individual comments

---

We encourage you to also share your comments and ideas with Sonoma County Supervisor Susan Gorin and Dyett and Bhatia, the land use consultant hired by Sonoma County to help create the SDC Specific Plan. Please include them in the conversation by sending  an email to 1) Susan.Gorin@sonoma-county.org, and 2) engage@sdcspecificplan.com or submitting through Dyett and Bhatia's contact portal on sdcspecificplan.com. Please specify if you would like for us to post your comments below as "anonymous."

As questions have emerged about affordable, I thought it might be helpful to point anyone interested to a great resource for learning more about the legal definitions of "affordable housing," "special needs housing" (which would include the required carve-out for developmental disabled folks), Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), Housing Elements, state funding opportunities for affordable housing, and much, much more, I strongly recommend spending some time exploring the web site for the State of California Department of Housing & Community Development: www.hcd.ca.gov
(Debbie Nitasaka, MA)

The Sonoma Developmental Center’s land belongs to the state. But isn’t “the state” all of us who live in it and pay the taxes that keep it going? Are we, the public, not also equal stakeholders, and should we also not have as much say in the final decisions as state representatives, as to its use? In my view, yes, but that’s not the state’s view. 

The state’s position, I suppose that means the state legislature, is that it alone has the final say. It’s also been decreed by the state that it alone decides the criteria for what the land use must be. These conditions are: that it must produce revenue; it must include housing; and (some of it) must be open for public use or preservation.  Thus the state, not the public, dictated the rules of the game and how it must be played. 

I maintain that the SDC land belongs to no one entity but to all in common that live and reside in this area of Sonoma County, including its wildlife. We are the ones that live here, see it all the time, and have gratefully taken its bounty – clean air, fresh water, and diverse nature – and our voices should have as much standing as those of the state legislature and its administrators. Those voices should not take precedence over ours, and we all should be considered the holders (not the owners) of this land. (Will Shonbrun, Boyes Springs)

Right now I’m finding it extremely difficult to put into words how I’m feeling about the three alternatives that were dumped into our laps by Dyett & Bhatia and Permit Sonoma. To say I was shocked or disappointed would be an understatement. I can only characterize it as being blindsided, or better yet, a feeling of absolute betrayal. All three of these alternatives are, without question, unacceptable. So, this is a community driven plan?? It’s more like an early Christmas gift to all major developers. It certainly appears that the County and their consultants have willfully ignored the wishes of the local communities. 

This is not a plan. This is an assault! An assault on the wildlife corridor; an assault on affordable housing; an assault on the historic Legacy of Care and an assault on the goodwill of a community that has worked tirelessly in preserving the character of this very special place. A rural village and the magnificent Sonoma Mountain that cradles it, and all that we have shared together. This is our home. We had put faith in this Specific Plan and they have failed us miserably. (Gregg Montgomery, worked at the SDC for 40 years)

Section 14670.10.5 of the California Governmental Code was a law passed by our California legislature that outlined the guiding principles for the planning process that is purportedly being followed by Sonoma County for the redevelopment of the SDC.  It focused broadly on the need for preservation of natural resources and the need for affordable housing.  In subsection (c)(4) it states in part: "...any housing proposal determined to be appropriate for the property shall include affordable housing."  Here, the large scale housing developments proposed by the County (be it 900 units or 1,200) acts at cross purposes with subsection (a)(7) of the Code wherein the state declares the State "...recognizes the exceptional open space, natural resources, and wildlife habitat characteristics of the [SDC]."  The three alternative plans DO NOT begin to reconcile these two incompatible declaration in the code.  While at Santa Cruz, I studied Ian McHarg's "Design with Nature" wherein he posits a planning process that takes into consideration social values placed on natural resources (such as the value of the wildlife corridor unique to the SDC) and other competing uses in determining an appropriate plan for a given development such as the SDC.  The underlying science that governs the natural resource must be compatible with the development. Unfortunately, the County's planning simply doesn't consider the science. I'm attaching a link to the Governmental Code at the end of this post.   AT THIS POINT, it is important that we let our state and county elected officials know we are not happy with their proposals and to STOP the process NOW.  It is important to point out that Subsection (a)(8) of the code states in part "The planning and disposition process is expected to be of a three-year duration." It DOES NOT state it "shall be completed" or it "must be completed." The word "expected" gives the County flexibility on the timeline.  Trying to rush this process forward in the middle of a pandemic is reason enough to reassess the timeline.  I urge all to write their representatives to stop this process NOW before it's too late.  (Jim Price, Fetters Hot Springs)

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e44526401cadd5712640ee4/t/5e98ceec8910c72dae3cac72/1587072749609/codes_displaySection.xhtml.pdf.  . 

