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.
These documents (combined into one pdf) clearly outline - in Sonoma County's own words! - why high density housing projects belong in urban areas.