We spend a lot of time and effort in Sonoma doing something we call “planning.” The City of Sonoma has a “Planning Department” and a “Planning Director, a “Planning Commission” and a “General Plan.”
Planning sounds like a good idea. While none of us can foretell the exact nature of the future, our past experience helps to guide our actions. Of course, this assumes that a clear set of goals exist upon which our plans are made. In principle, these goals are articulated in the General Plan and associated documents, and govern the planning decisions made by various commissions charged with that responsibility.
However, we see less planning happening here than reacting. One project after another comes forward, often “out of the blue,” as property owners and developers seek to maximize the value of their assets and investments. Insofar as this process contributes to the goals of our plans is often a matter of opinion. On the one hand, creativity in land use reflects a diversity of tastes and approaches; none of us would like to live in a “cookie cutter” town of rigidly imposed appearance or use. On the other hand, our planning process is primarily geared to the encouragement of economic growth and developer return on investment; planning for the wider impacts of development is rarely part of the planning process.
Very large projects most often require an EIR, but this planning tool pertains to environmental effects in general, and how to mitigate them. What’s not required of large projects, however, is an analysis of the larger, non-environmental effects, such as housing and economic balance. Large commercial projects proceed without regard to providing housing for the workers who will be employed. We at the SUN don’t see this as good planning, and certainly is not complete planning. Only one-half of the planning process is happening, the half that pays off for investors and developers. The community at large is left empty-handed when it comes to housing and broad economic impacts.
Some argue that added tax revenue bolsters the local economy, and this is true as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it does not go very far, given the rising yearly cost of government and the provision of public services. Government does not build housing for workers, but it has the power to require it when large commercial projects are approved, and it should. Alternatively, housing in-lieu fees should be large enough to fund the construction of worker housing.
Our view is it’s better to plan properly and consider all the effects of development on the community rather than using our currently simplistic approach, which isolates development effects and sequesters them within a fragmented planning approval process. This latter approach has resulted in Sonoma’s present affordable housing crisis, while simultaneously enriching the already well-to-do.
We can and should do better. Balanced planning requires consideration of the social and community values also emphasized in the General Plan. Might it slow the pace of development to do so? Possibly, but the costs of developing too quickly are not reckoned in money alone and its negative, long-lasting effects are far more serious.
Be First to Comment