North East Area Plan Discussion

[ywv]

It is great to read the lively discussion here on the WACCO bulletin board, just wanted to let all interested parties know that the city council is still taking written testimony. If you have not directly shared your concerns, support or opinions on the North East Area Plan now is the time. You emails should be sent to all city council members and staff so they are all working with the same information. Emails and snail mail addresses are listed below:

Linda Kelley [email protected];
Sarah Gurney [email protected];
Larry Robinson ([email protected])
Craig Litwin ([email protected])
David Brennan ([email protected])
Kenyon Webster ([email protected])
Susan E. Kelly ([email protected])
or
City of Sebastopol City Hall
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472

[Magick]

The Public hearing is still open! We can still speak to the Council and the community about the Northeast plan, as well as submit written comments.

300 people showed up for the City Council meeting on May 20th!!!

Dear Community, Due to the tremendous amount of interest and concerns about the Northeast plan, the public hearing will be continued at the June 3rd City Council meeting at 7pm at the Community Center on Morris St. Everyone is invited to come and speak for up to 5 minutes about their response to the proposed Northeast plan.

As usual the public was articulate, well-informed and determined to protect the town we all love from developers who want to maximize profit, while sacrificing our small town character.

No one spoke in support of the plan.

But our work is not done, there is still a strong sense that the Council may pass the plan!

Citizens, continued to offer positive suggestions about what might happen here. Many felt that we need to get the outside consultants out of the way so we can come together and make this part of town a truly sustainable model where young and old could work together to create a model for the county and the world.

Suggestions included a year round garden, a food and wine center on permeable land, and above the flood zone, incubator businesses, truly affordable housing, and an ecology center.
There was a strong need expressed for real clean public transportation to be implemented before anything further is done.
People want a real connection with the Laguna that could include the daylighting of creeks, encouraged by the Sonoma County Water Coalition,whose members number 25,000.

24 citizens spoke at the this meeting and everyone of them expressed deep concerns about the effects of this plan on our town.

Jane Nielsen, President of the Sebastopol Water Information Group, and a PHD in geology, explained in great detail the difficulties we are all facing concerning water supply. With a full power point presentation and maps she showed that the water supply assessment was inadequate. Wells are running dry, just ask folks on Cooper Ave. Water is an issue for everyone right now!

Paul Andre Schbraq, an expert in planning, who helped develop our General Plan, showed a visual mock up of what 4 stories on top of 10 feet of fill would look like along Morris St, at the edge of the Laguna.
This was a real eye opener since these heights are hard to visualize. If you want to get a sense of how this might look, go to the corner of Morris and 12, look up towards the top of the giant monkey tree right on the corner and you will see a yellow ribbon tied at the level that build up would be allowed if this plan is approved.
Holly Downing presented a petition signed by over 25 business owners asking for a new economic study because they are worried that if outlet stores and chi chi shops come in it will threaten our already struggling locally owned and operated businesses.Also, Alan Horn, an insurance agent, spoke of the exorbitant cost of insurance, in this flood and earthquake prone area.

Ken Silviera, the owner of Pacific, formerly FIesta, Market, said this town can not support another grocery store and it could put our local stores out of business. He said that the owners of Fircrest agree with him. Between these 2 stores we have been honored with 100 years of their contributions to our schools and organizations, giving endless donations and funds. Now they need our loyalty.
Steve Pierce spoke to the financial fallacies of this plan, specifically that the planned space for a hotel would need 70% occupancy to keep the area in the black.
The owner of the Sebastopol Inn said at an SPC meeting that he now has only 10% occupancy, and is struggling to keep afloat. There was talk about Windsor and how they bought into redevelopment like this and now many buildings are vacant and the city is suffering.

Many spoke to the reality that this area is mostly a flood zone as well as an earthquake and liquifaction zone.
In terms of the adequacy of the EIR, there is no plan to date about how a no net fill policy would be implemented. In simple terms this means that if you build podiums to raise the land out of the flood zone you have to have a plan which would compensate for the displaced flood waters by making room for the flood water somewhere else. This would probably result in the dredging of the already greatly impaired Laguna.
Traffic, according to the plan, would be increased by 55,000 car trips a week, creating gridlock that could discourage people from shopping here and contribute to pollution in air and water. Sonoma County just received the official report that our greenhouse gas emissions have in fact, increased.
PLEASE come to the June 3rd meeting and let your voice be heard!

When the people lead te leaders will follow! Sincerely. Magick

It is great to read the lively discussion here on the WACCO bulletin board, just wanted to let all interested parties know that the city council is still taking written testimony. If you have not directly shared your concerns, support or opinions on the North East Area Plan now is the time. You emails should be sent to all city council members and staff so they are all working with the same information. Emails and snail mail addresses are listed below:

Linda Kelley [email protected];
Sarah Gurney [email protected];
Larry Robinson ([email protected])
Craig Litwin ([email protected])
David Brennan ([email protected])
Kenyon Webster ([email protected])
Susan E. Kelly ([email protected])
or
City of Sebastopol City Hall
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472

[ywv]

Magick, is correct the public hearing is still open and you do still have the chance to speak in person. I left the May 20th meeting right after I spoke and did not know the public hearing had been continued.

