Across from Taylor Maid. Who's doing that ?
Printable View
Across from Taylor Maid. Who's doing that ?
The new 60 room Barlow Hotel Proposal was submitted by Peter Stanley with ArchiLOGIX.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by JimmyL:
It is at a different location than the previous Barlow Hotel proposal.
This will be discussed at the Tuesday, September 12th, Planning Commission Meeting
7pm at the Sebastopol Community Center Youth Annex, 425 Morris Street.
More info about that meeting is here.
The site is across from Taylor Maid:
A 4 story building is being proposed:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:The new 60 room Barlow Hotel Proposal was submitted by Peter Stanley with ArchiLOGIX.
It is at a different location than the previous Barlow Hotel proposal.
This will be discussed at the Tuesday, September 12th, Planning Commission Meeting
7pm at the Sebastopol Community Center Youth Annex, 425 Morris Street.
More info about that meeting is here.
The site is across from Taylor Maid:
Full staff report is here.
Posted in reply to the post by KWinter:
The Barlow had received approval for a hotel at a different location within the Barlow (that is now in use by new tenants). So I believe this will be essentially treated as a new project, but there may be some approvals that carry over.
There should be a presentation by the developer at Tuesday's Preliminary Review at the Planning Commission's meeting. There should also be time for public comment. The project will require a re-zoning. See the staff report for more details.
Posted in reply to the post by jesswolfe:
Interestingly, the Barlow was planned for housing back in 2006 -- "At the time, the city wanted to bulldoze all the old buildings and rebuild the center of Sebastopol around 300 new housing units and 100,000 square feet of retail,” https://www.northbaybiz.com/General_Articles/General_Articles/Reinventing_the_Barlow.php
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jerichsalud:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jerichsalud:
It's well documented that that one of the principle forces driving up the cost of housing in CA is all the opposition to any new housing proposed. The result is a continued shortage of housing, which drives the price up.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Magick:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
This research might be of interest: UC Berkeley researches found through their research on Bay Area housing that among other things, "both market-rate and subsidized housing development can reduce displacement pressures, but subsidized housing is twice as effective as market-rate development at the regional level."
Seems like a good reason to prioritize affordable housing and especially in the midst of this unprecedented housing crisis.
Jacob
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Magick:
We wanted to guide development in a different direction, one that would be a higher density, pedestrian oriented mix of residential and retail, similar to Windsor's new downtown or Petaluma's Theater District.
The Northeast Area Plan for the area now mostly occupied by The Barlow called for 300 units of new housing, 20% of which would be affordable to low income families. The housing would have been in the upper stories of buildings occupied by retail and commercial businesses on the ground floor. All new construction, including streets and sidewalks, would have been on a platform raised above the 100 year flood level, with parking below.
It would have provided Sebastopol an extension of our downtown with a public plaza not surrounded by a state highway. McKinley Street would have been a pedestrian lane. In exchange for allowing a fourth story on certain buildings, we would have been able to negotiate a designated space for a new public library. All new construction would have been required to have either living roof systems or solar roofs.
The plan was developed over a four year period with participation by several hundred residents and supported by both environmentalists and the business community. In 2008 a group of people who were opposed to any new residential development organized a campaign to stop its formal adoption. Their argument was that it was "too big", that it would create unbearable traffic jams and that it would destroy Sebastopol's small town character.
This group succeeded in electing a council majority which rejected the plan in March of 2008. That majority, Sarah Gurney, Guy Wilson and Linda Kelley essentially voted for The Barlow as the preferred alternative to more housing. Sebastopol will have to live with the consequences of this decision for many years to come.
Posted in reply to the post by Magick:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tommy:
I always feel more secure when a woman stipulates things without documentation.:duel:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Magick:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:
Posted in reply to the post by Magick:
I would argue that this demographic shift with shrinking middle and low income residents is in large part due to the housing crisis and the limited increase in affordable housing stock in the last decade, especially since we lost redevelopment agency funds. I would also like to point out that in contrast to what Tommy suggests, all housing is not equal. UC Berkeley researchers found that in the Bay Area there are important differences in the impact of affordability between market rate and subsidized housing. According to their research--
"The development of market-ratehousing may not be the most effective tool to prevent thedisplacement of low-income residents from their neighborhoods, nor to increase affordability at the neighborhoodscale. Through our analysis, we found that both market-rateand subsidized housing development can reduce displacement pressures, but subsidized housing is twice as effectiveas market-rate development at the regional level."
I think the difference in this impact really between market rate and subsidized housing is significant especially in the light of the article by the PD showing the significant demographic shift in Sonoma County in the last decade if we value diverse and inclusive communities. I also wonder if there is a way that there might be an opportunity for a new proposal for housing for the Barlow? I'd love to see a higher percentage than 20% of the units be affordable/subsidized (can anyone tell me if there is a difference between affordable and subsidized?).
We will be voting on a statewide housing bond in 2018 that will be helpful but insufficient to address the crisis and there has been discussion of a Sonoma County Housing bond similar to what was passed in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties in 2016. I believe funding is the biggest impediment to creating more affordable/subsidized
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:
Affordable housing requires public or private subsidies, provided to the developer, so that it can be sold or rented at a reduced rate … making it affordable & subsidized. Otherwise, it'd be market rate. Most of the affordable rental & sweat equity owner occupied housing developed by Burbank Housing in Santa Rosa is subsidized by this kind of funding.
Private investors receive tax breaks for investments in affordable housing projects. Public funds are often 50 year loans without interest payments due, & forgiven at end end of 50 yrs. Both reduce the end cost of the new housing.
