SCROLL DOWN the page to read updates, calendar items, important announcements and documents, etc. Items are posted from top to bottom in chronological order.
Keep up on the latest news re sdc
12/17/2024: Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
Results of actions taken by Board of Supervisors on 12/3/2024.
Click on the button below to read the document.
Press Democrat and Kenwood Press
Click on the button below to read Dec. 2024 updates on SDC plan progress from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and the Kenwood Press.
12/5/2024: Recap of 12/3/24 BOS Meeting
DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors discussion and actions concerning Agenda Item #52 at the 12/3 monthly meeting resulted in lots of confusion as to how the SDC Specific Plan comprehensive planning initiative (Specific Plan process) will now move forward.
The purpose of the meeting was to decertify the Specific Plan EIR and repeal the Specific Plan, in compliance with the court’s ruling regarding the CEQA lawsuit filed against Sonoma County by Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE) and Sonoma County Tomorrow (SCT). A third action was recommended in the County PRMD staff report: To abandon the Specific Plan process. This action, which is not required by the court, was the subject of much discussion.
After lengthy discussion among Board members, County Counsel staff, and planning staff, the Board adopted a revised resolution to decertify the EIR and repeal the Specific Plan but did not approve abandonment of the Specific Plan process.
However, it is clear that both PRMD staff and County Counsel believe the high-density/high-impact Rogal/Grupe proposal qualifies for the Builders Remedy (BR), so they see no reason to pursue revising the Specific Plan and EIR. It appears they believe the Builders Remedy exempts the Rogal/Grupe project from compliance with a Specific Plan.
It also appears that Permit Sonoma (PS) was pushing for abandonment of the Specific Plan to divest the Court of continuing jurisdiction. If the County abandoned the Specific Plan, then there would be no revised EIR and the lawsuit case would be over.
However, several supervisors argued to continue the Specific Plan process. A variety of reasons were given, but a key one is that Supervisor Gore said he had heard from his contacts at the State that the State would ask for their 2.3 million dollars back (money thus far spent on the EIR and Specific Plan), if the County abandoned the Specific Plan process. Supervisor Gorin questioned this assertion as there’s been no official indication that the State would ask for the money back. Furthermore, Supervisor Rabbitt indicated that the developer wants to keep the Specific Plan process in place (raising red flags for some in the audience) and repeatedly referred to the possibility of creating "a Specific Plan with a Builder's Remedy overlay."
With the Specific Plan process remaining on the books, PRMD noted that the $700,000 left from the 3 million the County received from the State to carry out the Specific Plan process (Enabling Legislation) can be spent on "fixing" the EIR that will address both the Specific Plan AND ROGAL’S DEVELOPMENT. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? It's not entirely clear, but this could mean that taxpayer money may now be used to revise the EIR and make it apply to both the Specific Plan and Rogal’s proposed project. If that's the case, Rogal may no longer be responsible for funding his own project’s EIR. AND, it could mean that Rogal's Builder's Remedy application, by default, becomes the new Specific Plan.
Outgoing Supervisor Gorin asked for community outreach and expressed frustration that developers Rogal/Grupe have not been in touch with the community. She also acknowledged pressure from the State to complete the approval process and the lack of communication between the CA Department of General Services (DGS, which still owns the property) and the County. Staff acknowledged that the approval won’t be done by July 2025, when the State is threatening to vacate the property. Supervisor Rabbitt expressed frustration that the County didn't know what was going on with DGS and Rogal interplay. Note: As property owner, DGS allowed Rogal/Grupe to apply for a project under the Builder's Remedy. They could have required developers to comply with the Specific Plan. What gives?
WHAT NOW?
It’s not clear how the Specific Plan process will be melded with the project application. Here are just a handful of questions raised by the BOS' most recent actions re the SDC project.
1. Will the Builder's Remedy streamlined rules (i.e., only 5 public meetings) apply where the effort is to meld the Specific Plan process with the Rogal/Grupe application? It appears this is the County's intention, thus greatly reducing transparency and community input.
2. What will be the timeline of a combined project? As of now, there is no established timeline. The County is waiting for a complete application from Rogal/Grupe. As soon as the application is deemed "complete," environmental review of the project will commence.
