Fred Allebach
8/19/24
Public comment for 8/22/24 Sonoma Planning Commission (PC) meeting, Agenda item 5.1 General Plan land use
Given Sonoma’s role as the hub of Sonoma Valley (SV) and that many SV stakeholders are looking to Sonoma to provide leadership on smart growth and dense infill so as to not push the city UGB or have urban service area-edge projects like SDC and Hanna, or even the SSP (Springs Specific Plan), a broader typology of housing, city land use, and zoning is called for to meet the diverse needs of the full SV demographic, not just that of Sonoma.
In an interconnected valley, Sonoma is not an island.
Suggestion: Since the land use map controls zoning and all that follows, look to create a planning process to get the outcomes we are looking for. “We” is the whole community: renters, owners, upper middle class, the “workforce”, essential workers, Latinos, seniors; all. All have different sets of interests and material needs that land use planning can account for. A balanced and inclusive city General Plan (GP) land use map needs to reflect this diverse set of community stakeholders.
Hold in mind ideological, racial, and class inclusiveness in the General Plan (GP) land use map. Start with this map and then make a policy palette to give an appropriate variety of pragmatic and ideological remedies for various community land use needs, housing in particular, that are reflected first in land uses and then aligned in zoning and critical pieces made by-right in the Code.
By ideology I mean allow and be open to planning parameters as seen by UC Berkeley Terner Center and Otheing and Belonging Institute, not just the Embarcadero Institute. The UC Berkeley view embraces puts renters on equal footing with property owners as legit community stakeholders.
Sonoma needs the political will to address affordable housing (AH) from all the angles that it can. Frame AH in terms of adaptive and inclusive demographic planning. Find options in land use and make plans. This is a worthy GP land use map goal. Realize that duplexes and ADUs are not going to do anything for the bulk of AH needs; they are a false panacea for AH.
Let everyone have a stake in Planning Commission recommendations. Realize that local control is only good if all local voices are heard and represented, and that many renters see state housing laws as good and necessary to protect their stakes. Hear and respect the renting cohort. Don’t let land use map set the stage for more modern redling, acknowledge that past map and zoning practices have amounted to that. Change is good.
BAFA Bond or bust? That the Sonoma Valley Fund got $20 million donated to the hospital, and that anti-SDC groups reportedly have a multimillion dollar war chest, that La Luz can raise a half million in one night, and that Impact 100 gives away very large sums yearly shows that money is not as big a barrier to local AH as it looks. Where there is a will, there is a way. The land use map can and should assume progressive changes can happen.
Possible options
Put on your can-do hat and re-imagine Sonoma! Smart growth infill applies to ALL of the small city, not just Highway 12. Plan for a transit ring around the city to pick up pockets of planned-for dense residential hubs and areas in all quadrants of town; cash in on transit bonuses etc. Transit can go in ex-post-facto.
Put all land use options on the table for the First Congregational Church (FCC) lot, so they can get to a dense, multi-story, 50+-unit AH project. Don’t hamstring their potential by limiting their options.
Create four-plus AH overlay zones with a minimum of 40% balanced AH between ELI, VL, L and Mod units., foster the community housing outcomes looked for. If someone wants to develop, they can develop this or other city-mandated prescriptions.
Bump up all zoning to increase density. Bump up FAR (floor area ratio), site coverage, height, and setback allowances etc. Allow no one type of residential zoning to be more than 25% of total residential land use.
Sonoma is now 65% R1 and 70+% low-density, single family zoning which can be seen as and is exclusionary. This needs to be chipped away at to make a more balanced zoning and land use portfolio. Reduce R1 to less than 25% of all residential areas and add more medium and high density in current yellow, R1 areas
For character, focus on social fabric and social character deficits as equal in priority to visual character; in this view, some upzoning of R1 needs to happen. It won’t work for inclusivity, to try and cram all new density into the same current footprint so as to retain visual character. Sonoma land use needs to adapt and evolve and set the table for the next generation in this GP; consider the coming generation. Social character, ie., a diverse community, needs a seat at the table and to have land use reflect pathways to that inclusivity.
Have an eye to make land use and Code housing prescriptions actually work, have some teeth, so as to get what we want and what is right for a just society here. Land use then zoning then by-right Code; create the path for easy action, not a labyrinth of blockades.
In upzoning of R1 low density yellow areas to medium and high density, do so in a proportional way so all sides of town bear an equal upzoning. If some sides have a density deficit, they may need to take more. The central west side and mobile home park areas of the city have strong disadvantaged community (DAC) components and it will not be fair by AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) standards to load more dense, low-income housing plans there while allowing the whole east side to skate.
Somebody on the PC take up AFFH as their cross to bear, study but good, advocate for it, to be a proxy voice for equity in city planning.
Low density, single family home areas are not “built out.” Keep in mind that the three locations on Hwy 12 set aside in the city 6th cycle RHNA site inventory for lower income housing are all infeasible in serious ways and that the city has already started to accumulate a 6th cycle lower-income housing deficit. Where is the land use map going to account for lower income housing when these Hwy 12 sites go bust? Will the city have to eat an SB-35 by-right remedy because of lack of lower-income housing RHNA production?
Plan for land use with one large, high density, 50-unit lot/ project per city-quadrant with an AH overlay as part of a land use planning palette to give appropriate variety of ideological remedies to the city’s residential pattern.
Key in on state AFFH law as guidance for what’s needed in land use; study Martinez v.Clovis case to see how too much R1 zoning is exclusionary.
Focus on TCAC (tax credit) high and medium opportunity areas in the city for upzoning and innovative land use prescriptions to increase AH there. Prescribe what we want to see on the Sebastiani site, do all you can so big lots and housing opportunity areas do not keep going market rate. Don’t let the Sebastiani site get away with just the inclusionary requirement.
When developers say stuff does not pencil, recall that vampire squid mobile home park investors say the same exact thing, they can’t make a profit. Well, we need to see the books before we can believe any of that. The city attorney said it is not a taking to upzone, and it’s likely not a taking to prescribe what the city wants as long as some profit can be made.
Allow more of what was done for residential building in the past, allow variety in building types, let builders run with it and have some fun.
Allow lots to put in a mobile home, not just ADUs.
Look for land to make a new mobile home park that is not in a flood plain.
Possible larger sites: Get bold!
Sebastiani commercial area. This TCAC High Resource Opportunity Area. Cash in on that.
Armstrong Estates. Combine lots on Napa St. East to meet minimum AH-size lot; change the conditions of approval; that area has lots of wasted space. Those guys should not be able to buy segregation.
Give the city-owned St. Francis Preserve to Satellite Affordable Housing Associate for AH production. Let them deal with the restrictions and getting them lifted.
Vallejo field between FCC and condos to the east. Use state excess land program; that slice if the field is already compromised by houses that have about zero visual character.
Doyle lot. Have the Catalyst Fund cohort buy it, get the option from DeNova. Work with the county to prezone for a great, dense, multi-income, integrated project. It looks like the prime opponent to Doyle density has sold his property.
Expand the UGB and SOI on an a la carte basis to take advantage of lower land prices, Habitat example at 285 Napa Rd. This will make an end run on land price speculation and overly restrictive UGB by allowing extra-SOI a la carte annexations from adjacent land that is at a lower price. A small annexation here or there is not “sprawl”, give up some of the anti-growth purity and see local land use with new eyes.
Take poison pills out of UGB ordinance language, these are part of an overall modern redlining land use pattern. A low-density protective stance contributes to housing shortages. Allow more pragmatic flexibility to achieve the housing equity Sonoma needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment