that there are creative and artful ways to do so. But things will have to change... as for me, I avoid downtown whenever i can... to paraphrase Yogi "no one goes there anymore, it's too crowded"... Bless you, I hope you can come to a consensus, I will just hang out in the country and watch...
Bruce Schmidt

The problem with the city process is that it is so reminiscent of the hotel cramdown, where input was poorly noticed and fast tracked.

If you want alternatives; what happened to laguna vista? Maybe the city leaders could renegotiate that with owners, with apologies for legacy hassle, to create 300 3 story mixed income rentals and owner condos avoiding the ghetto fiasco of the top down "cohousing", low income complex next to swmc. Also there is plenty of city owned land lightly used, unlike the most popular parking lot in town. Back to swmc, the big kahuna. Chances are that the latest revivification, leasing to drugt est scam operators out of florida with the rumor of rehab (i support rehab but not this crew), will not go well. 10 acres, publicly owned. Then there is the trailer park, shut down with open space and city $, now the city wants to revive but only with more public money; limited, just need to get past weaver. i could list more if you are curious...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jerichsalud:

I appreciate your concern about having a friendly downtown environment for walking and biking. I spoke out publicly against the hotel and would have done the same about the CVS but I was living out of the area at the time because in my mind the cons of those projects outweighed the pros for my hometown. ...

---

Rossmen, I'm curious about your statement "the ghetto fiasco of the top down 'cohousing', low income complex next to swmc" [Sonoma West Medical Center]. I have a friend who lives there with her daughter who I visited a few years ago. My impression is that it was an appealing place to live. Why do you call it a "ghetto"?

I agree with Tommy. I have had friends happily living there over the years and I have been to appealing and nurturing events there. It is less expensive than some places, but still a credit to our town, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Rossmen, I'm curious about your statement "the ghetto fiasco of the top down 'cohousing', low income complex next to swmc". ...

---

Pine Grove is returning to the Sebastopol City Council next Tuesday, Jan 16th, starting at 6pm at the Sebastopol Community Center Youth Annex (Teen Center).

The parking study has been completed (and is attached). Basically, it says that parking will get tighter, but there will still be sufficient parking available.

The question at hand is: Are you willing to walk an extra block or two in order to make more affordable\work-force housing available? Plus, this project should generate extra cash flow for the City that can be used for some other public purpose.

One thing to consider, IMO, is that parking demand will go down in time, as more people use uber-style services, that are bound to get cheaper as the switch to autonomous vehicles.

Here's the report's Summary and Recommendations:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco..._15-07-22a.png

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_15-14-04.png

Come to the meeting and hear about the parking study and make your opinion known!

This is akin to talking about the horse before we even know there will be a cart.

Talking about parking - particularly when the conclusion is "Hey, no problem" - gets everybody excited. Affordable housing downtown!

The reality is that the Pine Grove mixed use development must make economic sense before the City or private interests invest in it. The return over the years must equal the investment cost (factoring in any State or Federal subsidy available for affordable housing) plus inflation, plus some profit (yeah that ugly word).

Usually deliberations and decisions about investment and future income are made by private parties. And we can see the results of such deliberations here in Sebastopol. For, oh, how many years?, no local entity bought the old car dealership; it only turned when a national chain which could afford a "losing" proposition decided to put up a single purpose store. Not buying the dealership was an economic decision.

And, if downtown Sebastopol were a "hot' location you would think higher end retail would step in and spruce up such properties as the rock store and the used clothing store in the middle of Sebastopol. And, while it is a few blocks away from central downtown Sebastopol, the retail establishments in the 500 block of S. Main St. (just south of the Walker/Main intersection) would have fared better. Still awaiting an 'economic' verdict are the new stores across from Fircrest Market.

And the Pine Grove development "shall we invest?" deliberations are going to be much more complicated , having to factor in affordable housing (the investment and rent supplement money is going to come from where?). So talking about parking, and Uber, and self-driving cars is a bit premature and runs the risk of getting people hyped up over something that may never make economic sense.