Please do come on June 3rd and shared your concerns, support or opinions on the North East Area Plan in person of by email or regular mail. Now is the time to have your voice heard, this is YOUR chance to participate in true Democracy in action.

The reason I vote in every election is because if I do not vote or in this case speak up I feel I have no right to complain or feel satisfaction about the outcome, because I have not participated in the process.

Yvette

The Public hearing

is still open! We can still speak to the Council and the community about the Northeast plan, as well as submit written comments.

PLEASE come to the June 3rd meeting and let your voice be heard!

When the people lead te leaders will follow! Sincerely. Magick

[Helen Shane]

Sebastopol Preservation Coalition

After the last Council meeting on May 20,
Mayor Craig Litwin told the PD:

"I'm hoping for some real solution-oriented
testimony, some real examples of what we
should do. People are saying, 'We should do
something really good here,' but they aren't
saying what 'really good' is.'"

Well, Mayor, here it is, and we think it’s really good.

A subcommittee of the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition took Mayor Litwin at his word. We have a Plan to submit to the Council on June 3. We’ve asked the Mayor to reserve judgment on the NEAP until the Council, including the newly appointed member, has time to consider this new Sebastopol Plan for the 21st Century.

Come to the Council Meeting on June 3;
you may speak up for up to 5 minutes.


Listen and be prepared to comment on the

new Plan that will be offered that evening. If you did not speak at the May 20 meeting, please do voice your thoughts about the Plan and EIR that is now on the table: water, traffic, the Laguna, the building heights, economic viability; if it’s about the NEAP or its EIR, speak your piece.


The basic premise and goals for the new Plan:

Build an elevated, free standing Solar energy array, on the Barlow property, beneath which could be a farm market, a seasonal amphitheater, etc. on a permeable surface.

Supports for the elevated panels to be designed by structural engineers, and visually enhanced by local artists.

Energy generated by the solar facility would be used for civic needs and by the residents of Sebastopol, with surplus sent to the grid as a revenue stream for the town. The town could charge homeowners minimum fees and there would be no need for a utility tax.

Educational facet: youngsters would learn about solar and the job opportunities and educational requirements they will need for the careers arising from the 21st Century paradigm of climate change, peak oil, carrying capacity, etc. People will be prepared for meaningful jobs that can’t be outsourced.

Affordable housing could be built over city-owned parking lots, the theater parking lot, perhaps at the Vets Bldg site.

Present land owners of affected parcels could partner with the town or be bought out, perhaps using Federal/State funds for this sustainable town project.

Sebastopol will be the model Green,
Sustainable American town
for the 21st Century.


Come to the meeting.

If you want the Council to be able to review your thoughts later, we suggest making 9 copies of them; before or after you speak, hand 7 to Mary, the City Clerk, and she will disperse them. Please leave two at the SPC table, for our records. Thank you.

Community Center (probably)
Tuesday, June 3.
Time to be announced.

[Howard]

Sebastopol Preservation Coalition

After the last Council meeting on May 20,
Mayor Craig Litwin told the PD:

"I'm hoping for some real solution-oriented
testimony, some real examples of what we
should do. People are saying, 'We should do
something really good here,' but they aren't
saying what 'really good' is.'"

Well, Mayor, here it is, and we think it’s really good.

A subcommittee of the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition took Mayor Litwin at his word. We have a Plan to submit to the Council on June 3. We’ve asked the Mayor to reserve judgment on the NEAP until the Council, including the newly appointed member, has time to consider this new Sebastopol Plan for the 21st Century.

Come to the Council Meeting on June 3;
you may speak up for up to 5 minutes.

Listen and be prepared to comment on the

new Plan that will be offered that evening. If you did not speak at the May 20 meeting, please do voice your thoughts about the Plan and EIR that is now on the table: water, traffic, the Laguna, the building heights, economic viability; if it’s about the NEAP or its EIR, speak your piece.


The basic premise and goals for the new Plan:

Build an elevated, free standing Solar energy array, on the Barlow property, beneath which could be a farm market, a seasonal amphitheater, etc. on a permeable surface.

Supports for the elevated panels to be designed by structural engineers, and visually enhanced by local artists.

Energy generated by the solar facility would be used for civic needs and by the residents of Sebastopol, with surplus sent to the grid as a revenue stream for the town. The town could charge homeowners minimum fees and there would be no need for a utility tax.

Educational facet: youngsters would learn about solar and the job opportunities and educational requirements they will need for the careers arising from the 21st Century paradigm of climate change, peak oil, carrying capacity, etc. People will be prepared for meaningful jobs that can’t be outsourced.

Affordable housing could be built over city-owned parking lots, the theater parking lot, perhaps at the Vets Bldg site.

Present land owners of affected parcels could partner with the town or be bought out, perhaps using Federal/State funds for this sustainable town project.