3. How can the community engage with the County to be involved in the process?
4. The revised EIR must consider all cumulative impacts associated with Hanna and other developments. Can impact findings in the revised EIR allow the County to override Rogal's Builder's Remedy application, or does the Builder's Remedy trump all reason? For example, if the EIR shows the Rogal/Grupe plan will severely impact wildfire evacuation capacity, can the County force developers to reduce the number of housing units or must the County adopt overriding considerations and allow the developer to build out to full capacity?
5. Who is in the driver's seat? Developers looking to maximize profit who have never even bothered to engage the community or the Board of Supervisors who have a responsibility to take public safety and the protection of public resources into account?
6. Why doesn't the County work with the community and try to avoid another lawsuit? They are undertaking a flawed process and a flawed plan all over again - and they fully expect to be sued. Supervisors Gorin and Rabbitt acknowledged the strong possibility of future litigation. Why risk more expensive litigation and significant delay when the community has repeatedly expressed willingness to work with developers and County to come up with a plan everyone can live with?
12/4/2024 Santa Rosa Press Democrat (Daniel Johnson: Index Tribune Staff Writer)
BOS decertifies EIR and sets aside SDC Specific Plan but retains comprehensive planning initiative
Following a series of judicial rulings, county supervisors on Tuesday decertified an “environmental impact report” and related county zoning changes for the large, state-owned property near Glen Ellen.
A citizens’ lawsuit to derail a massive redevelopment of the shuttered Sonoma
Developmental Center reached the corridors of the Sonoma County Board ofSupervisors on Tuesday, prompting additional delays in what county leaders hoped would be one of their largest housing initiatives in years.
Following a series of judicial rulings earlier this year, supervisors unanimously agreed
to decertify an “environmental impact report” and related county zoning changes for the
state-owned property near Glen Ellen, abutting Jack London State Park. They also
repealed approval of another document, called the “specific plan,” that had guided a
developer’s vision for the project.
Board members reached their decision after discussing the subject, and getting an earful
from the public on it, for more than 100 minutes. “It is my opinion and the opinion of the Glen Ellen Historical Society that we support the board’s proposal to decertify the EIR and set aside the specific plan,” said Teresa Murphy, vice chair of the Glen Ellen Historical Society, which has been among the most vocal opponents of the Sonoma Developmental Center proposal and also has been among a coalition of groups fighting it in court. “It’s time to redraw the plan according to the wishes of the community, which is a scaled-down version which has many advantages, including health and safety, and climate and wildlife protection,” Murphy also implored to county supervisors. “It’s also the opinion of the Glen Ellen Historical Society that there has not been sufficient review of the vast historical resources at SDC, making these assets vulnerable to complete destruction.”
Besides Murphy, more than a dozen other opponents of the project voiced deep concerns about it, citing traffic, wildfire and environmental concerns. Initially, Permit Sonoma, county government’s planning and code-enforcement division, approved placing 1,000 housing units on the 180-acre SDC core campus, part of what once was a 945-acre site. Portions have since been set aside as park land.
In January 2023, residents took that plan to court. A coalition called Sonoma Community Advocates for a Livable Environment that month sued Sonoma County, alleging that the project, as approved, failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
In April 2024, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo ruled that the
county didn’t define the number of housing units allowed, respond to community
concerns in the draft environmental impact report or adequately gauge impacts on
biological resources and wildfire evacuation. DeMeo also ruled that the county didn’t
fully consider the impact of another large development proposal just to the south, at the
Hanna Center, a child-welfare campus that also is proposing selling off some of its land
for a 600-home development alongside retail and commercial space.
The judge issued a writ in October that all but compelled the county to decertify the
environmental impact report and related zoning amendments for the Sonoma
Developmental Center. As a result, county staff and attorneys suggested abandoning the
“specific plan,” arguing the county would be powerless to enforce it on the SDC
developer: Eldridge Renewal LLC, led by Napa-based builder Keith Rogal. That set the stage for Tuesday’s decision by the supervisors to abandon the environmental impact report and specific plan.