Incidentally, I think the City contract to scope out the Pine Grove project should have waited until after the new hotel is up. Sidewalk foot traffic is bound to be a major factor in future retail success, and until we see what the new hotel will bring in the way of greater foot traffic, we won't get a good picture.

The Sonoma West recently published an article about the Pine Grove Square that covers the main points.

What I found really interesting is that one of the commenters (Tony Bryhan) suggested a "sanity check" of putting up barricades around the parking lot and see how parkers and businesses feel about it. Brilliant! I think this should be publicized in advance and include information about the test and a list/map of alternative parking areas, including reminding everybody that the everybody is welcome in the CVS parking lot and the big Art Center lot is just a block and half away.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

What I found really interesting is that one of the commenters (Tony Bryhan) suggested a "sanity check" of putting up barricades around the parking lot and see how parkers and businesses feel about it. Brilliant!

---

I think that is a fantastic idea. I never understood why the City of Santa Rosa never did this as part of the studies leading up to the Courthouse Square reunification project. That is also exactly what we should do to study returning to one-way traffic through town too. Setup an inexpensive and temporary equivalent.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

...What I found really interesting is that one of the commenters (Tony Bryhan) suggested a "sanity check" of putting up barricades around the parking lot and see how parkers and businesses feel about it. ....

---

I think it's too rational an idea; it doesn't account for people's psychology. An empty parking lot, with barricades around it to prevent you from getting in, is like a beer just out of reach. It would feel like you're being taunted.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by luke32:

...The reality is that the Pine Grove mixed use development must make economic sense before the City or private interests invest in it....

---

A recent study was done and presented at the City Council in June 2017 that found that the project makes economic sense. See the report and video of the meeting here.

Housing is more critically important & needed than parking.

People will always come up with arguments against housing: basically nimby - put it someplace else. That's been going on for a very long time in California, the main reason there's a shortage of housing, and the price has gone up (supply & demand).

I'd guess that the "sanity check" barricades would do more to inflame opposition than support for Pine Grove Square. Who's going to report "oh yeah, I like less parking"? There's a long history in Sebastopol of people wanting things to stay the way they are. It will take courageous & smart leadership of the City to build Pine Grove Square.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The Sonoma West recently published an article about the Pine Grove Square that covers the main points.

What I found really interesting is that one of the commenters (Tony Bryhan) suggested a "sanity check" of putting up barricades around the parking lot and see how parkers and businesses feel about it. Brilliant! I think this should be publicized in advance and include information about the test and a list/map of alternative parking areas, including reminding everybody that the everybody is welcome in the CVS parking lot and the big Art Center lot is just a block and half away.

---

The Pine Grove Square parking study was presented last night at the city council. While the study concluded there would be sufficient parking of the large public lot near Hopmonk were to be converted into mixed use workforce house development, the public comment was nearly 100% the opposite, saying there would be insufficient parking without that lot.

The Sonoma West article is here: "Citizens pack council meeting on Pine Grove Square parking"

And the video of the meeting is here, with the parking study topic starting at the 14:45 mark.

For those who enjoy semantic differences between a "concept" and a "project" and deciphering what a "walkshed" is, this is the Sonoma West story on the meeting:

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/wacco...7_17-25-20.png
Citizens pack council meeting on Pine Grove Square parking

I just think this is a bad plan. There isn't a need for such density.

There's equally as good spots that can be developed elsewhere in the city. What about the old concrete plant, or the space behind the feed store. How about the (now failed?) plans to redevelop the propane store into apartments? Instead people are actively arguing about taking away public parking, and shoehorning apartments above an established entertainment venue (You're telling me YOU want to live above a bar with outdoor live music?).

Seems like a lot of wasted public money and time for someone's development convenience.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

...There's equally as good spots that can be developed elsewhere in the city. ...

Seems like a lot of wasted public money and time for someone's development convenience.

---

It may well turn out to be a lot of wasted public money. As for "someone's development convenience" the whole point of Pine Grove Square was that it was city-owned land. They could take the initiative and play developer to cause a project they'd want to see be implemented there (such as workforce housing).