Sebastopol will be the model Green,
Sustainable American town
for the 21st Century.

Come to the meeting.

If you want the Council to be able to review your thoughts later, we suggest making 9 copies of them; before or after you speak, hand 7 to Mary, the City Clerk, and she will disperse them. Please leave two at the SPC table, for our records. Thank you.

Community Center (probably)
Tuesday, June 3.
Time to be announced.

Can you clarify this proposal please?

Questions:

2. Are you proposing a change to the existing zoning that will create a wholly new land use of solely solar and farmers market?
3. If not, how will you create the economic incentive to build these structures and fund a farmers market?
4. If so, what will happen to the existing uses that will now be non-conforming? Non-conforming uses lose the ability to replace structures over a certain percentage of building value if destroyed by fire, etc.
5. Have you performed an EIR to determine the impacts?
6. Have you "run the numbers" to determine if this is economically feasible? If so, can you please publish them for full vetting?
7. I assume that the existing structures are to be eliminated to make room for the farmers market. If not, is it possible to build solar over the existing structures both financially or structurally?
8. What happened to all the concerns about flooding, earthquakes and insurance? Won't these impact these structures also? Don't earthquakes effect solar structures built above the ground? Don't they have to be insured?
9. Please identify exactly which federal/state funding you are proposing to use to buy out the existing land owners?
10. Have you determined whether affordable housing is feasbile to building with multi-level parking structures? If you need the first floor for parking for the existing merchants and at least another floor for parking for the residents, you have two floors of parking. Since the SPC is against structures of more than three stories, is it financially feasible to build only one story of affordable housing?

[Helen Shane]

Dear Howard: For clarity, I have copies your questions here with my response following each of your points:

Q Can you clarify this proposal please?

Q Are you proposing a change to the existing zoning that will create a wholly new land use of solely solar and farmers market?

A What I am proposing is part of what I feel can be a new way to revitalize this area, and still remain a small town. And no, it doesn’t have to be solely solar and farmers market. What is beneath the solar array can be anything appropriate to the site.

Q If not, how will you create the economic incentive to build these structures and fund a farmers market?

A Not. See Q above.

Q If so, what will happen to the existing uses that will now be non-conforming? Non-conforming uses lose the ability to replace structures over a certain percentage of building value if destroyed by fire, etc.

A This idea for starters sees only the Barlow property used for elevated solar. As was noted in the EIR for the NEAP, we all understand that General Plan changes can be made to accommodate Specific plans

Q Have you performed an EIR to determine the impacts?

A No, I have not. This is not a complete, detailed plan. It is a concept that attempts to lead the Council and the Planning Commission, on which board you sit, out of the huge NEAP design to something different, smaller, and more in tune with the times and our town character. One that does not jeopardize the downtown merchants. Just as the city (aka the citizens) paid for the EIR for the NEAP, a new way, which would include other components that would harmonize with it, would be funded by the City (aka the citizens).

Q Have you "run the numbers" to determine if this is economically feasible? If so, can you please publish them for full vetting?

A I have not run the numbers. Neither has the City run the numbers of a real economic study to determine the effect of the NEAP on existing merchants.

Q I assume that the existing structures are to be eliminated to make room for the farmers market. If not, is it possible to build solar over the existing structures both financially or st! ructurally?

A I assume nothing. Again, this is a new way. Details to be worked out if the Council feels it is a worthwhile alternative to what’s now on the table.

Q What happened to all the concerns about flooding, earthquakes and insurance? Won't these impact these structures also? Don't earthquakes effect solar structures built above the ground? Don't they have to be insured?

A I do have great concerns about flooding, earthquakes and insurance.And of course the water supply and the much increased traffic. That’s why I think that the Plan as is is dangerous and not well thought out. In my, indeed, ignorance about solar engineering, etc., I think that solar structures would be built not on fill, but on real soil, properly prepared to accept the weight of the structure(s). Logically, no residences would be involved, so the insurance factor might not play a big role in it.

Q Please identify exactly which federal/state funding you are proposing to use to buy out the existing land owners?

A I don’t know, any more than we know that Feds will change the insurance ramifications vis a vis FEMA, as opined as a solution by the Planning Director.

Q Have you determined whether affordable housing is feasbile to building with multi-level parking structures? If you need the first floor for parking for the existing merchants and at least another floor for parking for the residents, you have two floors of parking. Since the SPC is against structures of more than three stories, is it financially feasible to build only one story of affordable housing?

A No, I have not so determined. Once more, if the Council finds this concept worth pursuing, those studies will be made.

In Summary:

There are some aspects of the NEAP that are desirable, such as no net fill, just as there may be some aspects of the current General Plan that would be changed to accept this new way.

In the interest of full disclosure, it is important and honest to say that you are the person who convinced me to apply for my first four-year term on the Planning Commission, where I served for eight years. Our first private meeting was at a Chinese restaurant in Santa Rosa. I remember that we laughed because we both showed up wearing blue button down shirts and khaki (pants for you and a khaki skirt for me).

