County EJ and Safety Element workshop notes and comments

 

Fred Allebach

Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting/ workshop

7/23/24

Permit Sonoma (PS) Environmental Justice (EJ) and Safety Element (SE) info items to the Sonoma County (SoCo) BOS

 

EJ and SE workshop general info:

https://permitsonoma.org/longrangeplans/proposedlong-rangeplans/generalplanupdate/environmentaljusticeandsafetyelementupdate 

 

7/23/24 BOS Packet materials:   https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6784258&GUID=EAF66AF5-6DAA-4017-BCAD-DB6654091313  

 

Find video of meeting at this site

https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx 

 

Tennis Wick

There are many state General Plan (GP) requirements, Permit Sonoma had to take Elements out of order, (Housing Element took priority over EJ and SE)

 

Katrina Brahmer (PS staff for EJ and SE Elements) presents staff report

Stella Acosta, Rincon consultants is present but does not speak

 

Critical point: “To what degree the GP should be general?”

- GPs are general, keep them adaptable, and also direct and accountable

 

Safety Element 

-SE has to be done on a schedule; it is late bc as Tennis said, PS had to take Elements out of order, do Housing Element (HE) 

-SE was last updated in 2014, the state has expanded the scope since the fires, need to identify risks

-evac route capacity, areas of limited egress

-a lot of wildfire work of late that will be leveraged in the SE

 

SB 379 climate change vulnerability assessment

AB 747, SB 99, AB 1409 (1469?) evac route assessments later this summer

 

Environmental Justice Element

-identify DACs (disadvantaged communities), low-income areas of SoCo, 

-(map of proposed EJ areas is in packet; the EJ and SE Equity Work Committee or EWC did a lot of work to ID these areas; two SoCo EJ communities in SV: South Sonoma [Tract 1502.03?] and the Boyes-Fetter’s Agua Caliente/ Census Tract 1503.05)

-“EJ communities” = DACs; (DACs, DUCs, EJ communities, all have varying methods to define them, not one way to quantify them; one common factor is median household income [MHI] below 80% of state MHI) 

-Katrina: all EWC comments are in packet appendix; EJ policy development is led by community voices, civic engagement is an EJ mandate

-PS will “incorporate and align” EJ Element with other SoCo equity work: Office of Equity, RCPA, Regional Parks, CARD (Climate Action and Resiliency Division), Sonoma Clean Power etc.

-(should cities follow SoCo lead here? Sonoma will have an EJ Element? Sonoma seems resistant to opening too much GP equity material, IMO bc that will expose the city Housing Element as having  underplayed equity and AFFH/ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing issues) 

 

BOS questions  

Hopkins

-go beyond EWC work to more granular work in each community, Forestville is different than other communities

-west county issues: homeless, septic in Russian River area

-(EWC was pretty granular for SV EJ communities, maybe did not get Temelec and all mobile home parks) 

 

Katrina says that MAC and CAC workshops, and public review period will provide more granular feedback 

-and that given state timelines for GP updates, the EJ and SE need to be finished

 

Hopkins, ask MAC and CAC members who to reach out to? (note, Katrina already did this with the EWC and I provided her with a who’s who of SV equity-focused people)

 

Gorin

-connect with Paul Dunaway on aging/ senior issues, make state senior initiatives local

-put a senior lens on EJ and safety

-critical area: put mobile home parks into evac analysis, she notes Paul Gullixon’s book “Enflamed”

-how to evac seniors? Are there enough buses? 

-require every new development to provide evac plans. Make hotels, VRs have evac plans

-GP be clear about evac analysis

 

Coursey

stays out of the weeds, for now

 

Gore

Make sure EJ community ID is consistent with other methods of DAC/ DUC ID (but these can’t be consistent if diff agencies use diff criteria)  

-SoCo residents want paving but don’t want gravel quarries; don’t externalize county enviro impacts

-SoCo needs to own it”; don’t push the burden to other communities (LPG tankers?)

 

Katrina

 yes, watch out for unintended consequences

 

Gore

-By-right housing, people are scared of affordable housing but prior BOS made it by-right

-he draws parallel to city-centered growth (USA/ urban service area growth too? 12 USAs in SoCo) but people don’t want it; “housing is a preeminent justice issue”, how does EJ and SE intersect with Housing Element?