Any of the other sites are privately owned. They only control that the city has is via zoning, which is not insignificant, but they are wholly dependants on the whims of the owner.

A few thoughts on Pine Grove Square:

1. This shouldn't be an "or" proposition (housing or parking). I think there is an "and" solution (housing and parking). If you look around downtown, there are quite a few under-utilized pieces of property, so I think we can have both parking and additional housing. The City needs to re-establish a downtown parking district and start collecting in-lieu-of fees from developers that they then use to add to our City owned parking stock.

2. Like it or not, the population of Sonoma County is going up. I feel strongly that if the towns of Sonoma County do not add housing at their cores, there will be increased pressure to develop in the open spaces between towns (urban sprawl). I know there is a large group of people who want the town to remain how it was when they first moved here, but that's not realistic. You can't step into the same river twice and the same goes for a town. Things change. The goal is to chose the right change.

3. If we don't add some more affordable housing in town, then Sebastopol will only get more and more expensive and exclusive.

4. As a town, I think we need to chose housing people over housing cars. The more people we have living downtown, the less we will need outside money arriving by car.

5. I am surprised that so many downtown merchants oppose housing on this property. I think this is very short sighted. Pine Grove Square could add 50-60 units or 100-150 people downtown. If you are downtown merchant, those are 100-150 people who can regularly walk to your business and become your regular customers. They might have dinner, get coffee, buy a bagel, cookies or buy books and art supplies multiple times a month. Why would you chose occasional visitors over 100+ potential regular customers?

6. Many say they oppose housing due to the proximity to traffic and Hop Monk (noise). When I was younger, I enjoyed living in loud, lively places. Just because you say you don't want to live there doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't love to.

7. I think it's great that our City leaders are taking a creative and pro-active approach and really trying to address the housing issues of our community. If people on this thread have better ideas, let's hear them!

Cheers!

Ted

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

I just think this is a bad plan. There isn't a need for such density.

---

oh yeah there is. It's impossible to argue that there's enough housing in the area - and there's nothing unique about this area in that way. There's not enough housing for people. This is too much like the arguments that we can't afford health care. The alternative is people who go without. If housing isn't built, people go without. We all see it.
With the need so great, it's hard to argue against any plausible plan. The cliche of the perfect being the enemy of the good needs to be broadened -- 'good' is the enemy of 'acceptable'. Some housing plans are pretty awful and must be stopped, but the bar for that needs to keep getting raised until some progress is made.
This plan is not at all awful. Inconvenienced by a debatable lack of parking??? not enough reason to stop it.

Thank you for you thoughtful response!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

A few thoughts on Pine Grove Square:...

---

But... their isn't.
I'm not against new housing. I'm against it being crammed downtown, when lots in walking distance remain empty.
I listed 3 in my post above that I believe are both eyesores and should be addressed before we bother with projects like this. Why are we wasting money on the study at all?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

oh yeah there is. It's impossible to argue that there's enough housing in the area....

---

considering the other lots are privately owned, how would you propose they become housing?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

But... their isn't.
I'm not against new housing. I'm against it being crammed downtown, when lots in walking distance remain empty.
I listed 3 in my post above that I believe are both eyesores and should be addressed before we bother with projects like this. Why are we wasting money on the study at all?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

But... their isn't.
I'm not against new housing. I'm against it being crammed downtown, when lots in walking distance remain empty.
I listed 3 in my post above that I believe are both eyesores and should be addressed before we bother with projects like this. Why are we wasting money on the study at all?

---

the part of my post you didn't quote points out that just because better solutions exist doesn't mean we should use them to reject the one that's offered. They're not exclusive - I'd like the eyesores turned into housing or to other beneficial uses too. But that's not the choice that's available.

They are all for sale.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mrs. Wacco:

considering the other lots are privately owned, how would you propose they become housing?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

They are all for sale.

