NorthEast Plan Comments Workshop #3: Draft Specific Plan

[Kenyon Webster]

There will be a community meeting on the draft Northeast Plan and draft EIR tonight (September 6) at 7pm at the Veteran's building in Sebastopol.

The City's consultants will highlight key elements of the Plan and EIR and then facilitate audience questions/discussion.

On September 18 at 7pm at the Community Center, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the draft EIR.

For more information, see the City web site: https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/plan...html#northeast

-Kenyon Webster

[here's some more information - Barry]

The draft Northeast Area Specific Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are now available. Copies of each document may be purchased for $10 at the Planning Department office and may also be reviewed at the Sebastopol Branch Library.

The review and adoption process will include the opportunity to comment on the EIR, a public workshop, discussion of the draft Plan by the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and Business Outreach Committee, preparation of the Final EIR, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The draft EIR is subject to a 45-day public review period. Comments will be due at the City Planning Department by or before 5:00 p.m. October 2, 2007.

This phase of the planning process will kick off with a public workshop to present the draft Plan and EIR will be conducted by the project consultants on September 6, 2007 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Veteran’s building, 282 High Street Sebastopol. There will be an opportunity for the public to comment on the draft EIR at a City Council meeting on September 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Sebastopol Community Center, 390 Morris Street, Sebastopol.

After the close of the review period for the draft EIR, a Final EIR will be prepared, following which public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council will occur, with the EIR and Plan ultimately subject to approval by the City Council. This process is expected to go into 2008. See the Planning Department page of the City web site for more information.

[Kenyon Webster]

We had a good community workshop on the Northeast Plan on Thursday last week.

Here are links to the DC&E presentation on the Planning Department page of the City web site https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/pdfs/planning/Community%20Workshop%2009-06-07.pdf

and to a SmartCode presentation https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/pdfs/planning/SmartCode%2009-06-07.pdf

We expect to post notes from the meeting later this week on the City web site.

The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Northeast Plan draft EIR on September 18.

The Design Review Board will review the draft Plan and provide comments on September 19, and the Planning Commission will do the same on September 25. While these are not public hearings, there will be a public comment segment to both meetings following the consultant presentation and Board/Commission discussion.

-Kenyon Webster, Planning Director

[Kenyon Webster]

Below is a summary of comments from the September 6, 2007 community meeting on the Northeast Area Specific Plan.

-Kenyon Webster, Sebastopol Planning Director

Northeast Area Specific Plan


Comments Workshop #3: Draft Specific Plan


September 6, 2007

David Early of DC&E convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m., welcoming attendees to the City workshop to present and discuss the draft Specific Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He reviewed the meeting agenda and discussed the Plan and EIR in conjunction with a PowerPoint presentation, including the following major areas of discussion:





Ø It has been nearly a year since the last public meeting on the Plan. In the interim, work was conducted on the Plan and EIR. A determination that a Water Supply Assessment should be prepared delayed completion of the drafts.


Ø The Northeast Plan area and public process to date, including a number of community meetings, was described.


Ø Key components for review are the draft Plan and the draft EIR. A final EIR will be prepared after the close of the public comment period, after which the Planning Commission and City Council will conduct public hearings and act on the EIR and Plan.


Ø Key contents of the draft Plan were described.


Ø The vision statement for the Plan was presented.


Ø Major plan concepts were presented.


Ø Key issues were discussed.


Ø The proposed SmartCode was described, including unique elements of the Sebastopol SmartCode.


Ø Potential unmitigatable traffic impacts were discussed with the note that most of the intersections will have a low level of service with or without the Plan.


Ø Proposed amendments to the General Plan were discussed.


Ø The review process was summarized, which will include a Council hearing on the EIR on September 18, a Design Review Board meeting on September 19, and a Planning Commission meeting on September 25. It is anticipated the three boards will provide broad comments that will shape the next draft of the Plan. After the Final EIR is prepared, the formal hearing process will commence at the Planning Commission, followed by hearings by the City Council.