What happens next is difficult to predict. The project, at the very least, faces a complicated road ahead, with the supervisors’ action appearing to push back a final decision on it for months.
Neither Rogal, nor anyone from Eldridge Renewal, publicly addressed the board Tuesday.
Board members and Sonoma Valley residents voiced a need for the State of California
and the developer to engage with residents about the SDC’s future and the scale of the
project.
Meanwhile, county leaders decried that the State of California, which continues to own
the property as the sale to Eldridge Renewal is pending, might be requesting $2.3
million from county government because the project has not met deadlines.
“I appreciate the discussion and I think we’re getting to a place where we need to go,”
said Supervisor Susan Gorin, who represents District 1, which includes Sonoma Valley.
“I can’t help but state that the State has made an intentional disinvestment from the
property for decades, so for them to expect a developer and the county to come up with
a financially feasible plan with a detailed infrastructure is immoral.”
Reach the reporter, Dan Johnson, at daniel.johnson@sonomanews.com.
Rogal/Grupe ReSubmits 3rd Development Plan Application
On 10/7/2024, Developers Rogal/Grupe submitted a revised development plan application for even MORE housing on the SDC core campus claiming vested rights under Builder's Remedy law (SB 330). CLICK HERE to read resubmitted application documents.
As property owner, the CA Department of General Services (DGS) signed off on the Rogal/Grupe Eldridge Renewal LLC application, thus endorsing this overreaching proposal for 990 housing units, only 200 of which will be deemed “affordable.” In doing so, the State is willfully ignoring housing priorities (affordable and for individuals with developmental disabilities) as set forth in the enabling legislation of 4/19/2019. And by circumventing the Specific Plan process by means of Builder’s Remedy, the State is also ignoring its agreement with Sonoma County to ensure a balanced project. CLICK HERE to read the CA Department of Finance SDC Budget Proposal pdf.
For the State to approve the Rogal/Grupe development plan that is now even larger than before, further encroaches on the wildlife corridor (hotel and convention center relocated from center of core campus to northwest corner), creates climate-warming urban sprawl, and compromises evacuation capacity for the entire Sonoma Valley reflects utter tone deafness on the part of both developers and state officials. Residents of Sonoma Valley and many others have stated loudly and clearly, since well before closure of the SDC in 2018, that redevelopment of this environmentally sensitive and historically significant property must be aligned with the carrying capacity of the land and in harmony with surrounding communities. The plan put forth by DGS and Rogal/Grupe is anything but.
For its part, Permit Sonoma is now evaluating whether the Rogal/Grupe application contains the required level of information to be deemed "complete." Once deemed complete, the environmental review and other actions needed to assess the many aspects of the project will commence. The public will have the opportunity to weigh in. However, to accelerate the application processing time, SB 330 limits the County to a "five hearing" rule, which means we will need to make effective use of any and all opportunities to comment in person or via written input.
Our Sonoma County Board of Supervisors should boldly and bravely think long and hard about how to react to such a cynical move on the part of DGS and Rogal/Grupe, not only for the future of Sonoma Valley, but also for the rest of Sonoma County. Allowing Rogal/Grupe to move forward with the proposed plan would be to ignore long-standing County policies of city-centered and transit-oriented development thereby promoting the type of sprawl, traffic, and building patterns that for decades local planners have tried to avoid. (CLICK HERE to read Phil Barber's "Sonoma County 'blindsided'..." in the 08/23/2023 edition of the Press Democrat.)
SCALE and SCT, co-plaintiffs in the CEQA lawsuit challenging the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SDC Specific Plan will issue a statement in the near future.
CLICK HERE to read Judge Bradford DeMeo's tentative ruling in favor of SCALE/SCT setting aside the Specific Plan and the EIR, which was issued on 4/26/2024 and is still pending subject to finalization of the writ and order. CLICK HERE to read letters from the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Glen Ellen Historical Society on the Rogal/Grupe resubmitted application. CLICK HERE to read Tracy Salcedo's "Revised plan for SDC redevelopment submitted" in the 7/15/24 edition of the Kenwood Press.
VOTMA commissions sonoma area fire evacuation (SAFE) study
Valley of the Moon Alliance leads the way!