I have a degree in Planning and Public Policy from the University of California, Santa Cruz.  I agree that the premises for the County's plans are hopelessly flawed regardless of whatever plan you adopt for a slightly more significant reason:  The basic problem is that once an "alternative plan" is adopted, the core of the SDC will be sold to a private developer with whom we will have limited or no control.  That developer will have deep pockets to re-litigate whatever "alternative plan" is adopted by the County.  We all saw what happened to Jill Ravitch, our District Attorney when she enforced a law against a wealthy local developer.  You can expect any developer who purchases this property to seek variances to the plan and ultimately threaten our elected officials with recalls or worse if they don't get their way.  Expect any plan to suffer death by a thousand cuts.  We cannot really rely upon the County Planning Department or Board of Supervisors to protect the SDC once the core campus passes to private ownership.  There are only two solutions in my view: 1) The County Board of Supervisors needs to reconsider their rejection of creating a separate Land Trust for the Development of the SDC who can oversee the orderly development of the core campus (similar to what was done with the Presidio of San Francisco), or 2) admit the obvious that none of these plans meet the letter or intent of the main declarations of Section 14670.10.5 and get our state representatives involved in creating a solution consistent with their declarations.  In short, a "good" alternative plan (regardless of good intent) cannot save the SDC. (Jim Price, Fetters Hot Springs)

ISSUE: Make sure the housing actually helps alleviate the housing problem we have with low and middle income workers. I have seen our Valley become a place where VRBOs, vacation rental homes and 2nd homes are dominating the housing market. This makes homes for working people unaffordable as the rentals are for profit and the people buying 2 million dollar second homes obviously can out bid our regular wage-earning friends, neighbors, children and grandchildren who want to buy a home.  
Without controls on who the SDC lots and houses go to, we will see it proliferate with 4,000 square foot vacation homes for the rich, taking housing off the market fort those who live here and want to buy a home here. We need to create obstacles so that homes that are build go to residents - not weekenders. 

Partial solution:

• Require that 25% of the homes go to qualifying first time home buyers. Some banks, unions or other organizations may have programs for people to buy their first home.
  
• Prohibit through zoning or HOA, of homes rented it out via VRBO, AirBandB, or other home vacation rental. I believe Diamond A homeowners association has such a restriction. This would help alleviate the housing shortage by assuring the homes go to residents, not vacationers. 
  
• Create and enforce a limitation on the sale of houses as second or third homes. In the neighborhood behind me (the north end of Railroad), over 25% of the homes are second homes that sold for over $2 million. Our kids and local workers can't compete with the rich city slickers.
  
• Design and build town houses that don't take up a lot of space and require a two car garage so fewer cars will be parked on the street and people can work on projects in an ample garage.
• Besides "low cost housing" reserve 25% of the housing for middle income workers. A friend of mine bought a home overlooking Montini Ranch off 5th St West and qualified for the housing as a veterinary assistant. There is a niche of gainfully employed people here in the Valley who make more than the limit for affordable/subsidized housing but not enough to pay $600,000 for a two or three bedroom one bath home. 
  

ISSUE: Preserve as much open space as possibleThe State or county should donate all the hill area west of Arnold drive and the existing buildings to the Sonoma Land Trust or make it a further addition to Jack London State Park, or make it a Regional Park. This will preserve the land for us and future generations. A wide wildlife corridor to accommodate wildlife movement along the creek and the known travel routes of wildlife, plus the state should build some kind of an traffic-free passage under Highway 12 to allow the animals to cross safely and not get hit by cars and to protect drivers from injury or death from hitting deer, etc... Some of the land where the housing is proposed, east of Arnold drive should be reserved as open space, a park for children and citizens and as a fire buffer zone.

ISSUE: Lobby and put pressure on the State to fund the destruction or rehabilitation of existing SDC buildingsThe state should not be able to just walk away from the years of neglect and decay that they left here. They have a responsibility to pay for this - not dump it on the taxpayers or require that we ruin Glen Ellen by making it an urban scape. All concerned with the fate of Glen Ellen should contact their State elected Assembly and Senate officials and ask them to sponsor and support funding for SDC rehabilitation and conversion. The Press Democrat issue of 11/18/21 had a front page article that the State "could have $32Billion surplus". We need to move fast and lobby our representatives to get this money set aside before everyone else gets their hands on it. 

