Council sidesteps housing rules
The Planning Department is recommending that City Council grant a waiver so that SAHA’s proposed plan (for affordable housing at 20269 Broadway) can sidestep a process designed to help government regulate growth. The rationale is that Sonoma is experiencing an affordable housing emergency and emergencies require swift and immediate action. But the lack of acceptable levels of affordable housing in Sonoma is hardly sudden and unforeseen — it has been a serious issue for 35 years.
I am concerned by the number of actions taken by this City Council that allow laws and ordinances to be negated and ignored when it comes to the plan. These actions have been taken in a time when a general discussion of affordable housing seems frenzied and full of controversy. My concerns are based on the regulations and procedures that have been altered or swept out of the way these past few month
Many of the steps the Planning Department and Council have taken together have been characterized as merely tidying up loose ends or to use the Planning Department’s word, “housekeeping.” But the cumulative steps will have the significant effect of putting too many people on a small lot that has numerous limitations.
The Broadway site is labeled as a “housing opportunity” but that designation does not mean it is ideally suited to house between 150 and 200 people. Density is not only a matter of how many people can occupy a development, it also includes their possessions and their visitors’ possessions. Be aware of all the parliamentary moves that will lead to the erosion of City Planning Practices and the building of a far too-dense development in the name of a 35-year-old emergency.
Lynn Fiske Watts, Sonoma
2 thoughts on “Council sidesteps housing rules”
Comments are closed.
There is a lot of spin going on here to paint a worst case scenario: Since adequate affordable housing has been a long term problem, no sense to try and solve it now? “Ordinances negated or ignored, altered and swept out of the way”? No, a density bonus and growth management waiver are legitimate and allowable parts of this process. Affordable housing discussion is “frenzied and full of controversy”? Hardly, lack of affordable housing is a widely recognized salient issue, that all city council candidates reference as a serious problem. “Far too dense”, and “150 to 200 people”? I believe the actual estimate is closer to 100.
Sure the five or six immediate neighbors don’t like this project, but let’s recognize over-the-top spin when we see it.
You are misinformed, Fred.