A key part of our discussions then and later was basic planning philosophies. You were very convincing and made valid points about always being aware of cumulative impacts; the need for a growth management ordinance with its the affordable inclusion aspect. Later you championed and introduced me to the need for an Urban Growth Boundary, on which successful campaign we both worked. The UGB is good, and has served the town well to keep it from sprawl. I did not believe then that you meant that we would build ourselves far up and out of being the small town we all covet. I don’t now know what your philosophy is now. It saddens me.

[Sciguy]

Howard:
I am concerned that you are using conventional assumptions to try to bludgeon Helen Shane into confusion or worse. Fortunately Helen has the smarts to hold her own.

Question 2: why does it have to be "solely" solar and farmer market"? Aren't those already city priorities. Does every other kind of application need to be ruled out just because there is a farmer's market etc.

Question 3: Does anyone know how the economic incentives will arise in the future? Isn't it true that if the current NEAP were put into place, it is likely that the site would simply languish there, awaiting a whole new phase, of finding finances to effectuate the new zoning? Could it take fifty years to start? Helen is proposing an electrical utility. With the coming energy crunch, it seems to me that the financing for such an erection is to be reasonably anticipated.

Question 4: In my opinion, use of that area for buildings should be non-conforming. Though I hate to see city coercion applied to residents, it would be proper to slowly and organically encourage residents to relocate to a place that is not in a flood plain.

Question 5: This is unfair to say the least. Preparing an EIR is very expensive and certainly not indicated at this concept phase for Helen's proposal.

Question 6: What are your assumptions for economic viability? Are you suggesting that if there are no retail shops or hotels to generate city revenues, no proposal can be entertained. That's a pretty restrictive assumption. It suggests that no strong deviation from the NEAP can be tolerated. Helen is after all suggesting an electric utility that could perhaps pay a fee to the city in some way. But perhaps you have some other measure for economic viability in mind.

Question 7: I can't see the need to replace existing structures. So long as they are preexisting, they could provide indoor stalls for a farmer's market. Swan's market in Oakland could be a model. The owners of empty structures now looking for leases might be happy to find lessees for their spaces.

Question 8: Precisely. This is the central question that you should be applying to the NEAP. I would guess that solar installations have far less susceptibility to injury via earthquake than do four and five story buildings. I suspect that the question of making solar installations earthquake-proof has already been addressed. In my opinion, this is a flood zone in which all permanent structures are inappropriate. More below.

Question 9: This is where the unfairness shines through. I believe you know quite well that Helen has not had any reason to do the kind of difficult, time consuming research that could identify a source of funding. Have you researched the possibility that California might either have, or might institute, a grant program for large scale solar installations? Could the city of Sebastopol play a critical role as an intermediate in supporting such an application?

Question 10: You assume that this project needs affordable housing. Since Helen is not proposing a residential project, 20% of zero is zero. Why should affordable housing be an issue?

My personal view was expressed in a letter to the Sonoma West newspaper and read into your record by some one else I am told. I cannot see any reason for building permanent structures in this area. Sebastopol located itself historically near a laguna, in a flood zone. Bad move, but it can't be undone now. We read all the time about evil developers who build in flood zones, earthquake zones, tornado zones, polluted land etc. Are we to follow their example or is this city going to bite the bullet and recognize that this area is mostly a recharge zone and that we have no business building here at all. I had suggested soccer fields, even parking lots with permeable paving, an amphitheatre, a farmer's market, all uses that can be withdrawn when there is a flood, then come creeping back when the flood is over. There is an industrial building already there that has sealed itself up to be able to withstand a flood of up to four feet outside its walls. I salute their enterprise, but no building should have to do this and no new buildings should be created in this environment. America has been fighting nature throughout its history. How many valuable wetlands has the Corps of Army Engineers dried up? How many rivers dammed to exclude wildlife habitat? The entire NEAP is a boondoggle that never should have been entertained. This area belongs to the Laguna, despite our silly human property lines.

As far as property values are concerned, speculators bought out this area in hopes that the city would go along with a proposal that would greatly increase their property values. Speculation and investment are risky business. Sometimes you win and sometimes not. If it is legitimate to ask a city to increase your property values, it is legitimate for a city to decrease property values. Not every business investment pays off. Are developers some special breed who need to be exempt from the traditional risks?

In sum, I think Helen has proposed an innovative and attractive development. It has its own built in financing and stands to profit Sebastopol in may ways, by cooperating with nature.

Incidentally, I am not opposed to building elsewhere. If Sebastopol is to grow, let it not be in a flood plain, urgently needed for distributing floodwaters. Do you know what climate change is going to bring. Are we going to have 100 year floods every year from now on? You don't know and neither do I. But let's not try to box in nature as though we could do any such thing and win. When do we learn our limitations?

Cautionary note: If parts of the Northeast Quadrant are high and outside a flood plain, let the above discussion not apply to them.

Sciguy

Can you clarify this proposal please?