 

Katrina

-EJ only focuses on housing conditions and pollution/ enviro exposure

-(Fred made point in EWC process that housing was the primary aggregating indicator of well-being, and thus, equity, AFFH, EJ, housing, all interrelated

 

Gore

-Where housing should be located, make it by-right

 

Scott Orr

EJ communities map shows housing burden areas (but only by Tract)

 

Gore

-Make Specific Plans in unincorporated areas, at intersection of county and cities: Springs-Sonoma, SR-Roseland/ Moorland

-prioritize infrastructure in lived-in areas, sidewalks, gutters

 

Rabbitt

-have GPs be general

-keep it relevant and in use for as long as possible, broad, general

-he sees impulse to more specificity as based on short-term political issues to stop something or to advocate for something (as if impulse to more general does not have a political dimension as well, i.e., to undercount EJ communities)

-he prefers ongoing updates to get specificity 

-address disaster response, refers to Turkey earthquakes

-”People want more DACs bc they want to get more money”

-how does EJ work on least expensive properties? 

 

Katrina

-mapped EJ community areas have to be elevated and prioritized

-data-based decisions important to implementation

-recognize historic underinvestment (PS seems to me to be on the right track here, with it for Sonoma to emulate)

-EJ map and EJ Element provides a structure to monitor conditions and make sure SoCo is operating on best available info (best is most general when it comes to counting DUCs?)

(-self-contained community means you have to have all functions here, like Gore said)

-have an adaptable GP document

 

Gorin

Mentions Tract-level as too general, can get a better granular analysis on DUCs and DACs?

 

Katrina

-state use Tract, majority of state data is at Tract-level 

-PS can “supplement with more community input”, (I sent my SV DUC study the next day)

-”Make data-based decisions”, continue to look at approaches we take

-for sub-Tract data she mentions timing and budget consolidations

-(on one had a call for best data, on the other, time and money preclude that, so we end up with less than best data; so what is it?)

 

Gorin

-SoCo failed to ID Springs DACs, does not want GP to lose track of people

-get additional data she says 

 

Hopkins

-refers to general/ specific tension

-unique identities of smaller areas, integrity of small towns, can we do better? (to preserve and protect them?)_

-”do meet specific EJ community needs”

 

Katrina

-mandate of EJ is to meet needs of communities, with parks, public involvement etc (but not to address structural issues that create EJ communities and segregation…)

-if specific EJ communities to highlight, please suggest says Katrina 

 

Public comment

Duane DeWitt

-for meaningful engagement, has to be authentic, not just pro forma; engagement needs to be acted on or said why not

-put “shalls” in or else it is all just aspirational

 

Thomas Els

-each element has to be reflected in the others

 

Cactus Pete

-living  cactus fire walls

-geoengineering

 

Laurel Chambers of Food System Alliance

-act on the FAP or Food Action Plan endorsed by BOS in 2012

-i have a lot of background on this, Sonoma endorsed FAP in 2014

 

Rue Furch

-there may not be many here today but many more are concerned about fire evac issues

 

Pete Parkinson

-sees PS as derelict for not doing SE sooner

 

Gail Yamamoto Seymour, NAACO EJ committee plus more

-please share list of all groups outreached to

 

Fred Allebach

-gives kudos to Katrina for acknowledging in staff report that housing is a critical indicator of well being and lack of secure housing has cascading negative health effects

-also good on PS staff to lead with EWC comments and put all of them in packet appendix, this is consistent with EJ public feedback being heard and being taken seriously 

-easy enough to do a Block Group-level to properly ID DACs, use LAFCO tool, don't leave 1000s of people unaccounted for as EJ communities by using a Tract method that doesn’t accurately see DACs

-EJ and Safety Element are in tension, on one had many want to protect small-town-rural character, but this has effect of being exclusive and maintaining segregation, and ends up working against EJ, equity, and inclusiveness

-disaster planning can’t go against AFFH law, DACs, DUCs and EJ communities have to be accounted for with AFFH; where Housing Element intersects with EJ and SE

-need consistent overall social justice policy themes

-tensions between exclusivity and inclusivity need to be balanced

 

Fred’s post-meeting thoughts

There was not strong consensus that the GP be more general than specific but the tension between these poles was noted; Gorin wanted many specifics on fire evac, some were concerned about more DUC specifics; will fire evac specifics trump DUC specifics?

 

Fire evac, as a Safety Element item, has become highly politicized as it relates to new housing or commercial developments and any potential increases in population and traffic. This has breathed new life into the preserve local character cohort that has already not wanted to see any changes; this translates into a renewed vigor by small town character advocates to play the fire evac card against all new development.

 

Small town character people and fire evac advocates typically ignore the equity externalities of their positions. This is an ongoing blind spot; their righteous fight is against growth, sprawl, and developers; DACs are collateral damage whose interests are lost by omission. 

