Abstract of top Sonoma General Plan Land Use and Existing Conditions comments

 

Fred Allebach

6/8/24

Abstract of top Sonoma General Plan Existing Conditions Report (ECR) points

                      

General policy direction, more AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) and equity focus, the ECR needs work to include local data sources and be more accurate.

 

Reconcile conflicting goals of exclusivity and inclusivity. AFFH and equity are at odds with strong policy and planning emphasis on neighborhood character and compatibility.

 

Admit city and valley patterns of racial and class segregation. The city’s 70-75% single family homes and zoning maintains segregation. Clovis v. Martinez case law proves that too much single-family zoning and lack of integration therein is illegal. Valley segregation, of 7000+plus lower-income Latinos is significant, not to be ignored in the GP. How can this be ignored?  

 

GP has too general a view, significant local differences are not seen. Can’t be so general as to be inaccurate by omission. Need to see the actual, GP can do much better to show local socioeconomic diversity. Local DAC studies at the Block Group level by SVHG members show what is possible; these were sent to GP public comments, appear to have gone into a black hole.

 

ESRI private data, can’t double check private sources; can’t see what was left out; lower-income/ BIPOC communities appear to be nixed out of local demographic analysis.  It is improper to have private data in a public report; this does not build trust when equity issues already seems elided.

 

Data, many inaccurate citations, need local sources:

Ø  GP asserts “areas around city are wealthier”, ignores clear Latino Springs demographics

Ø  GP “average rent” is too low, no one can find anything at GP-quoted prices

Ø   GP say .3% experience food shortages, Catalyst Fund study say 1 in 5 or 8000 valley people experience food shortages

Ø  GP says “average household spending is $37,000”; average is really at a Very Low-income level? Wrong.

Ø  GP says “$900 per year per person spent on medical”, this is much too low for a city with many seniors

 

There are enough questionable and inaccurate ECR data assertions that the Council needs to direct staff and DeNovo to tighten this up a lot. Who red flags and double checks questionable assertions?   

 

Update land use map Acknowledge that single family zoning (SFZ) is equivalent to exclusionary zoning. Dial back SFZ to only 25% of total residential zoning, Upzone all SFZ residential areas to an equal mix of high, medium and mixed-use zoning, to capture the underutilized space in these exclusionary zoned areas. Generation Housing and the White House validate the concept of exclusionary zoning. The city’s Juneteenth Proclamation says systemic racism needs to be addressed. Why proclaim to be against segregation and then do nothing to fight it with local land use?

 

Change zoning and conditions of approval on vacant parcels at Armstrong Estates and the Sebastiani site.    

 

Housing Opportunity sites, get rid of this land use designation, it’s window dressing, it is not working, these sites almost all go market rate. Make it so 100 % AH projects can go anywhere by right with fee and regulatory streamlining. Take out 850 sf exemption in the 25% inclusionary ordinance that allows an unproven “affordable by design” concept to replace actual lower-income units.

 

Open Space, give St. Francis Preserve to SAHA and let them unwind the Fish and Wildlife issues.

 

Sustainability, GP needs triple bottom line, full cost accounting framing and more focus on the social and equity pillar. Sustainability policy view is not balanced when ignoring critical pillars. Sustainability needs clarity in EJ Element, that it is not just an environmental thing. GP consultant said sustainability touches all GP Elements; we need to be clear what it even is, especially if equity is conflated with environmental justice only.  

 

Environmental Justice (E J) and Equity

Ø  Make Equity a stand-alone category, not folded into EJ, it is no good to collapse all equity into EJ

Ø  The call for inclusion of EJ communities to have policy input means electeds have to have political will to back up calls for justice, like in this SVHG comment.

Ø  EJ has been very hard to get on the city radar, years of nada; comments are almost never responded to, what incentive is there to comment if comments are ignored and not engaged?

Ø   There are county EJ communities in the city sphere and planning area on the city south side and contiguous to city in Springs.  This justifies a GP EJ Element and needs mentioning in the ECR.

Ø  GP cites Measure of America Portrait studies but fails to include local HDI (human development index) data that show the same exact pattern in Glen Ellen/ Sonoma Mtn to Latino Springs as there is  in Roseland and Bennett Valley.