Questions:

1. Are you proposing a change to the existing zoning that will create a wholly new land use of solely solar and farmers market?
2. If not, how will you create the economic incentive to build these structures and fund a farmers market?
3. If so, what will happen to the existing uses that will now be non-conforming? Non-conforming uses lose the ability to replace structures over a certain percentage of building value if destroyed by fire, etc.
4. Have you performed an EIR to determine the impacts?
5. Have you "run the numbers" to determine if this is economically feasible? If so, can you please publish them for full vetting?
6. I assume that the existing structures are to be eliminated to make room for the farmers market. If not, is it possible to build solar over the existing structures both financially or structurally?
7. What happened to all the concerns about flooding, earthquakes and insurance? Won't these impact these structures also? Don't earthquakes effect solar structures built above the ground? Don't they have to be insured?
8. Please identify exactly which federal/state funding you are proposing to use to buy out the existing land owners?
9. Have you determined whether affordable housing is feasbile to building with multi-level parking structures? If you need the first floor for parking for the existing merchants and at least another floor for parking for the residents, you have two floors of parking. Since the SPC is against structures of more than three stories, is it financially feasible to build only one story of affordable housing?

[Howard]

I am concerned that you are using conventional assumptions to try to bludgeon Helen Shane into confusion or worse. Fortunately Helen has the smarts to hold her own. Sciguy

I cannot apologize for using conventional assumptions because I live in this world, in this world of money, politics, laws and reality. I do not equate questioning the proposal with bludgeoning. Philosophically speaking, I don't believe you can use unconventional assumptions unless they can be proven with some degree of probability. Saying that something can't be disproved does not mean it is true. You should know, as a science guy, this is how the real world works. Also, I would never attribute anything but smart to one of Helen’s attributes.

Question 2: why does it have to be "solely" solar and farmer market"? Aren't those already city priorities. Does every other kind of application need to be ruled out just because there is a farmer's market etc. Sciguy

Every other kind of use need not be ruled out, but a plan typically specifies what is permitted and not permitted. I was just asking her to clarify her proposal so I could understand it.

Question 3: Does anyone know how the economic incentives will arise in the future? Isn't it true that if the current NEAP were put into place, it is likely that the site would simply languish there, awaiting a whole new phase, of finding finances to effectuate the new zoning? Could it take fifty years to start? Helen is proposing an electrical utility. With the coming energy crunch, it seems to me that the financing for such an erection is to be reasonably anticipated. Sciguy

You are correct, I cannot predict the future. However, I can make educated assumptions about the future based on my experience and knowledge. That is why we hire experts in the field to give us their best estimates. It is the Sebastopol Preservation Council that is using the expert testimony of the traffic engineer to predict gridlock in the downtown if the NEAP is implemented. I don’t believe that the area will languish for 50 years, but can’t disprove it. If the financing is entirely reasonable for a solar field, then show me the numbers.

Question 4: In my opinion, use of that area for buildings should be non-conforming. Though I hate to see city coercion applied to residents, it would be proper to slowly and organically encourage residents to relocate to a place that is not in a flood plain. Sciguy

I thank you and Helen for the clarification. There has been much testimony bemoaning the displacement of the light industrial businesses in this area. It seems that the Sebastopol Preservation Council is proposing the same non-conformance that the NEAP is proposing. I don’t understand how one organically encourages one to move. Are you talking about buying out the owners and tenants? If so, please describe the source of funding.

Question 5: This is unfair to say the least. Preparing an EIR is very expensive and certainly not indicated at this concept phase for Helen's proposal.

I agree, that was unfair. But I did it to point out that merely proposing something is a far cry from thinking through the ramifications, completing studies, analyzing the impacts, having two dozen public hearings, etc. that has been completed over the last five years for the NEAP, whether you agree with it or not.

Question 6: What are your assumptions for economic viability? Are you suggesting that if there are no retail shops or hotels to generate city revenues, no proposal can be entertained. That's a pretty restrictive assumption. It suggests that no strong deviation from the NEAP can be tolerated. Helen is after all suggesting an electric utility that could perhaps pay a fee to the city in some way. But perhaps you have some other measure for economic viability in mind. Sciguy

Again, I am asking for clarification. I am asking whether the Sebastopol Preservation Council has determined whether this is economically viable. My assumptions are the same ones one must use in business. That is, does the income exceed the expenses? Income will be from selling the electricity and rent to the farmers. Expenses will be management, repairs, debt service on the land, taxes, insurance, etc. I think it is entirely fair to ask this question. If it is not feasible based on conventional economics, then it will not be constructed without some private or public subsidy.