 

VOTMA (Valley of the Moon Alliance), a member of the SDC Next 100 Coalition is seeking to limit development on Arnold Drive and Glen Ellen, has commissioned a fire evac study of its own that will likely be a lot more detailed than PS produces; will not be right for Sonoma Valley (SV) to have a very detailed plan but not the rest of county, this works into general/ specific tension, if SDC Next 100 insists on a very detailed evac plan in GP, then rest of county needs it too, and rest of county needs a very detailed DAC study.

 

Where do you stop with specifics in GP?

 

Hopkins plays the small town character card under different names “unique identities” and “integrity of small town areas”, her whisperer, Eric Koenigshofer was there but said nothing in public comment. 

 

Gorin and Hopkins ask for a lot more GP evac details and specifics, not “general”; Gorin also asks for more DAC detail in Springs.

PS needs to match DAC detail to fire evac detail, if we are going to go the detail routes and times for fire evac, that needs equity balance to get more DAC/ EJ community details too. 

 

Mobile home parks are a most serious evac issue for limited egress, put multiple exits in each park, get rid of so many speed humps. 

 

Disaster evac, disaster response; fire has taken the top disaster planning billing but disaster prep in general will serve us all well if there is a major earthquake. Before the fires, we weren't prepared for a big quake. We in SoCo can be prepared but not hyper-vigilant and paranoid, this area has risks all know and accept to live here.

 

Gore keys on on Green Checkmate dynamic, says make EJ communities and DACs consistent with LAFCO DUC map. How to make consistent when diff agencies use diff criteria? This makes DAC ID a sort of elective issue of seeing more or less depending on political, or budget obligation preference.   

 

 

 

 

SDC movie and panel discussion review

 

Fred Allebach

7/16/24

Summary notes and thoughts on screening of new SDC movie by Glen Ellen resident Carolyn Scott

Small is Beautiful,The Quest to Save the Valley of the Moon, The Consequences of Over-Development at SDC 

Introduction

This Sebastiani Theater event was packed and was attended by key figures in Sonoma Valley’s (SV) protection and preservation community, largely comprising senior, white, propertied residents. Georgia Kelly of Praxis Peace Institute led the meeting. 

The movie featured a list of various local advocacy groups who drink the same local policy Kool Aid, including: The Sun, Kenwood Press, Sierra Club/ Teri Shore, Sonoma Mountain Preservation/ Nancy Kirwan, Sonoma Ecology Center, Wake Up/  Josette Brose-Eichar, Valley of the Moon Alliance/ Kathy Pons, and all the Mobilize Sonoma/ SVNext100 alliance. This aggregate group comprises the SDC and SV protector coalition. 

This coalition has fought many battles together and has a lot of experience with political infighting and PR campaigns, raising money. The movie is not an effort at balanced public education but rather a one-sided battle to be won or lost, to “find the right solution” as it reflects the interests of the coalition. 

Movies notes, conclusions, and thoughts

 

1. SDC Coalition’s Vision

   - Notes: The coalition, under the Sonoma ValleyNext100 banner, aims to replace county land use authority with their own vision of limited development to preserve local character and environment. This is an effort at self-determination by one slice of SV residents, favoring a certain set of values: low-density land use, preserving rural/ small town historic character, and limiting resource use. 

-The proposed agency to replace the County is a possible Sonoma Mountain Community Services District (SMCSD.) The SMCSD boundary is all west of Arnold from Glen Ellen to Diamond A, excluding Temelec and the Springs. Census-wise the SMCSD area has a large majority of wealthy, white, property owners. 

 

   - Thoughts: This vision is self-serving, primarily benefiting a privileged, landed class at the expense of broader community needs, particularly those of lower-income residents.

-Lower SV south of Kenwood has @ 35,000 people, 20,000 or so who live in the unincorporated Springs area, 7000+ of which are immigrant Latinos. Essential workers, the Latino/ BIPOC community, and renters are an equal-sized cohort to the SDC coalition but whose interests are seriously not properly advocated for.  

-A main talking point is that this SDC cohort is not being properly served by the county government and that the representation is unfair because other supervisors who SV citizens have not voted for get to vote on issues that impact SV. In this sense, there is plenty of unfairness to go around in SV. The greatest needs by the numbers are those of lower-income, unincorporated-area essential workers, also the most under-represented.  

-In terms of the Sustainability paradigm’s triple bottom line and full cost accounting, the SDC coalition places environmental values on top and while equity values for lower-income residents are minimized; the economic policy pillar ends up seen as a power struggle between the local landed class and bigger investment capital seeking to monetize SV; essential workers interests are collateral damage. 

