SDC now has a powerful state agency partner

January 26 was an important milestone in deciding the future of Sonoma Developmental Center. Sonoma County Supervisors gave instructions to their planning staff about the size and character of the redevelopment, to guide staff’s analysis of the project’s environmental impacts. Our big takeaways are:

• The number of proposed homes is lower, while the emphasis on housing affordability is higher. Planners will design three new development plans for public review, relatively similar to each other but varying the number of homes between 400 and 800.

• The chair of the California Coastal Conservancy unexpectedly appeared at the meeting to say they have $500 million to spend on climate preparedness. He offered to help make SDC a place that includes a climate adaptation center.

• On the perennial question of Who is “the community” whose needs should be met by the SDC Plan, county staff made clear that the answer depends on who you are. Responses to the county’s survey that asked about people’s concerns and desired uses for SDC were clearly different by age and ethnicity. 

As stated in our Homes for a Sustainable Sonoma Valley report, SDC is the biggest opportunity we’ll see in our lifetimes to make a substantial dent in Sonoma Valley’s extreme housing shortage, while also protecting and enhancing its irreplaceable natural legacy.

Read more about Sonoma Valley Collaborative's views on SDC here.

Sonoma Valley Collaborative is helping highlight perspectives from Sonoma Valley communities that have been under-represented in the planning process so far, such as youth and Latinx.

Read more… for who said what, and what’s in the latest redesign proposal…

Highlights of latest proposal presented by Brian Oh of Permit Sonoma

See full details here, and sign up to receive County updates here.

• 1000 homes, up to 1000 jobs, no more footprint than existing campus

• “Potential Suttonfield Lake buffer as wildlife corridor (removes several buildings on northeast corner of campus)

• Sonoma Creek setback still 50’. Hill/Mill Creek setback smaller.

• “Open space connection” still mapped right in the middle of pinch point.

• New road connecting campus to Highway 12 “either full time use or emergency use only”.

• “Building small” (meaning the housing units are of modest size) to protect open space outside campus, enlarge wildlife corridor, and create open space inside campus

• Many attractive small-scale elements like parklets, community garden space, play areas, shaded walkways, community space that includes a commercial kitchen.

• “Agrihood” east of Arnold Dr. Definition: A planned community that integrates agriculture into a residential neighborhood.

• Different price points and designs of homes that can work for different kinds of households.

• “Most exciting part” is government partnerships. Very important now to “lean into” these partnerships, including State Parks, County Parks, Ag + Open Space, Sonoma Water, county Transportation, CalTrans, Sonoma Clean Power for microgrid.

Gore has talked to state reps Dodd, McGuire, and others: no delays. State goals are both for 30x30 and affordable housing. “This was an institution,” “not the same as” regular people living there. 

Gorin: SDC as a caretaking institution, the oldest in California. Falling apart. Home to Indigenous people since way before that, lots of cultural artifacts and uses. Tribal leader Greg Sarris is interested in supporting a museum, and environmental education facility. Thanks to Ag + Open Space and Pat Wiggins for transferring the upper 600 acres to Jack London State Historical Park. Recommends to Supervisors that the county get some of its needs met on the campus: crisis stabilization facility, homeless services, incident command center, county services center, maybe move Dunbar here, fire station. Acknowledged a fear of campus development hindering evacuation. State legislators put their faith in our community to find the right path.

Gorin: What other economic feasibility strategies have you considered? Oh: Exploring these. See November alternatives report. Exploring emerging funding sources esp for affordable housing.

Gorin: Why shouldn’t we ask the state to bear the cleanup costs? Oh: That would be up to the Board to make that ask. Staff’s role is to provide numbers.

Rabbitt: Thanks to our state legislators for this opportunity. How much detail, vs how much flexibility, can we have in this plan? EIR would study the most intense scenario, yes? How do you scale the EIR vs what is likely to happen in the real world? Want to maximize flexibility. Climate center is exciting, though it’s undefined still, don’t want to preclude it. Not just another subdivision. “looking to the future while we celebrate the past”. This is a chance to think outside the box. Want to study bigger ideas even if they don’t come to pass.