There are various statewide wide housing measures being considered.
Reading Larry's comments about the 300 units is an example of why there is a shortage of housing in CA & why it's expensive. The laws of economics, of supply & demand, are hard to refute.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jerichsalud:
I think Tommy's distinction between the two terms is more from the owners' point of view and mine is from the tenants'.
Posted in reply to the post by Magick:
Posted in reply to the post by Magick:
You irrationally oppose housing that would relieve the housing problem. Then when someone points out your irrational opposition, you man-shame him.
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
One factor seldom discussed iin relation to rentals is the marijuana industry. Legality is rocking this market as I write. Last year's outdoor $400lb. The crop coming in $600lb. Litedep $1000lb. Farm business plans with investors at $100lb. Indoor is dead.
What this means is more rentals available. I don't think rents will drop in soco, probably just stabilize, up north yes. A big part of alternative economy busted flat with many, including lots of families struggling for livelihood.
Thanks.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Posted in reply to the post by luke32:
I presume this means that last years outdoor grown marijuana sells for $400 a pound. However, that sounds too cheap to me. Maybe that's a clearance price? I must have missed the sale announcement :wink:
>> The crop coming in $600lb.
Likewise.
>> Litedep $1000lb.
I'm guessing this means light - dependent, aka, indoor grown.??
>> Farm business plans with investors at $100lb. Indoor is dead....What this means is more rentals available.
Again the price seems off, but the point that outdoor is much cheaper than indoor is clear, and that will put a lot of indoor growers out of business, and free up the houses that they used.
>> A big part of alternative economy busted flat with many, including lots of families struggling for livelihood.
I think this is under-appreciated part of cannabis legalization. For better or worse, lots of people profited off cannabis prohibition. Many illicit growers/distributors will not be able to make the leap to legality. This will cause a painful dislocation.
Ross, care to elucidate further?
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
but the new farms can do it for $100 lb.
and would also like to hear more
Mark
Commentary: Healdsburgification or Bust? Do we get a choice?
We recently learned that another hotel has applied to locate at the Barlow. This one is adjacent to the one already approved there. The application is for 60 rooms, an increased height of eight feet above the 50-foot allowed by the new General Plan and no parking.
My issues are not with the parking per se. I do think The Barlow currently has too much parking, but, at this rate, that won’t last long.
I love our newly approved hotel. I helped develop the public workshop that ultimately brought us the Healdsburg hotelier application. But, shouldn’t we be able to exert some control as a community about how many hotels are in our future? One hotel seemed a good addition to our community. How many are enough? Three? Four? Ask the good people of Healdsburg and Sonoma what they think of their plethora of hotels and wineries.
What about the desperately needed housing that our city council has been frantically discussing? Are we to just let our precious downtown develop on a first-come, first-served basis? Why would we give away all of our extra Barlow parking to a private company instead of reserving it for the affordable housing components of any housing application?
We need a strategy to ensure that the amount of downtown housing is well-planned before we give away all our land for hotels. This will allow us to understand the consequences of not having made a conscious decision to allow seniors, families, lower income people and all others to live in our downtown. These downtown neighbors are the critical building blocks in a healthy and vibrant downtown.
We need diverse-income housing in our downtown, rich, poor and in between. That is how we can ensure that the awesome folks who work in our restaurants and retail shops have a local place to call home and perhaps won’t need a car.
After all, adding the expense of a car to rent payments and health insurance is the fastest way to slide from middle class to working poor and even into homelessness. Diverse income housing ensures that we live around people who are not identical to us. Imagine people of different economic strata being neighbors. That’s how it used to be in the United States before we free-marketed our way into an endless sea of single income neighborhoods further and further away from services — isolating us, requiring everyone to own a car and bankrupting our communities with infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain.
I understand that Sebastopol is destined to become the next Healdsburg, replete with trendy hotels and bike-riding, wine-sipping vacationers, but, do we have to just stand by and watch? Can’t we save some of our precious downtown real estate to provide some affordable housing mixed with other housing types for our community that is desperately struggling for housing?
What can we do? Mayor Glass held a special series of meetings to address the emergency of housing in our community. They even had a brief moratorium on rent increases. Clearly, the Council is worried. Call them. Attend a hearing now and tell our city leaders not to give away all our precious land to hotels and wineries. We need to reserve downtown land for housing at all income levels. It’s called planning and it is possible to revise our codes to match our desired future. Now is the time.
Marsha Sue Lustig is a Sebastopol resident.
Link to article
I don't think any should be built besides the one at the tractor property. That one needs to be built, digested, and evaluated before any more hotels are built. Adding more hotels will degrade the environment of Sebastopol. Sebastopol is a beautiful & unique town … whose essence could easily be sold out to tourism.
There's no shortage of money & greed that would be happy to degrade our town for a buck. More housing needs to be built instead of new hotels.
Why do I, a self described pot addict track this so Closely? As an anarcofeministanimist former smoker I am fascinated and curious. As a current landowner who rents homes, both tolerant and understanding of peoples process, I see a lot. And I smell even more.
Think of the industry in classic economic terms, demand and supply. Demand is steady, this powerful plant has been readily available for all the decades of my adult life, inexpensive at $4000 or $400lb. Supply? Highly elastic, it's weed, an annual plant, more potent with more grow support every year. Consistent demand + increased supply( due to legal change) = price drop. Far lower and quicker than anyone's expectations. Time to move on. And yes, concerns about the current industry are moot, as of yesterday.