-The fact that wealthy US whites as a class have the highest per capita GHG impacts in the world is not mentioned. SDC is a fight for environmental protection to benefit a group that has the most unsustainable characteristics in the world.

-Lower-income resident’s fairness and representation issues are minimized by the SDC coalition, as seen by status quo stakeholder’s resistance to the idea of Sonoma annexing the Springs. Self determination is good for the local landed wealthy, not good for the essential worker class. 

 

2. Thoughts of Growth and Development

   - Notes: The coalition views growth and urban sprawl negatively, advocating for maintaining the current smallish character of Sonoma Valley.

   

- Thoughts: This opposition to growth is exclusionary, benefiting those who are already landed and established and content with the status quo while neglecting the needs of lower-income workers and renters who are essential to the community but lack representation.

 

3. Use of Fear Tactics

   - Notes: Fire danger and evacuation issues were heavily emphasized, using imagery and narratives to stoke fear and opposition to development at the Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC).

   

- Thoughts: This approach is propagandistic and manipulative, focusing on inciting fears and emotional reactions without addressing broader socio-economic and environmental contexts. It is a tactic to rally support by inciting fear rather than fostering informed discussion. 

-Fire risk is real and deserves community attention, all should beware to see how inciting evac fears serves a prior NIMBY agenda. 

 

-SDC coalition members are adept at creating propaganda and stoking fears as part of their political MO to protect and preserve SV against various perceived evil interlopers. “Sprawl” (any incremental growth) is invoked as a hot buzzword, pointing to the needs to “save” SV from this evil fate. Same tactics by the same people in the 2020 UGB fight: frame growth and development as evil, act like that is 100% the truth; ignore and deny all other issues like SV history of segregation. 

-Anti-growth philosophy and negative effects of human overpopulation are de rigueur coalition backdrop material. Growth and human overpopulation are seen as major negatives, which they may be, however reliance on mainly environmental reasons, and wealthy white people’s place in that environment is the dominant view to which the coalition propaganda machine is turned.

-In the above sense, the movie is spin designed to rally the troops for a purely partisan fight to control SDC. 

-The SDC coalition postulates and speaks as if they alone represent “the community.”

-There are multiple fire evac studies coming down the pike, some by government sources and these will be reviewed in public by the SV Community Advisory Commission. 

-The SDC coalition-funded fire evac study, like all consultant studies, has to be seen as biased to the interests of those paying for the study, as much to prove a prior point as to be objective. (This is what SCD coalition people say about RHNA and CEQA studies; take home point, it is wise to be on guard for the biases of all parties.) All these fire evac studies will need to be looked at in aggregate and it will need to be decided land-use-wise, if fire evac fears can be the main reason to maintain a segregated, exclusive white community, i.e. “the community” in place.   

 

4. Historical Context and Past Battles

   - Notes: The coalition has a long history of mostly successful opposition to various development projects in Sonoma Valley, reinforcing their credibility and determination. They are experts at using CEQA to stall and kill projects they don’t like. 

   

- Thoughts: While this track record shows commitment, it also highlights a pattern of resistance that may be more about preserving privilege than genuine environmental stewardship. This resistance often overlooks the broader community’s needs for growth and affordable housing. The coalition feels itself righteous and has a messianic feel to it, a quest to save SV… however the interests are narrow.  

 

5. Community and Equity Issues

   - Notes: The concept of "community" is central to the coalition's narrative, yet it predominantly represents the interests of white property-owning seniors rather than the SV working-class population. Hence, the SMCSD cordons off the wealthiest and whitest area west of Arnold. In concert, Sonoma city and it’s land use and UGB (urban growth boundary) act to protect city wealthy white landowner’s interests. Overall this politically astute and active coalition may end up hanging the whole SV essential worker class out to dry in the unincorporated Springs.  

   

- Thoughts: The coalition’s claim to support equity is questionable, as their actions primarily protect their own interests and do not effectively address the challenges faced by lower-income, working-class residents who lack representation and power.

-While the SDC coalition can find every reason to protect plants and animals and the assumed SDC wildlife corridor, they then find every reason to not support Spings annexation, the successful outcome of which would share SV power and give Latino essential workers a larger voice on local affairs

 

6. Environmental and Infrastructure Concerns

   - Notes: Concerns were raised about groundwater resources, traffic congestion, and the degradation of the community’s way of life due to potential development.

   

- Thoughts: While these concerns are valid, the coalition's stance can be seen as an excuse to block development rather than a balanced approach to sustainable growth and social needs. The emphasis on preserving the status quo often disregards the need for equitable development solutions.