Coursey: Unique opportunity, exciting opportunity for the community, by which I mean all of Sonoma County. What do you need from us today? Oh: If you like what you’ve seen today, and say so, then we know we’re on the right track. Will test and analyse this framework against a wide range of alternatives through the EIR process, looking at impacts out 10 or 15 years. Also informs the state process of disposition. EIR will analyse high end impacts. 

Coursey: when should we talk about types of housing, levels of affordability, limits to short term rentals? Oh: during the March and April workshops on policies and programs.

Hopkins: not a lot to say, happy to “uplift the local wisdom.” Want to maximize flexibility, not a corset but a muumuu.

Gore: affordability % is pretty low now , we should partner with the state to raise that. Covenants, deed restrictions, vacation rental exclusion. Beneficial institutions like green jobs. Hotel could help pay. Opportunities to partner on services as mentioned by Gorin. Project HomeKey housing, get people out of our jails. Would need to mitigate any new road’s impacts on the corridor. Regarding threat of CEQA lawsuits: we will not shirk our job out of fear of a lawsuit.

Rajeev Bhatia, planning consultant: flexibility in the plan is a priority for us, will be built into EIR. Rabbitt: how exactly do we do that? [Not answered]

Selected public comments

Doug Bosco, long-time Sonoma County resident and chair of the California Coastal Conservancy. [Coastal Commission is a regulatory body; Coastal Conservancy is a funding agency.] The Conservancy has invested millions of dollars in key places in Sonoma County. Conservancy’s role now includes climate adaptation. We were appropriated $500M for this. Climate adaptation needs a place. A place more important for our future than any other. A place where inventors and innovators can focus on this most important challenge. Can reap enormous financial benefits. In Sonoma County, we know the face of climate change. Next month the Conservancy will begin a 5 year strategic plan. As your Board proceeds, I hope you will embrace the possibility of a climate change laboratory at SDC. If you do, I will ask the Conservancy Board to assist. I have not yet raised this with our Board, but I would do what I can to promote it.

Arthur Dawson, chair of North Sonoma Valley Municipal Advisory Council: The proposal is just too big. It would double or triple the size of our rural community, and turn it from rural to urban. Everyone in our community is saying no to it, but there is a yes, written up in our letter which many other orgs have signed. The plan is not “compatible” with the local community, which the state legislation requires.

Many commenters both for and against the 1000 proposed homes.

Claire Marx Solot of Bigglesworth Family Foundation and rep of a network of hundreds of funders, with experience at the Presidio: Work with funders and nonprofit partners who can create opportunities.

Sonoma Valley Collaborative: As stated in our Homes report, SDC is the greatest opportunity we’ll see in our lifetimes to make a substantial dent in Sonoma Valley’s extreme housing shortage. While also protecting and enhancing its irreplaceable natural legacy. Don’t let historic preservation get in the way of more affordability and deeper levels of affordability. We have urged a deeper partnership with the state to achieve this, so it’s tantalizing to hear the Conservancy’s offer. We’ll keep working to elevate Sonoma Valley voices on SDC such as youth, Latino, and economic interests.

Tracy Chourre and others: We in Glen Ellen don’t see our concerns reflected here. It’s just too big. We no longer trust Sonoma County.

Several commenters: Build a lot, but not for people who drive. Need transit, train, etc.

Building trades: Suggest Supervisors table this process so it can be improved, great opportunity, should require union jobs through a Community Benefits Agreement.

Sonoma Land Trust: support affordable housing and wildlife corridor. Oppose proposed new road “through the heart of the wildlife corridor.”

Sonoma Ecology Center: Input for protecting wildlife not fully reflected, but glad to see smaller footprint. New road only for emergency use, unpaved. Conservancy could be great partner.

Dev Goetschius of Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County: The Housing Land Trust model is a good match for SDC.

