Edward T. MacMahon
The long-awaited SDC Specific Plan Alternatives Report is out! Click on the button to read the report.
Alternatives A, B, and C were discussed during two Glen Ellen Forum online meetings (11/1 and 11/8). The 11/8/21 meeting was attended by at least 120 people, many of whom live in the valley, outside of Glen Ellen.
How did attendees react to the Alternatives Report?
1) People are generally in shock over the numbers and can't understand why the County would try to impose this high density development in a wildlife corridor, outside of an urban growth area and not along a major transportation route.
2) People feel the County hasn’t listened to all the public input over the past 3 years.
3) The consensus is that a fourth alternative is desperately needed that reduces overall density, provides equitable housing, protects the wildlife corridor, and fits in with the community.
4) The consensus is that more time and in-person community meetings are needed for adequate public input.
It's critical that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors be presented with a 4th LOWER IMPACT option that a) reflects concerns raised by the Planning Advisory Team (PAT), Sonoma Valley residents, environmental organizations, and others; and b) includes a more transparent process as to how housing numbers were developed.
Unincorporated Sonoma County's RHNA Assessment = 3,881
Should 45+/- acres in the heart of Sonoma Valley - and smack dab in the middle of the crucially important Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor - be expected to fulfill 25% of the entire home building goal for all of unincorporated Sonoma County? As noted below, Tennis Wick, Sonoma County's top land use official, acknowledges that inadequate sewer and water infrastructure, concerns about drought and natural disasters, and voter-enacted urban growth boundaries are reasons why high density housing should be located in more urban parts of the county.
These documents (combined into one pdf) clearly outline - in Sonoma County's own words! - why high density housing projects belong in urban areas.
The advocacy coalitions, Sonoma County Tomorrow, Inc. and Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE), contend the EIR for redevelopment of the 180-acre SDC campus violates the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on a number of issues. Click HERE to read more. Click the button below to visit website.