On March 1, 2024, the Valley of the Moon Alliance (VOTMA) entered into an agreement with KLD Associates to conduct an independent evacuation time estimate (ETE) study for much of Sonoma Valley, specifically the area bounded to the north by Oakmont and to the south by the northern boundary of Sonoma. The study area will include Oakmont, Kenwood, Glen Ellen, Eldridge, Fetters Hot Springs-Agua Caliente, Boyes Hot Springs, El Verano, and all unincorporated inhabited areas in between these communities and the mountain ranges to the east and west. In addition, the study will consider a "shadow region" surrounding the valley. A shadow region is an area outside the declared evacuation area wherein people may voluntarily evacuate, thus potentially delaying egress of those people in the declared evacuation area. Given the widespread impact of wildfires in recent years, it is highly likely that communities neighboring the valley will also choose to evacuate.
Along with ETE studies conducted for numerous cities including Berkeley, Laguna Beach, Ashland (OR), and the Counties of Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz, KLD Associates also recently completed an evacuation study for Oakmont Village.
With a focus on wildfires, the ETE will determine how long it could take to evacuate the valley under various circumstances and will explore the sensitivity of ETE to numerous factors including, but not limited to, the following:
- the number of evacuating vehicles per household
- police performing traffic control at critical intersections
- the impact of development and resulting increased population
- the mobilization time or time to prepare to evacuate, based in part on a demographic survey of residents
With respect to assessing the impact of development and resulting increased population (residents and visitors), the study, which is anticipated to take six months and cost approximately $85,000, will consider the Sonoma Developmental Center, Hanna Center, Elnoka and other proposed and foreseeable developments in the study area.
First and foremost, the ETE is about public safety. The study seeks to understand the magnitude of the wildfire evacuation problems valley residents and visitors will face should these large-scale developments proceed as outlined in project applications. The study does not seek to solve these problems. However, data from the ETE will be widely shared, and it is our hope that County officials and fire professionals will use it to enhance public safety by updating evacuation protocols and plans as well as looking to the study for guidance regarding local development.
Grassroots fundraising is necessary to make this study a reality. The ETE Task Force (Roger Peters, Kathy Pons, Kevin Padian, Bean Anderson, and Alice Horowitz) is committed to working closely with KLD and the people of Sonoma Valley to ensure accurate data-based results.
Learn More
Click on the button below to find out more about the SAFE Study and to take the anonymous demographic survey.
Jan. 4, 2024: 650 Acres of SDC Open Space Transferred to State Parks
CLICK HERE to read the 1/4/24 CA Department of Parks and Recreation press release.
CLICK HERE to read the 1/5/24 article in the Press Democrat.
CLICK HERE to read the 1/6/24 article in the Sonoma Valley Sun.
CLICK HERE to read the 1/15/24 article in the Kenwood Press.
This is great news, but....
The transfer of 650 acres of the SDC open space to State Parks is a huge win for our environment and certainly something to celebrate. A big “thank you” to all who have advocated for permanent protection of these environmentally sensitive acres for so many years. However, developer Keith Rogal's plans to build out the SDC core campus to the tune of 930 housing units, a four-story hotel, a four-story “innovation center,” 8,000 square feet of nonresidential construction and 3,060 parking spaces will undoubtedly inflict irreparable harm, not only on the surrounding community, but on the newly protected acres as well. The outsized scale of Rogal's project will bring more traffic to further stretch our already compromised wildfire evacuation capacity, more greenhouse gas emissions, more light and noise pollution, etc. Furthermore, that Rogal has moved the original location of the hotel from the center of the campus to the outer edge of its northwest corner displays utter disregard for the wildlife corridor, the animals that depend on its functionality for their very survival, and for the vast majority of the local community opposed to the hotel in the first place. Thankfully, the lawsuit challenging the SDC Specific Plan EIR is moving forward; Rogal’s deal is definitely not done. For more on the lawsuit, please click on the button below to visit the Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment website.