Summary of Public Questions and Comments

1. Density and number of residential units
¨ Growth Management Ordinance: how does the Northeast Area have a separate GMO? How do you determine adequacy of infrastructure for new development in the NE area?
¨ What does 300 dwelling units look like in square footage?
¨ 300 units is not dense enough for financial feasibility.
¨ Densification can allow walkability, bikeability, smaller carbon footprint, can conserve resources overall, reduces infrastructure costs. Creates community.

2. Bicycles and Transit
¨ Need safe bicycle network in addition to pedestrian network. Need bike lanes (not just bike racks).
¨ The General Plan says to include bike lanes. Must do this in the Northeast Area. It is not realistic to say that bikes can ride in traffic lanes for cars.
¨ Bikes take up less space and cost less than cars.
¨ Apply the SmartCode to bicycle needs.
¨ Would like to see a bicycle overlay – where bike and streets meet.
¨ It is plausible to create roads that are bikeable. Balance bike paths and shared road concepts.
¨ Need public transportation. Public transit is primary.

3. Pedestrian Facilities and Street Trees
¨ Design some streets so they can be pedestrian-only at times.
¨ Like the new crossings at Post Office and Plaza, good examples for pedestrian design.
¨ Like the number of street trees in the Plan. Consider native trees.

4. Automobile Traffic and Parking
¨ Additional vehicle trips and traffic congestion are not inevitable. Need to decrease traffic. Envision something better.
¨ How does the parking under the podium, with mixed-use above, work?
¨ Too many cars assumed.
¨ Peak oil may affect future car use.

5. Safety and Accessibility
¨ The existing Town Plaza is not a safe place (because of cars, traffic).
¨ Crosswalks work for safety.
¨ How will increased traffic affect children’s’ safety?
¨ How will street grading, use of podia, affect public safety?
¨ How does the SmartCode address accessibility, especially to dwelling units? Add a policy?

6. Environmental
¨ We don’t have to do any of this. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was appalling. We don’t know if we have enough water, and other communities were not taken into account. We need to give a lot of land back to the Laguna. Don’t see how this Plan heals the Laguna; will probably increase Laguna pollution.
¨ The water balance must be addressed (in other communities too). Eco-credits/incentivize for affordable housing, environmental approaches, etc. Let’s continue this dialogue.
¨ Thanks for incorporating most of the concepts discussed in the previous meetings promoting environmental sustainability. However, need to do more to enhance and beautify the Laguna, such as taking out existing development east of Morris Street. Use development to heal the Laguna.
¨ The transition from downtown to Laguna is an important outdoor experience.
¨ Need more integration with Laguna.
¨ To what extent has peak oil been taken into account in the Plan?
¨ What about including alternative energy in the Plan?
¨ The Plan proposes to change previous uses to housing. Currently, when the area floods, people are not there. Uses in flood plain area should be compatible – people shouldn’t be living there. Respect the flood level. At-grade parking under development would need cleaning after a flood.
¨ Need “living machines.”

7. Economics and Use
¨ Should embrace the expansion of downtown that the Plan proposes.
¨ We have a town—don’t need the ‘town-ness’ discussed by the consultants.
¨ There is a natural vibrancy in Sebastopol. Wants mixed-use everywhere. Don’t forget about light industrial – opportunity for economic development.
¨ This Plan is such an improvement over what’s there now. Shocked that people would want to keep the area as it is.
¨ Want responsible urban development.
¨ Want more retail so don’t have to go into Santa Rosa. Why will it take 15 to 20 years?
¨ Use leverage to create what we want – such as bonuses. Eg: make half of 4th story be public use. How can we punch up the bonuses – to increase density and do what Sebastopol really wants? Be innovative about resource use.
¨ Change is difficult. Change is inevitable. Either manage it or it may not be what the community wants.
¨ Major property owners in the area, Ben Welborn and Barney Aldridge have a viable set of buildings now and to tear down and redevelop takes funding and taking that step must be justified from an economic feasibility standpoint. Need to talk about money – it should not be a taboo subject.
¨ Much of the area is not vacant, has viable uses on it, so has to be incentive to redevelop. Floodplain development costs are expensive.
¨ There is a lot of pressure for change in the central area. It is successful right now and some businesses need to be in the area, with more affordable rents. Must recognize financial realities too.
¨ Concern that development will occur in one large chunk with only one architectural vision.
¨ Improvements (parks, streetscape features) require money (tax revenue).
¨ Remember that cleaning the parking under podium after flooding will cost.
¨ “Is it good for the children?” should be the bottom line.
¨ Want to see Sebastopol develop and improve.
¨ Amazing that people say economics don’t matter. Amenities cost money. City has lost Ford, Basso, Antique Mall. Either increase taxes or expand the base by leveraging private development.
¨ Economics matter.