---

So what do you think should happen? Do you think the city should start buying private land/properties for commercial development?

gratitude is not enough for your well thought out points. i have been thinking many of the same things, and grateful that you have voiced them for me in such a well thought out way.

i believe we can all find parking, and walk a little further. cvs is underused. we may need additional spaces, but no need for the parking to be in this location.

i was saddened that so many people spoke against this plan.
i agree this should go ahead, with some additional parking added, and that parking can be "somewhere else".
the only time we need next door parking is when we are loading and unloading heavy equipment/items (what 10-15 min zones are made for), or in the case of the feed store a loading zone, or for people with disabilities who need to be close to a venue.
i am saddened by so many who seem to want housing, but are not willing to change the status quo.
hop monk will be just fine with housing near by.
and most of us can walk a little further, or use parking accommodations.
i am disturbed by sebastopolians and west county residents who want more housing and affordable housing, yet don't want any changes to make this possible.
let's move on to other parking options. much easier than housing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 1104GT:

A few thoughts on Pine Grove Square:

1. This shouldn't be an "or" proposition (housing or parking). I think there is an "and" solution ...

2. Like it or not, the population of Sonoma County is going up. ...

3. If we don't add some more affordable housing in town, then Sebastopol will only get more and more expensive and exclusive.

4. As a town, I think we need to choose housing people over housing cars. ...

5. ...Pine Grove Square could add 50-60 units or 100-150 people downtown...

6. ...Just because you say you don't want to live [next to hopmonk] doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't love to.

7. I think it's great that our City leaders are taking a creative and pro-active approach and really trying to address the housing issues of our community. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

So what do you think should happen? Do you think the city should start buying private land/properties for commercial development?

---

So this is a suggestion that our city get into the housing business?
Because unless the city is building the project and operating it, there's no difference. They should just sell the land. Like those other 3 plots for sale.

Instead, we're wasting 30 THOUSAND dollars on a piece of worthless paper saying if we should do it or not.

So let's follow this logic....if the City sells the property, then the City is not in control of the property anymore and someone will take parking away to build something-no one buys real estate to do nothing. So what's the benefit to the community if the City sells the lot?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

So this is a suggestion that our city get into the housing business?
Because unless the city is building the project and operating it, there's no difference. They should just sell the land. Like those other 3 plots for sale.

Instead, we're wasting 30 THOUSAND dollars on a piece of worthless paper saying if we should do it or not.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mrs. Wacco:

...So let's follow this logic....if the City sells the property, then the City is not in control of the property anymore and someone will take parking away to build something-no one buys real estate to do nothing. So what's the benefit to the community if the City sells the lot?

---

How about the city publicly stating it's willing to sell it to a developer who does the paperwork and studies themselves? Why are we paying for this? I much rather pay to verify a developer's plan than waste money on what we "could" be doing.

So if I understand you correctly, what you object to is that the City spent money, not that parking is displaced. You're OK with parking being lost if its an outside developer but not the City. Please clarify.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

How about the city publicly stating it's willing to sell it to a developer who does the paperwork and studies themselves? Why are we paying for this? I much rather pay to verify a developer's plan than waste money on what we "could" be doing.

---

The city paid for and helped design the parking study so the development concepts will be more attractive to a developer. The city is looking for a private partner and trying to make the investment less risky by prerunning the approval process for a certain type of development.

Visionary, proactive, ambitious, risky, pushy, pick your adjective according to how you like the concepts of four story infill housing with ground floor retail instead of parking in the center of town. The council's agenda definitely affected the integrity of the parking study, existing businesses have valid concerns and it probably would kill the hopmonk as a live music venue.

The pgs concepts are a fundamental redesign of sebtowns core, with many consequences some of which no one will see...