-SDC coalition members claim to be pro affordable housing, but their primary interest is in keeping housing at a small scale, i.e. lower density, where it is impossible to produce such housing.  

 7. Legal and Political Strategies

   - Notes: The coalition has used legal challenges to delay and alter development plans at SDC, advocating for public ownership and preservation of the site.

   

- Notes: This CEQA-stalling strategy, while effective in delaying development, is obstructive and potentially self-serving, aiming to maintain control rather than finding inclusive and practical solutions that benefit the broader community. CEQA has been called “the NIMBY law” by some, and efforts have been made to reel it in as an obstructionist tool. 

-Whether CEQA benefits NIMBYs or not, the whole CEQA-housing crisis-stage housing law-RHNA-local control mess belies a core human tendency, to cling to myopic, self-serving group rationales and then fight to the death over them, just as with religion. There is no one objective truth here, all have interests and the solution is to either finesse them or endlessly fight about them 

-SDC coalition members claim to be pro-DEI, to be inclusive, and to be pro-affordable housing but their actions show that this is not even close to their highest priority; exclusive values and results are championed in practice.

 

8. State Housing Mandates

   - Notes: The coalition strongly opposes state housing mandates, viewing them as corrupt, profit-driven, and detrimental to local control and community character.

   

- Thoughts: This opposition aligns with a broader NIMBY perspective and NIMBYism in general is detrimental to addressing the urgent need for affordable housing. The coalition’s stance is short-sighted and exclusionary, prioritizing the local control of a few over broader societal needs. The coalition claims to support affordable housing but their land use policy stances make production near impossible, which is why we see the bulk of 100% affordable projects “dumped” on the unincorporated Springs area, bc other areas defend against and disincentivize all projects

-As noted above, political positions on housing needs and laws, and on SDC take on the flavor of true belief and positions become a matter of faith. Whatever facts there are are manipulated to support one side or another. What would be fair would be for all points to get a slice of the final policy pie, not have it be a winner takes all zero sum game.   

-If the SDC coalition can figure out how to make low density deed restricted housing, that would be a boon for the whole US.

-In a state-wide battle to preserve and protect a universally white-advantaged suburbia, CA state housing laws are a seen by the coalition as corrupt and usurping the local control power of suburban whites. 

-In an unattributed news column, the Sun calls state housing laws a “collusion between state mandates and  profit-driven developers.”  This view is an article of faith. In realty, some developers are bad, some are good, and state housing laws represent a wide cross-section of interests trying to address an objective affordability and supply problem. 

-The SDC coalition questions the validity of a state housing crisis, RHNA is seen as false and inaccurate. This gets back to that faith and a priori assumptions run how people think and believe about issues; first common interests are found, then PR and propaganda is made to support that. 

-This goes right back to what interests are at stake and what data and information source gets cited.

-Lower-income workers and BIPOC interests (that I represent) cite UC Berkeley Terner Center and allied sources while SDC-type cohorts cite the Palo Alto Embarcadero Institute, that has been called “a NIMBY think tank.

-As William Blake said, “both read the Bible day and night, whilst thou readest black and I read white.”

-We are dealing with propaganda from interest-, identity-, economic class-, and racial cohort-based groups who frame the same exact situation in radically different ways; all claiming to have the facts. 

-In reality this is all like the blind men feeling the elephant metaphor, every group has a valid point, and in a typical human way, look past each other's interests and try to say only they have “the facts.” Will we ever get along and fund true common solutions for whole communities?

 

9. Panel Discussion Insights

   - Notes: Panelists, including local advocates and residents, shared personal stakes in the issue and discussed strategies for influencing county and state decisions.

   

- Thoughts: The personal stakes and strategies discussed often reflect the interests of a privileged group rather than a balanced consideration of the community’s diverse needs. The emphasis on personal loss and fear can overshadow the need for inclusive and equitable development policies for all classes and groups.

 

10. Future Steps and Advocacy

   - Notes: Continued pressure on county supervisors and state officials is planned, with a focus on preventing dense development and ensuring Glen Ellen-area community-driven solutions.

  

 - Thoughts: This SDC coalition approach maintains a status quo that benefits a select few while hindering necessary progress towards housing supply enhancement, affordable housing, and inclusive development. The coalition’s vision for the future is exclusionary and fails to address the needs and interests of the broader community.

 

The event underscored the coalition’s commitment to preserving Sonoma Valley’s rural character while highlighting the socio-economic divides and contentious dynamics between development interests and local preservation efforts. Critiques here emphasize the need for a more inclusive and balanced approach that considers the needs of all community members.