8. Civic
¨ Is there enough square footage in the civic building for civic uses?
¨ Civic Center – would like to hear more about it – the Repertory Theater would love to be there. The theater needs more space, and town needs an arts center.
¨ I love the way the town is now. Don’t like the idea of large buildings and traffic congestion. Most people in Sebastopol have no idea how large this project is.
¨ The current library location is good, and the library should stay there.

9. Building Height, Urban Design and Architecture
¨ Concern with T5 and buildings over three stories tall. A better balance between T4 and T5 is needed – 50/50 or switch percentages. Concern about the view over the Northeast Area from outside the area and the potential to look down onto tall buildings from areas to the west.
¨ Don’t need tall buildings. Buildings over three stories like in Europe are not comfortable.
¨ What will this look like? We don’t have to look to the past for architecture, as is being done elsewhere. Architecture should reflect cutting edge technology, not the past.
¨ Morris Street looks worse in the Plan – like the edge of the Plan drops off at Morris Street. Want to see more integration with the Laguna.

10. Process
¨ Applaud the process to date and the many people who have participated.
¨ Done a great job getting whole spectrum of input.
¨ Concern that many people have not participated.
¨ Concern that many people have taken the time to participate, and their input should be valued.
¨ Continue respectful dialog.
¨ Concerned about hostility to the process and distrust. Should put trust in City leaders to make the right decisions. Believe in the process.
¨ Should there be a separate meeting with property owners Ben Welborn and Barney Aldridge for discussion of their comments, concerns and concepts? We need education about the economic process and what pencils out.
¨ Keep the two processes (Specific Plan and private development project) separate so the community decides what they want first.
¨ How can the potential that future development proposals may not fully match the Plan be addressed?
¨ Would like to see Sebastopol grow in a vital way. Retail vibrancy, walkability, bikability.

Consultant Comments

In the course of the public comments and discussion, the consultant team provided various responses, summarized below.

¨ Infrastructure capacity to serve planned development was analyzed in the EIR and determined to be adequate.
¨ The street design is intended to safely accommodate integrated bicycle use. The Plan has an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility.
¨ Planned automobile parking is designed as an adjunct use, and not as a centerpiece of the Plan.
¨ There are demanding existing standards for accessibility to which Northeast development would have to comply. Additional policies could be considered.
¨ The design and density of planned development will facilitate transit use.
¨ The identified civic building is intended to accommodate likely civic uses rather than all possible civic uses. Provision of civic uses is substantially dependent upon the civic organizations themselves and their financial resources.
¨ While it is correct that some persons may not have been aware of or chosen to participate in the Northeast process, many persons have participated and provided their input and that should be valued.
¨ The library has indicated that their present facility is not adequate, and is interested in a new, larger building, including the possibility of a Northeast location.
¨ Upper stories of buildings could be set back to reduce potential visual impacts.
¨ Suggestions or comments on the proposed incentives for developers are welcome.
¨ While the Plan assumes implementation over 15-20 years, it is possible that the bulk of development could happen in 5-10 years.
¨ As to architecture, the Plan and SmartCode do not dictate a particular architectural style, or the use of historical styles. There is considerable flexibility on how to approach this issue.
¨ The intent of the SmartCode is to code for what the community wants.
¨ Recommend against initiating a separate set of meetings with major landowners which could adversely affect Plan adoption; should work out the broad policy issues in the City process. If future development applicants feel deviations from the Plan are appropriate or needed, the SmartCode warrant/exception process can be used, or a Plan amendment can be proposed.