Think it is disingenuous to say it will kill the hop monk as a music venue. i have no trouble parking and walking a block, or two, or three to visit or see something i want to see.
since parking is easy in Sebastopol, the examples of how people go places and walk, are limited to events like the apple blossom parade, or the 4th of july fireworks.
i work to avoid the 5 minutes of slow traffic in the last few blocks of hwy 12, the delay doesn't stop me from meeting at coffee catz or go to santa rosa.
as a native san franciscan, who has lived here for over 20 years, i know that music lovers have no trouble walking a block or two or three, looking for parking. we also know how to go places in a group.
the shows that sell out at hopmonk will still sell out. if i want to go to an open mike parking and walking is a fine option.
i believe that parking should be a net zero, or a small loss. regardless, my legs work in rain and sun, and my love for music, food, or seeking beauty is not determined by parking.
don't believe that local businesses, including hop monk, are counting on people who can have front door parking.
when i go to the post office and run another errand, i regularly walk 3 blocks as opposed to getting in my car and driving and parking again.
i believe as lovers of the planet and exercise, and "good things", we will find our way, we are not talking about significant road blocks.
parking does make a difference when i shop for groceries. happy to park anywhere that a grocery cart will go.
don't think i am a rare bird.

Quote:

---

So if I understand you correctly, what you object to is that the City spent money, not that parking is displaced. You're OK with parking being lost if its an outside developer but not the City. Please clarify

---

I actually don't care about the parking. I live less than 2 blocks away and am not in need of parking. I care about the open space in the city, the trees on the plot, the museum, and a pleasant walk to the post office I regularly take through this space. However, I realize my opinions are not the only that matter when it comes to the property.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

The city paid for and helped design the parking study so the development concepts will be more attractive to a developer. [...]

---

You should have stopped there. You honestly think the city would have ANY issue finding a developer? No.
This is how politicians get in trouble for handing projects to friends.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Icssoma:

Think it is disingenuous to say it will kill the hop monk as a music venue. i have no trouble parking and walking a block, or two, or three to visit or see something i want to see....

---

Maybe NOT everyone can walk or jog as conveniently as You? !

I have had difficulty finding parking several times during the day, both in the current parking lot, and along the streets surrounding that area. Walking is great, unless you have physical limitations that make walking challenging. So I appreciate parking that is close to the businesses I need to go to. If there's no close parking, I don't shop.

i believe we have handicap parking spaces for those who are not able to walk short distances. last sunday i was at hop monk (there was a benefit/event), and i went past 3 such spaces to park by cvs (where there were more spaces for people with disabilities).
when i have not been able to walk distances (surgery/broken bones), i have been dropped off near the event and my friend has parked the car.
i have done the same for family members who are unable to walk a block.
that's what friends & handicapped parking spaces are for--and then their are walkers, and mechanized walkers....
(i have a funky right foot, so my jogging days are behind me).

There are some assumptions here: that everyone with physical challenges has a handicap placard; that there are always open parking spaces; that everyone has friends available and able to drop them off, etc. Also I've read about the available parking at CVS. I didn't support that CVS going into that location, and I don't shop there, so I won't be using their parking spaces. I spent one day about 3 weeks ago trying to find parking in that downtown area, including all the streets, the parking by WF and their lot. I finally thought to try the parking lot in front on Community Market. No parking available in the front of that huge building, and none in the back of it, and none on any of those streets in that area. Really, I tried everywhere for about 20-30 minutes. I finally gave up and went home. Yes, on other days I don't have that problem, but on many while not as bad as that one day, it's been a problem for me. Those are my experiences, so thanks for listening.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Icssoma:

i believe we have handicap parking spaces for those who are not able to walk short distances....

---

good to know. i have never had a challenging parking experience in Sebastopol. (outside of major events when i expected difficulties and was able to plan for parking. i opposed cvs. i understand that 1/2 of that parking is for the public, & part of the "deal" (to make something we were forced to have a touch more palatable. given that, i would encourage you to use those spaces. others who were more involved in the CVS final deal have posted about a good portion of that parking being public.)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cw707:

There are some assumptions here: that everyone with physical challenges has a handicap placard;...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cw707:

... Also I've read about the available parking at CVS. I didn't support that CVS going into that location, and I don't shop there, so I won't be using their parking spaces. ...

---

:hearye:

ALL PARKING SPACES AT CVS
ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE!

:waccosun::waccosun::waccosun:

This was a condition of their approval that they agreed to.
You should have no compunction about parking there and not shopping there.
You should consider it a public lot.