Question 7: I can't see the need to replace existing structures. So long as they are preexisting, they could provide indoor stalls for a farmer's market. Swan's market in Oakland could be a model. The owners of empty structures now looking for leases might be happy to find lessees for their spaces. Sciguy

Is income from a farmer’s market greater than the current income? If not, then there is no economic incentive to replace the existing structures/uses with a farmers market. Your plan has no chance of implementation unless the equation is reversed. You need to prove with some reasonable assumptions that there is sufficient demand for year round income from a farmers market to prove feasibility. Whatever model you have in Oakland or Napa that could be used needs to be shown to be able to work here using financially acceptable assumptions. quote=Sciguy;59908]Question 8: Precisely. This is the central question that you should be applying to the NEAP. I would guess that solar installations have far less susceptibility to injury via earthquake than do four and five story buildings. I suspect that the question of making solar installations earthquake-proof has already been addressed. In my opinion, this is a flood zone in which all permanent structures are inappropriate. More below. Sciguy[/quote] I wonder why you believe that solar structures can be made earthquake proof but not buildings. This whole argument about earthquake risk is ridiculous as all of California is subject to earthquakes and shaking. This area is not in an earthquake zone like the one that runs through the area just to the east of downtown Santa Rosa. There are many buildings in these areas (including Memorial Hospital) that are constructed to withstand some level of shaking.

This is where the unfairness shines through. I believe you know quite well that Helen has not had any reason to do the kind of difficult, time consuming research that could identify a source of funding. Have you researched the possibility that California might either have, or might institute, a grant program for large scale solar installations? Could the city of Sebastopol play a critical role as an intermediate in supporting such an application? Sciguy

Not unfair at all. When you make a proposal for an area of 50 acres adjacent to our downtown and the Laguna you need to think it through. You need to find out whether what you are proposing is probable, not possible or something you think would be a great idea.

You can’t just make some statement that some funding may or may not be available. It is fundamental to the idea. I didn’t know that Helen hadn’t done the work before asking the question, but not surprised that none had been done since this is the first time in five years this proposal has been made in a public forum. You ask me the questions when the questions should be answered by the proponents of this new land use plan.

Question 10: You assume that this project needs affordable housing. Since Helen is not proposing a residential project, 20% of zero is zero. Why should affordable housing be an issue? Sciguy

You are shooting the messenger. It was Helen Shane that suggested affordable housing in her original posting, not I. This was why I asked the question. You should reread her original post to see that her organization proposes affordable housing over existing public parking lots. I asked whether this has been thought through, an entirely fair and reasonable question. Please reread my previous post which poses the question of whether two stories of parking and one story of affordable housing is feasible. Still would like that answer.

My personal view was expressed in a letter to the Sonoma West newspaper and read into your record by some one else I am told. I cannot see any reason for building permanent structures in this area. Sebastopol located itself historically near a laguna, in a flood zone. Bad move, but it can't be undone now. We read all the time about evil developers who build in flood zones, earthquake zones, tornado zones, polluted land etc. Are we to follow their example or is this city going to bite the bullet and recognize that this area is mostly a recharge zone and that we have no business building here at all. I had suggested soccer fields, even parking lots with permeable paving, an amphitheatre, a farmer's market, all uses that can be withdrawn when there is a flood, then come creeping back when the flood is over. There is an industrial building already there that has sealed itself up to be able to withstand a flood of up to four feet outside its walls. I salute their enterprise, but no building should have to do this and no new buildings should be created in this environment. America has been fighting nature throughout its history. How many valuable wetlands has the Corps of Army Engineers dried up? How many rivers dammed to exclude wildlife habitat? The entire NEAP is a boondoggle that never should have been entertained. This area belongs to the Laguna, despite our silly human property lines.

As far as property values are concerned, speculators bought out this area in hopes that the city would go along with a proposal that would greatly increase their property values. Speculation and investment are risky business. Sometimes you win and sometimes not. If it is legitimate to ask a city to increase your property values, it is legitimate for a city to decrease property values. Not every business investment pays off. Are developers some special breed who need to be exempt from the traditional risks? Sciguy

As you note above, this area is already built upon, yet then you go on to state that we have no business redeveloping the areas already built upon. Seems illogical to me. You are fighting a battle that I would stand with you on. This is not the Laguna anymore. I do not support encroachment onto the Laguna. The entire area is paved, concreted or heavily rocked. It is adjacent to a 50 foot wide paved roadway which is again adjacent to 20 foot high buildings on top of 10 foot mounds which is in turn adjacent to the Laguna. It is not in the Laguna and hasn’t been for more than three decades for some and more than 50 years for most. If you want to return this to the Laguna, then you would need to change the zoning and General Plan to eliminate all present and future uses (I presume other than solar and a farmer’s market). I am glad to see this flushed out as this is an honest discussion of what you want and that is, to eliminate all structures in the area to the east of the downtown, as almost all of it is in the 100 year flood zone and all within the 500 year.

To answer your last point, I don’t care about the land owners or their return on investment as much as I care about what I believe is good for the town. That is the only reason I support the plan. To ascribe any other motives to me or those who voted in favor of this is unfair and entirely antithetical to my previous positions taken over the last 20 years on the Sebastopol City Council, General Plan Advisory Committee, Sonoma County Planning Commission, Urban Growth Boundary Committee and Sebastopol Planning Commission (twice). Not to mention hard fought battles to elect Helen Shane and Kevin Dwan to the City Council in 1994.