DGS and Developers submit surprise Builder's Remedy pre-app
On Aug. 21, 2023, DGS (as owner of the SDC property) and the Grupe/Rogal partnership (DGS developer pick) submitted a Builders Remedy (Senate Bill 330) application to Permit Sonoma for 930 housing units, a 170,000 sqf hotel, a 161,000 sqf "innovation center," 80,000 sqf of nonresidential construction, and 3,060 parking spaces.
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.
Click on the logo to visit scaledownsdc.org
Post-BOS 12/16 Meeting Updates
Final Specific Plan
Click on the button below to read the Final Specific Plan containing all the changes made by the Board of Supervisors on 12/16/22 and other important documents.
SDC Specific Plan Notice of Determination (NOD) has been filed
This Notice of Determination (NOD) filed by Permit Sonoma on Monday, Dec. 19, 2022 begins the 30 day period during which the Environmental Impact Report can be legally challenged.
SDC Open Space Budget Request
Click on the button below to read article in the 1/13/23 Press Democrat.
Sonoma Land Trust response to outcome of 12/16 BOS meeting
Click on the button bellow to read Sonoma Land Trust's response to the outcome of the 12/16 Board of supervisors meeting amending and adopting the SDC Specific Plan and approving the Environmental Impact Report.
This fight is not over!
Planning Commission Approves SDC Specific Plan and EIR. What’s Next?
The County Planning Commission, on a vote of 4 - 1, recommended approval of the proposed SDC Specific Plan on Monday, November 7. Commissioner Greg Carr, representing Sonoma Valley, was the only “no” vote. Commissioner Carr noted practically unanimous public opposition and a highly flawed Final Environmental Impact Report as reasons influencing his vote.
While a few changes were made to the plan, the buildout numbers remain the same - 1,000 homes and 900+ jobs. The Board of Supervisors will consider the Planning Commission recommendations at a hearing on Friday, Dec. 16 (details and links to follow as the date approaches).
WHAT’S NEXT?
The recommendations from the Planning Commission now go to the Board of Supervisors for final adoption/approval. There are 3 possible outcomes at the BOS:
Note: The Board of Supervisors has an agreement with the State to complete the Specific Plan process by the end of the year. Given the timeline, which of the 3 outcomes below do you see as most likely?
1. The BOS certifies the final EIR as being “adequate” and approves the SDC Specific Plan as recommended by 4 of the Planning Commissioners. (likely)
2. The BOS makes changes to the scale of the SDC Specific Plan and/or the policies in the plan, based on public comments. This action would not require changes to the EIR, since the EIR included evaluation of a scaled-down alternative. (possible but not likely, given the Planning Commission recommendation)
3. The BOS requests staff to make changes to the EIR (and possibly changes to the SDC Specific Plan), in which case the BOS would have to wait for those changes to be made before approving the plan. (highly unlikely)
Once the BOS certifies the EIR and adopts/approves the SDC Specific Plan, there is a 30-day time limit for someone or some entity to file a law suit with the County on the inadequacy of the Final EIR. In order to file a lawsuit, the entity or person must have submitted comments on the EIR.
Submit comments to the BOS in advance of the 12/16 hearing, which will be a ZOOM meeting. As mentioned above, details and links will be available on eldridgeforall.org as the date approaches!
10/26/22: SVCAC rEjects FEIR!
A bit of good news...
On 10/26, the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission (SVCAC) unanimously rejected Permit Sonoma's proposed plan of 1000 homes and 900+ jobs and recommended approval of the scaled-down/environmentally superior Historic Preservation Alternative (HPA). Commissioners rejected the plan on the basis of a faulty Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), citing concerns regarding impacts on wildlife, traffic, evacuation times, and water usage. Commissioners also questioned Permit Sonoma's assertion that the preferred plan is the only economically feasible option.
The SVCAC's unanimous recommendations shine a glimmer of hope on what has, thus far, been a demoralizing and depressing process; Commissioners deserve a big THANK YOU for acknowledging widespread community concerns. HOWEVER, the SVCAC is advisory only. The Planning Commission will be making a recommendation on the Specific Plan to the Board of Supervisors and is NOT required to follow the SVCAC recommendation. This is why it's critical to continue to participate in the process. The Board of Supervisors is the ultimate decision-maker on the proposed plan.