Madrone Audubon Society, badger tracking: See SEC’s work documenting plants and animals of SDC.

Efren Carrillo, Burbank Housing and former Sonoma County Supervisor: Yes to housing for those whose voices in these processes tend to go unheard. Excited about this great opportunity, and about the climate lab concept too.

Ana Horta, Sonoma County Commission on Human Rights: Serving under-served committees should be at the core of your decisions. Provide them with real opportunities to live, work, and play at this site. Need to include low and very low income housing.

Gina Cuclis: Need missing middle housing for teachers etc who don’t qualify for subsidized housing.

Springs resident: Glen Ellen is not the only community with a stake in SDC. The Springs is right here on the other side with working people who are in need housing that is affordable. Exclusion impacts generations. 

Staff asks for input on general density, hotel, the major land uses that people care about, creating 3 alternatives for CEQA analysis. Not specific numbers, but ranges. 

Gorin: wildlife travel throughout the campus, not just through the “corridor”. Community Separator encompasses most of the land around the campus. We need to push the state to see this land annexed to London State Historic Park and Sonoma Valley Regional Park. State should use infrastructure money to make upgrades, fix their backlog of deferred maintenance; can’t expect developers to be interested without this. Want car-sharing, bike-sharing, EVs, microgrids, all the good things. I’ve been working on a concept called Eldridge Enterprise which is what Doug Bosco is supporting. Presidio began with institutional partners before housing. Let’s put these ideas into the Plan. Maybe a Trust, maybe not. Nonprofit hub. Philanthropic, maker space, workforce development, training, flexible space, maybe in the existing buildings. “We’re not building for us. We’re building for the future, for a more diverse community.” The missing middle may be important, but more concerned about lower income people. 450-700 units for analysis. 1000 units is creating too much community upset. No vacation rentals; an overlay zone. Also limit second homes if possible. No timeshares. Re-use main building for boutique hotel and conference space that’s tied to institutional use. No 2-acre lots. No fences, not even for agriculture. See Village Homes in Davis. Build with fire in mind: no decks, no fences, defensible space. Materials choices. Let’s find money for traffic calming for Glen Ellen, sidewalks, trails, bike plan. Intersection of Madrone and 12 took $10M, 10 years of planning. All the good things, at the right scale.

Coursey: yes, Eldridge Enterprise. Flexibility that could allow for something like that. Lots of affordable housing. OK with a hotel if it houses its employees, if it subsidizes the climate center. Climate friendly building, transpo plan for any large user. I don’t see this as sprawl, I see it as redevelopment. SDC has been used intensively for longer than any of us has been around.

Hopkins: mostly ditto. This is about an investment in the future, not about us here now.

Rabbitt: mostly ditto. Climate center sounds like a win-win for the state, would probably elicit state investment. How can we encourage people who live there to work there, and people who work there to live there? Offering homes that those workers want and can afford. Let the EIR (traffic, footprint, etc) drive the number of housing units.

Gore: I want to support any meetings with the state, any application. Mitigate any new roads; that can work, but explore it in the EIR. “planning grant” to Conservancy. Allocations of county housing funds like in the Renewal Enterprise District could be used. Multiple ways to achieve greater affordability. Can’t see the climate center paying for historic building preservation.

Gorin: This is really why I ran for re-election.

Next milestones:

February 2022: CEQA scoping session

March and April 2022: community workshops on policies and programs

June and July 2022: Planning Commission

July 2022: EIR public hearing

September 2022: Supervisors adopt SDC Specific Plan

December 2022: State sells or leases the property

Ongoing: California pursues its normal “disposition” process to offload “surplus” property

Economic assumptions

The state requires a plan that is “economically feasible”, but this phrase is undefined. As  Sonoma Valley Collaborative has written before, several elements of the proposed plan that people dislike (the hotel, the large number of market-rate homes) are there because of the economic assumptions planners have used. Here is their summary of costs for redevelopment.

Infrastructure/rehab costs