[Sonomamark]

You know, it's this kind of thing that really tells me how far removed from any practical reality a significant element of the City of Sebastopol is becoming. It depresses me.

This vision, while attractive in an alternate-universe kind of way, is simply impossible. Here are just a handful of the reasons why:

1) There is no "state or federal funding" available for any such thing, given the current state of both budgets. There are no grant programs which would fund such a plan. And there is no state or federal grant program which would allow the city to force the landowners to sell.

2) The City doesn't own the transmission grid in Sebastopol. PG&E does, and they do not take kindly to losing service areas. So even if this giant solar array were magically constructed, all it would do is pump into the grid, not serve Sebastopol specifically.

3) Affordable housing, by its nature, doesn't get built without associated market-rate housing or commercial development to help defray the cost. Adding the proviso that it should be built on podia above parking lots adds tremendously to cost. The idea would never pencil.

4) The solar array would be a giant structure. That's got to have an environmental impact. Who would pay for the EIR, since there's no profit center in the project except a farmers market and a small amount of electrical generation?

5) Why do you need "permeable surfaces" under a solar array? The solar panels themselves are impermeable surfaces. Drainage alone would be knotty problem, and heat convection could do really weird things around a structure that large. Maintenance is an issue--where's the budget for that? If it was a city-owned facility, we'd need more city staff to take care of it.

6) What happens to the REST of the NE planning area? Does it continue to just sit there and moulder, squandering the opportunity for the city of city-centered pedestrian-friendly growth the rest of the county is finally getting its mind around? Where's the benefit in that?

7) Likewise, who will pay for the solar education programs? Where would they be housed? I'm a grant fundraiser, and I'm here to tell you that this is not the kind of thing you could fund every year with education grants, which are typically small and project-based.


It's nice, I suppose, to imagine what you could do if you could take land you wanted and had unlimited money available, but that's not the exercise here. The exercise is to find a way to advance the city's goals, both economic and cultural, within the constraints as they are, which include that the land is privately held by investors who expect to make money off it, and therefore need to see a plan under which they can do that.

Other factors include that by passing Measure O, the City embraced the principle of city-centered growth instead of sprawl, which means that it has to allow growth--and higher-density growth--unless it wants its Urban Growth Boundary to fail in a court challenge or be blown out when it comes up for renewal.

I was the Executive Director of Sonoma County Conservation Action when that UGB was put into place, and SCCA did a great deal of work to help the measure reach the ballot and get it passed. When we did that, we knew we were making a deal, and the deal was, we'll allow development inside the lines as a trade-off against sprawl. I do not believe it is ethical for those who advocated for Measure O now to fight higher-density development inside the UGB. I believe that constitutes bad faith.

Sebastopol is not going to stay the same. Nothing does. We have choices about how it changes, but the choices are limited. It is simply not true that believing or wanting something badly enough makes it true, or possible.

Now, I haven't said anything here about the plan as it is: I have some concerns which need to be (and, I believe, can be) addressed. But after months of criticism and complaint about the plan, when I see that this vague and impractical imagining is the best the most vocal critics can come up with, I tend to conclude that they don't really want anything to happen, ever. Even if that means their city will remain broke and failing to meet its legal affordable housing requirements, while perfectly developable city-center land stands right next to their downtown and is wasted under old sheds and minimal uses.

Resistance and fear of change isn't progressive. Progressives are people willing to confront the challenges of the day (like the current economy and the coming energy crisis, which will drive new markets for living in city centers), and to take risks on new but practical approaches, knowing that there may be unforeseen consequences but willing to try a new way. It is not progressive to reject anything new except some ideologically pure (but practically impossible) dream. The word for that is "reactionary".

Helen, you and I go back a long way, and I can't tell you how sorry I am to see this come out under your name.


Mark Green

[Helen Shane]

Hi Mark. You and I do go back a long way. I will not respond to the points you made about the possibility of a solar array, etc., and federal funding, because I don't believe that any of those points are unsurmountable. They are yet to be looked at, if the Council is brave and realistic enough to want to try again to get it right.

I do wish to respond to your comment about those who supported and yes, even worked (as I did) as coordinator for the UGB - Measure O campaign in Sebastopol. You state we are acting in bad faith if they do not support the NEAP's density. I do not accept your assumption that I am against density. I am not. I am still and will always be against building in a flood plain. I am against four story buildings in our town. I would support affordable housing over parking lots. And I do not believe any of these issues show bad faith regarding the purpose of the UGBs, which was to keep sprawl from intruding into the open space around our towns. By the way, and off the subject, perhaps, but I am dismayed that the Laguna Foundation jumped on the Casino band wagon so early in the game. I think that is, if not bad faith, unrealistic in terms of our Laguna and the water resources in our County--- no, in our State. I believe there was a quid pro between the Graton Tribe and the Laguna Foundation that was not for the greater good of Sebastopol or the Laguna.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am still and will always be against building in a flood plain.

I don't understand this visceral response against building in the floodplain. Maybe it's because I'm from a country where over 50% of the buildings is build under sea level?