The next Planning Commission meeting on the SDC is scheduled for Thursday, Nov. at 1:00. Click HERE to join the zoom meeting.
DGS moves ahead with RFP despite county delays
Why people protested at the SDC on June 6
Read about the June 6 protest in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/protest-in-glen-ellen-over-sdc-redevelopment/
June 7: Reasons for Protest
Seeing that 1) the Specific Plan Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) hasn’t been released (coming out sometime in late July); and 2) consequently, the public has not had an opportunity to provide input on it (two steps necessary to finalizing the SDC Specific Plan), it is truly shocking that on May 17 the CA Department of General Services (DGS) released its Request For Proposal (RFP). Why? Because DGS is now asking developers to prepare bids to purchase the 180-acre core campus with no concrete project description, no comprehensive site plan (which should have been part of the Notice of Preparation for the required environmental impact report per CEQA), no public comment on the Draft EIR, and no real guarantees that SDC open space will remain in the public trust or even open to the public.
What does this mean? It means developers are left to come up with their own plans with NO PUBLIC INPUT. The state’s Request for Proposals (RFP) outlines expectations from potential buyers and overlapping timelines that undermine Sonoma County’s specific planning process, which remains incomplete. This means public comment received so far by Sonoma County — all of our input into what was touted as a community-driven process — won’t be finalized and incorporated into plans before a developer is chosen by the state prior to adoption of the specific plan. The RFP does not specify how the ~750 acres of open space that surround the core, which elected officials and bureaucrats have always promised would be preserved as public parkland, will be dealt with. The fate of the SDC’s precious natural resources - and public access to those resources - remains in limbo.
In light of this total breakdown in the SDC Specific Plan process, a small group of community activists called for a peaceful Protest In Support of Stopping the Eldridge Disaster! (PISSED!). Having advocated for years to preserve SDC open space and protect the wildlife corridor from being undermined by overdevelopment of the core campus, organizers of the PISSED! Protest have 4 critical demands of County and State officials:
- Keep our lands in public hands. Transfer SDC open space to State and/or Regional Parks now!
- Regain public trust by honoring promises and respecting the local community’s wishes to have a real say in the process.
- Schedule a community meeting - no more ZOOM - between the local public, stakeholders, State and County officials. It’s high time we gather in person to discuss the particulars.
- Slow the process down. Redevelopment of the SDC is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We need to get this right!
Approximately 75 people attended the PISSED! Protest on Monday, June 6 at 12:30pm on the SDC campus at the main entrance to the SDC (intersection of Arnold Drive and Harney). Protesters gathered on the day DGS had invited interested developers to tour the SDC property.
HOT OFF THE PRESS. READ ALL ABOUT IT!
Tracy Salcedo has written an excellent article, Focus on the SDC: Open space and the public trust, explaining why the DGS Request For Proposal (RFP) constitutes a betrayal of the public trust and paves the way for all of the SDC land - core campus and open space - to forever be removed from public ownership. Christian Kallen further details problems with the RFP in his article, Sonoma Developmental Center up for sale. You'll find these two articles in the Kenwood Press (June 1, 2022). Read them!
BY THE WAY...
The official website for the SDC Specific Plan (www.sdcspecificplan.com) has a page where all official documents are supposed to be posted. According to the website, documents are routinely posted at the TOP of the Documents page in the order they are released to the public. Hence, the most recent docs can, in theory, be found at the top of page. HOWEVER, to date, the DGS RFP (May 17, 2022) has been buried at the very BOTTOM of the sdcspecificplan.com DOCUMENTS page as the last item in Background Documents, which date back to 2015. The RFP has been out for an entire two weeks. Hard to believe that burying it in such an unlikely location could be a simple mistake. Update: As of several days ago, the DGS RFP is now accessible on the sdcspecificplan.com HOME page.
WANT TO KNOW MORE? Listen to THE FATE OF SDC RADIO SHOW: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/archives.ksvy.org/KSVY_2022-06-03__16_00_01.mp3
12/3/24: BOS decertifies EIR & sets aside SDC Specific Plan
Board of Supervisors chooses to NOT abandon the SDC Specific Plan comprehensive planning initiative, but there's a catch...