Eldridge For All
lawsuits
To date, two lawsuits regarding the SDC land-use planning process have been filed. The first was filed on Jan 18, 2023 by co-plaintiffs Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE) and Sonoma County Tomorrow (SCT). The Second was filed on Jan. 14, 2025 by Sonoma Valley Next 100.
Community Groups File Lawsuit Challenging SDC EIR
Glen Ellen, CA, Jan. 20, 2023
Calling it “a short-sighted plan with serious environmental consequences,” two community advocacy organizations have filed suit requesting Sonoma County revise the environmental impact report (EIR) for the SDC Specific Plan and scale back proposed redevelopment of the former Sonoma Developmental Center campus.
The goal of the lawsuit is to require the county to revise the EIR to address critical environmental issues and provide accurate analyses for appropriate mitigations. The current EIR is incomplete and deeply flawed, according to the plaintiffs.
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. The plan, which allows construction of up to 1,000 homes, 400,000 square feet of commercial space, and a resort hotel in the middle of rural Sonoma Valley, must be scaled back to bring it into compliance with environmental law.
“This intensity of development is completely out of scale with the rural community that surrounds the site and, because of the high wildfire risk, could endanger the lives of thousands of current and future residents of Sonoma Valley,” said SCALE spokesperson Tracy Salcedo. Portions of the SDC campus, as well as the surrounding village of Glen Ellen, were devastated by the Nuns Fire in 2017, when residents struggled to navigate backed-up one-lane roads trying to evacuate.
The EIR’s wildfire evacuation analysis found that adding 2,400 residents and about l,000 workers on the site would have virtually no impact on evacuation travel time. “This analysis defies the real-world experience of Sonoma Valley residents in both 2017 and in the 2020 Glass Fire,” Salcedo said.
The EIR also fails to adequately analyze biological impacts of the redevelopment, including impacts on the critical Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor, a pinch-point running through the property that supports the movement of a variety of species within the Sonoma Valley and as far as Marin County’s coastal region and Berryessa Snow Mountain National Wildlife Monument. Excessive development puts the wildlife corridor and the surrounding 750 acres of open space at risk, diminishing the ability of plants and animal species to adapt to climate change.
The SDC Specific Plan also recommends removal of historic structures and landscaping. Instead, the plaintiffs say adaptive reuse of historic buildings, where feasible and as required by state law, would reduce resource and material consumption, put less waste in landfills, and consume less energy than demolishing buildings and constructing new ones.
While advocates support construction of affordable homes on the site, they stress it should be at a reduced density that doesn’t transform the rural site into a small city. “If Sonoma County continues on this misguided path to create new urban centers in its unincorporated areas, in the wildland-urban interface and on agricultural lands, both lives and communities will be at risk,” Salcedo said.
Because the county’s EIR doesn’t adequately study or mitigate the environmental impacts of such high-density development based on real-world conditions, “holding the county responsible for doing the job right is imperative,” Salcedo said. “We, as citizens and taxpayers, deserve nothing less. The property, as critical as it is to our health and well-being, deserves nothing less.”
For more information about SCALE, visit scaledownsdc.org.
4/26/2024: SCALE and SCT win SDC lawsuit!
Superior Court Sets Aside Approval of the Sonoma Developmental Center Specific Plan for Violations of California Environmental Law
Local environmental groups Sonoma County Tomorrow and Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE), a coalition of Sonoma Mountain Preservation, Eldridge for All, the Glen Ellen Historical Society, and the Valley of the Moon Alliance, have prevailed in their lawsuit challenging approvals of the Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) Specific Plan and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process.
At the close of a court hearing on April 26, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo ordered that the SDC Specific Plan and EIR approvals be set aside. In a comprehensive 40 page decision, the Court held that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in numerous respects including that the Plan EIR failed to: include an adequate project description with respect to the number of housing units allowed; adequately address impacts on biological resources, wildlife corridors, and wildfire evacuation; address cumulative impacts of the pending Hanna Center project; and adequately respond to the comments of concerned community members on the Draft EIR.
The Court also addressed the lawsuit’s overarching challenge to the Plan regarding its questionable “self-mitigation” approach, ruling that “purported mitigation measures in the Plan are, as a whole, ineffective, vague, and devoid of any semblance of performance standards in violation of CEQA.”
The Court held that the County’s failure to identify mitigation for environmental impacts was compounded by the omission of a legally required mitigation monitoring plan to “implement such mitigation measures as are presented.” The Court also found “no substantial evidence or analysis whatsoever” to support the County’s contention that there are no feasible mitigation measures for the Plan’s significant impacts to historic resources and transportation. The Court concluded that the Plan’s proposed mitigation measures are on the whole "vague and limited to hopeful intentions.”
Finally, the Court rejected the County’s findings that the EIR's identified Historic Preservation Alternative for a reduced size project is infeasible. “The EIR and the entirety of the cited portions of the record are wholly devoid of anything resembling either substantial evidence or the analytical route which could support the finding that the Preservation Alternative is infeasible.”
“The EIR failed to provide the County Board of Supervisors with sufficient information to properly analyze and make an informed decision on alternatives and mitigation measures for the SDC project,” said Vicki Hill, SCALE steering committee member and local professional land use planner. “We deeply appreciate the Court’s comprehensive analysis of this important case, and look forward to meaningful environmental review and approval of a Specific Plan of appropriate scale for this unique site and irreplaceable community resource.”
“We are confident that a revised analysis will demonstrate what hundreds of community members and experts have said – only a smaller scale development can balance impacts with development goals,” said Sonoma County Tomorrow Board member Reuben Weinzveg.
SCALE steering committee member and long-term Sonoma Valley resident Alice Horowitz stated that “the community support for the challenge to the County’s EIR was amazing and made this result possible. As we consistently advocated to the County, we need a plan that prioritizes and ensures housing first (before a hotel and extensive commercial development) at a scale that is compatible with the surrounding community, ensures wildfire evacuation safety, protects the critical wildlife corridor, and preserves the historic character of the site.”
Click on the button below to read the tentative ruling issued on 4/25 which was adopted by the Sonoma Superior Court on 4/26.
SONOMA VALLEY NEXT 100
January 14, 2025: Sonoma Valley Next 100 files lawsuit
Sonoma Valley Next 100 filed a lawsuit in Sonoma County Superior Court against DGS (State Department of General Services), Rogal, Grupe and others.
While the SCALE lawsuit was against the County and the CEQA process, this lawsuit is against the State and claims that the CA Department of General Services (DGS) is violating the Enabling Legislation and established historic preservation laws, and that it is neglecting its responsibility to protect the site’s natural resources under the Public Trust Doctrine.
Click on the button below to subscribe to the Eldridge For All newsletter for SDC updates and action alerts. A great way to stay informed! Your information will not be shared.