There is nothing magic about the flood line. Does the visceral response express a prejudice against the uplands as being environmentally of less value? We now know that Tiger Salamanders need both the vernal pools and the burrows in the uplands. That vernal pool plants need the insects who nest in the uplands.

There is nothing environmentally worse about building in the floodplain than building in the uplands. It all depends on how it is done, where it is done, and what was already there.

This argument about the floodplain seems to make some emotional appeal to people who want to be environmentally responsible but have a limited understanding of how things are connected.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I do wish to respond to your comment about those who supported and yes, even worked (as I did) as coordinator for the UGB - Measure O campaign in Sebastopol. You state we are acting in bad faith if they do not support the NEAP's density. I do not accept your assumption that I am against density. I am not. I am still and will always be against building in a flood plain. I am against four story buildings in our town. I would support affordable housing over parking lots. And I do not believe any of these issues show bad faith regarding the purpose of the UGBs, which was to keep sprawl from intruding into the open space around our towns.

How small towns in Tuscany prevented sprawl.

[Helen Shane]

This may be the last time for some days that I will respond on Wacco, only because it appears to be developing into a circular argument, some based on basic philosophies but:

As to building in the flood plain:

The floodplain acts as a sponge for the overflow of the Laguna which is a relief valve for the frequently overflowing Russian River. Simply said, if we build in the flood plain, when we have floods they will be worse in our town and in downstream and perhaps upstream towns.

The floodplain is also part of our recharge area. That means less area for water to return to the aquifer for filtering and leaching out of toxics, etc., before being drawn into our wells.

To me it goes far beyond esthetics or the welfare of critters. (Both of which are also important, but not exclusive). It's about water and sewage, supplies of and disposal of which are becoming more and more critical in our "civilized" world. Now I'm going to read some good fiction. Cheers to all. Helen Shane

[Kenyon Webster]

A previous post stated:

Q Please identify exactly which federal/state funding you are proposing to use to buy out the existing land owners?

A I don’t know, any more than we know that Feds will change the insurance ramifications vis a vis FEMA, as opined as a solution by the Planning Director.

Just for clarification, this is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that FEMA has a process to recognize properties that have addressed the 100-year flood elevation issue. The City Building Official has worked with FEMA and property owners to change the status of such properties. Hope that clarifies this particular matter.

-Kenyon Webster, Sebastopol Planning Director

[Zeno Swijtink]

This may be the last time for some days that I will respond on Wacco, only because it appears to be developing into a circular argument, some based on basic philosophies but:

As to building in the flood plain:

The floodplain acts as a sponge for the overflow of the Laguna which is a relief valve for the frequently overflowing Russian River. Simply said, if we build in the flood plain, when we have floods they will be worse in our town and in downstream and perhaps upstream towns.

The floodplain is also part of our recharge area. That means less area for water to return to the aquifer for filtering and leaching out of toxics, etc., before being drawn into our wells.

To me it goes far beyond esthetics or the welfare of critters. (Both of which are also important, but not exclusive). It's about water and sewage, supplies of and disposal of which are becoming more and more critical in our "civilized" world. Now I'm going to read some good fiction. Cheers to all. Helen Shane

The building site is presently in no way a recharge area, the ground is too much compacted to provide for recharge there. There will be no loss of recharge.

It is moreover questionable whether the Laguna de Santa Rosa plain is itself everywhere an important recharge area because of the clay layer that is present and intact in many parts of the Laguna plain.

Recharge for City Wells aquifers occurs in my opinion mostly in the area west of Sebastopol, in the Atascadero watershed, towards English Hill, and groundwater movement is from West to East.

Loss of Storm water holding capacity during a surge of backed-up water coming from the Mark West Creek area because of this project is really small, and a matter of weighing alternatives.

[Sonomamark]

Only a very small portion of the entire Santa Rosa Plain--none of it anywhere near Sebastopol--is groundwater recharge area. The Laguna has deposited centuries of fine clay which doesn't perc at all. Ask anyone who lives there who has to get a successful perc test. Vernal pools simply couldn't exist without such soils to hold water.

The fact is that much of downtown Sebastopol is in the floodplain. If you don't like that, you're basically saying that downtown Sebastopol should be abandoned and returned to the Laguna. Romantic, and all, but we know that's not going to happen. The lands in question are already developed, albeit poorly and with little benefit to the town or its economy. Characterizing this discussion as being about "development in the floodplain" is simply a mischaracterization.



MG

The building site is presently in no way a recharge area, the ground is too much compacted to provide for recharge there. There will be no loss of recharge.

It is moreover questionable whether the Laguna de Santa Rosa plain is itself everywhere an important recharge area because of the clay layer that is present and intact in many parts of the Laguna plain.

Recharge for City Wells aquifers occurs in my opinion mostly in the area west of Sebastopol, in the Atascadero watershed, towards English Hill, and groundwater movement is from West to East.

Loss of Storm water holding capacity during a surge of backed-up water coming from the Mark West Creek area because of this project is really small, and a matter of weighing alternatives.