General Plan process gets underway

July 19, 2018 by Fred Allebach

To paraphrase from a recent city council goals packet, the General Plan (GP) is the vision and set of goals for future city development, intended to be a cohesive and comprehensive document.

Since “development” can be a weasel word that is freighted with multiple meanings, this vison for the future can also be seen as a plan for how the town evolves. Evolution is maybe a better word than development because evolution does not imply any particular end result. Thus city actors who frame the GP process in terms of an evolution can remain in a more neutral place with language. Future development should be replaced with a concept of evolution-based terms.

From the same recent city council packet, the GP “is the vehicle by which competing interests and objectives are balanced and resolved.” The GP is “…meant to be an expression of local values and solutions.” This is an inherently contradictory goal and process, to balance perhaps unresolvable interests which have been fighting for years. This is why I have said of the current GP that it is like William Blake’s bible quote, “both read the GP day and night, while thou readest black where I read white.” When you try to balance contradictory goals, you end up with a stalemate, and with a document where anyone can read anything they want into it. Such a process doesn’t resolve anything, it just includes all contradictory elements within artfully inclusive language.

As per the referenced packet, land use, i.e. projects, use permits, zoning and planning regulations, is supposed to be consistent with the GP. Things are not that way now because competing interests are not currently balanced or resolved, and it is not likely they will be, especially coming into an election season where differences will be emphasized.

The new GP could say, no land use item goes forward unless all interests get their piece of the pie, no zero-sum fights anymore.

The Planning Commission, as a primary arbiter of the GP framing process, needs to attempt to represent the whole community, and not to add more fuel to the fire by lobbying and trying to out-position competing interests. Alternately, PC members can disclose bias up front, and clearly lobby for the positions identified with the council member who appointed them, so the public can see what is up in terms of bias, as the GP framing process proceeds.

UGB. Will this have to come to a new vote by the people, or can the UGB be changed through a GP amendment process? If so then the UGB may come down to three votes by the council, or it may come down to an actual election. Without an election, there will certainly to be furious lobbying to get three votes for whatever competing interests see as the desired outcome.

I don’t see a climate protection element in the GP planning process. I think this needs to be in the GP as a stand-alone element. No one can afford to put their head in the sand on human-caused climate change any longer. It is essential that local municipalities all do their utmost to reduce GHG emissions at 6% per year, to meet state and world 2030 and 2050 climate goals, to rollback systemic emissions and preserve the biosphere (natural systems) for future human systems that the GP is assuming will continue to function on a more or less business as usual level. News to the informed: business as usual is done and finished if we don’t roll back GHG emissions now. This current greenhouse climate crisis is not because of volcanoes or any other natural source of carbon dioxide. There are no large-scale volcanic events that have released CO2 at a level to cause the current balooning greenhouse situation. All merits and evidence points to the current carbon and methane spike as starting in 1850, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This is on us folks, we need an element to address this. No one else is doing it for us.

I have recommended to the city that Fodor and Associates is the kind of sustainability (triple bottom line) consultant Sonoma needs to frame the GP process. We don’t need a business as usual consultant with short-term planning horizons centered on economic bottom lines only.

The General Plan process promises to be very interesting, as anyone who wants to have a voice in the evolution of the community here can come forward and join the discussion. No one will be taking IDs at the door or denying participation of valley residents who have Sonoma as a center of gravity. Now as the GP process starts it unfold is your chance to be heard and put in your two cents.