ISSUE: Don't sell the land to a single developerThe deep pocket companies like the Las Vegas company that bought Chanate will try to low ball a bid and get control over the whole property. The number of homes shown on the three proposals are all way too high and would dwarf what we know and love as Glen Ellen and turn it into a version of San Jose. 

ISSUE: Facilitate a learning center for jobs by offering the warehouses and shops to the North Bay Building Trades Council.We are leaning as a society that we need plumbers, electricians, sheet metal workers etc... We could use the SDC site to cultivate trades people and crafts men and women to learn the skills that we all need to keep our homes and businesses going. The Council could start by their apprentices learning by fixing up those warehouses and shops. 

ISSUE: Turn the Historic Original Administration Building into a Community CenterThe Sonoma Community Center in downtown Sonoma is a great example of a local resource being turned into a community center that benefits everyone. I know it is expected to cost millions, but the state let it fall into ruin and they can fund the historic restoration of that beautiful old building.  Thanks for taking the time to read these ideas. (Charlie Estudillo, Sonoma)

SDC – A Fantasy Future Based on A Falsehood

In mathematics, to create a problem that has no solution you need to begin with a statement that is always false. By dictating that future use of SDC must both be acceptable to the community and be financially self-sufficient, the state --- in the guise of enabling and respecting local control --- has doomed this process. On this site, in this community, those two conditions are mutually exclusive. It is no different than insisting that 2 plus 2 equal 5. That statement is always false.

The illogical justifications put forth by the planners, in support of the current proposals, make perfect sense when you consider that it is impossible to justify a false statement with logic.

The dismay and disbelief welling up in the community makes perfect sense. We are being asked to state preferences, and ultimately to accept, farcical alternatives based on flawed reasoning.

The planners are not at fault. The community is not at fault. It is the false premise at the heart of this process that is the problem. 

Unless the state is willing to accept some ongoing responsibility for this public resource, and to set realistic expectations for its future use, we will spin our wheels trying to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 5. Unless the state is willing to start again, and to base the process on a premise that is NOT false --- what we will be left with, rather than a solution, is an abomination. (Ed Davis)

Ed Davis is the author of In All Things, a Return to the Drooling Ward --- detailing his experiences at what was then Sonoma State Hospital in the 1970’s. 

The Vital Land Initiative that was unanimously adopted by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 25, 2021 should be factored into the conversation when discussing preserving the 700 acres of SDC open space and redevelopment of the 180 acre campus. The Ag+Open Space Goals and Objectives on page 56 clearly state the many reasons why SDC’s open space should have been permanently preserved yesterday, while the very same trends impacting land conservation as discussed on page 50 of the Initiative are at play when it comes to redevelopment of the campus.

Most importantly, using the Vital Lands Initiative as a guide, planners and decision-makers must fully consider the property’s multiple assets - open space, wildlife corridor, high visibility landscapes, water resources, historic and cultural resources - and accept them as what they are; constraints on development. With determination and creativity, surely we can craft an economically feasible Specific Plan that addresses housing needs, as mandated by the State, and land use compatibility, as specified in the General Plan. (Sandy Horowitz)

Preserve the Open Space Now

I would ask the county to raise its voice alongside the community's to ask that the state act immediately to set aside and preserve the more than 700 acres of open space surrounding the Eldridge campus. While the intent, as stated in the enabling legislation, is for the open space to be transferred to state and local park agencies, the language is slippery. This wildlands should be retained in the public trust, and protected under a conservation easement and/or transferred to state and county parks outside the specific planning process and ahead of the property's disposition. Immediate transfer and preservation will benefit DGS, which won't have the burden or liability associated with maintaining what's increasingly used as parkland; will benefit a potential master developer, who won't have the cost burden of doing that work themselves; will benefit users, because trails and facilities will be properly managed and maintained; and will benefit the land itself, protecting a critical wildlife corridor and the last, best pocket of wildness in Sonoma Valley. We also all know how quickly things can change—fire, pandemic, insurrection. We all want this; let's join forces to get it done. (Tracy Salcedo)

Why are the words compatible and compatibility nowhere to be found in the Draft Vision Statement and Guiding Principles drawn up by Dyett and Bhatia? I'm no planner, but I do know that land use compatibility is at the core of sound land use planning and is reflected in General Plans and Specific Plans. Land use compatibility is an important issue addressed recently by the Board regarding vacation rentals conflicts and cannabis farms, and it should be addressed where high density development is proposed in designated rural areas. Yet, it is excluded from the SDC Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. Is this because the County is contemplating redevelopment that is not compatible with the onsite and surrounding open space resources, wildlife corridor, and residential neighborhoods? To outright ignore land use compatibility is to ignore the General Plan, existing land uses, and the quality of life of  residents in the community. (Alice Horowitz)

We want:

1/ That the environmental care be between the hands of the American Indians, who this land was stolen from. Time for retribution! They are the only people who have the knowledge and can be trusted to care for the earth in a decent manner. The Ecology Center in partnership.

2/ The historical building is to be preserved and maintained. 

3/ An educational center:  workshops for young adults to learn important and needed trades such as carpentry, electricity, plumbing, etc. Ecological & environmental science studies, languages, etc.

4/ An Art center with performances, outdoor theater, art classes and exhibits. Public hiking trails preserved. (Yannick & Don Pont)

I'd love to see some food and flowers grown on SDC land, professional growers for a fee, and individual growers to have a plot there. No grapes, just good food grown on "our" land. I think that restaurants, schools, and stores would take advantage of the gardens. (Jane Brier)

Some residential housing is fine, but exiting during a fire or other emergency needs to be studied, considering the entire valley.  Highway 12 and Arnold Drive have limited capacity and could easily be inundated, especially during emergency events.  If a tree or an accident would block one of these escape routes, we would be in a mess.  In September, my wife and I had a horrifying experience trying to return from Oregon when Highway 5 was closed due to fire and we were routed onto Highway 99.  We quickly found ourselves in gridlock with nowhere to go and it took 4 hours to go several miles.  Suddenly a helicopter was dropping water to our immediate left--we were separated only by the two lanes of gridlocked traffic heading north.  We were lucky in that instance.  We were in Talent/Phoenix OR and those areas were ultimately destroyed.  The same thing could happen here.  Please be mindful since fire has been an issue in our County the past 4 years!  The SDC is located in a wildland-urban interface and as such, is at greater risk of catastrophic wildfire, as we have seen.  Yes, there is a State mandate to build more housing, but LOCATION needs to be considered.  Consider denser projects along the 101 corridor and perhaps it is time to ask why we allow the conversion of residential homes to short term rentals, thus reducing housing inventory? (Sharon Church)

Very important decision for the SDC Specific Plan and the absolute necessity to consider community character of Glen Ellen and the California Native leadership and many local voices. WE can do this properly, but please listen to all voices and arrive at an improved consensus of open space and future uses both commercial and non profit - while not destroying this precious and important resource . Listen and modify. ( Richard Schindler )

Comments for the January 26 SDC update
Are there plans for increased traffic in terms of additional access to Highway 12 or Arnold Drive or Warm Springs Road or even new roads out of Sonoma Valley as the population increases?
Reduce plans for any multi-acreage single family homes in favor of affordable worker and low income complexes.
Prioritize locally owned or worker owned retail or other businesses.
Plan for centrally located non profit district with homeless, senior, indigenous, teen, disabled and LatinX representation. (Maria Solarez)

I live in the neighborhood south of the SDC on Marty Drive.  I don't like the constant referral to us as "Eldridge"--we are a part of Glen Ellen.  "Eldridge" has always been the SDC campus and they had their own post office.  Our legal address is Glen Ellen.  I feel like we are being erased from Glen Ellen and I hope that is not the intention.  "Eldridge" should become a part of Glen Ellen, not a separate community.  (Sharon Church)

The Glen Ellen Forum SDC/Eldridge Committee supports addition of the following as a Guiding Principle to the SDC Specific Plan: Balance redevelopment with existing land uses. Use recognized principles of land use planning sustainability to gauge how well proposed land uses protect public trust resources and fit the character and values of the site and surrounding area, as well as benefit local communities and residents. For an analysis of the concept of Community Character, I recommend reading "How Do You Define Community Character?" by Gary Pivo. You can find a pdf of this article (Community Character) at the top of the Downloads page. (Alice Horowitz)

I'm not seeing any participation or even mention of California Native leadership and agency within this project even though several people have consistently lobbied for this. We can not discuss land use and reform in this valley without the Pomo, Wappo and Miwok. Please tell me how you intend to address this. We can do this, but the willpower needs to be there and the platform needs to be open and shared. (Dmitra Smith)