We are writing (to Sonoma County officials) following our review of the draft environmental impact report pertaining to the Sonoma Developmental Center’s (SDC) future.
By Deborah C. Nitasaka, M.A., co-founder, Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group
As most following this planning process, including Sonoma County Planning Commissioner Greg Carr, have stated (repeatedly, loudly, emphatically) – we find that this report fails, either in part or in total, to account for several environmental impacts essential to any meaningful understanding of the ways in which the public’s safety, true protections for the natural environment, and the many human needs are to be addressed. And so, with but a few scant weeks to pour through a 789 page report that bases its assessments, conclusions, and recommendations on the previous “Plan” – and so is itself deeply flawed and grossly inadequate, we will once more howl into the void.
Others with more advanced professional qualifications have pinpointed the flaws in those sections of the report pertaining to the natural environment, historic preservation, public safety, and traffic. We will restrict our comments to concerns for the future housing uses of SDC’s Core Campus — and to a planning process that appears to have now gone off the rails – disappearing into the abyss of railroaded transparency!
The first of our issues concerns the so-called “SDC Specific Plan” and the “reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Plan” – as required by CEQA in an EIR. Is it just us? We find that the community’s input is nowhere to be seen in either of these deeply deficient reports.
To illustrate, we and others have proposed, as one reasonable alternative, using SDC’s built footprint, referred to elsewhere as its “historical 180-acre built area,” as a campus for those seeking training in the trades, in the applied sciences, public service occupations, and other professions of financial and social benefit to the students, their families, and the entire state.
We see no evidence that this invaluable, desperately needed (see any number of actual empirical studies) educational use was given a moment of consideration. Remarkably shortsighted given that use of SDC’s Core Campus as a campus would come with fewer vehicle miles travelled, allocations for affordable housing, to name but a few of the benefits, in part because students, staff, and educators could be offered housing within the campus. Please see the attached letter sent to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on November 21, 2021 as it offers a deeply researched look at just such a use.
Further, the Draft EIR ignores the county’s dire need for affordable housing, calling instead for allocating 90% of the 1,000 proposed new houses as market rate homes. This in defiance of The Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan, adopted in December 2021 which determined that Sonoma County’s fair share of regional housing would be 3,881 units, with 1,632 allocated as housing affordable to very low- and low-income
households. That would be about half the homes to be built, not 10% as this draft EIR calls for! Just a disgraceful display of the preference throughout the draft for meeting the needs of the wealthy over the rest of us.
“SDC Core Campus: Consists primarily of residential buildings, with medical, educational, recreational, and administrative buildings interspersed. A cluster of utility and support buildings, and fire station sit at the western edge of the Core Campus. On the eastern portion of the site, historic agriculture uses…”
Government Code Section 14670.10.5 (c) (4): The agreement shall require that housing be a priority in the planning process and that any housing proposal determined to be appropriate for the property shall include affordable housing. It is further the intent of the state that priority be given to projects that include housing that is deed restricted to provide housing for individuals with developmental disabilities.
To this end, we propose developing cottage clusters throughout the campus designed to meet specific needs such as supportive housing for individuals with disabilities, older adults, agricultural workers, and young families in need of starter homes. As an enriching environment affording access to the educational, recreational, social, health, and support resources, all on this technical college campus, all bringing full circle the many necessities of life – all without segregating this campus from the rest of Glen Ellen – what could be better?
It is outrageous to propose 100 of the 1,000 housing units might be deemed affordable, especially when communities such as Glen Ellen have been ravaged for Tourist Occupancy Taxes since Sonoma County’s Vacation Rental Ordinance went into effect more than a decade ago. One hundred units doesn’t begin to make up for the hundreds of homes converted into commercial tourist traps over these years. We need to actually, truly, add to our housing stock. By “add to” we mean in addition to recovering, by some means, those dwelling units sacrificed for profit, private and public. The proposed housing outline comes nowhere near to meeting the documented need for affordable housing in Sonoma County.
Although state housing element law is cited in Chapter 3.1.2: Population and Housing, we believe that, beyond this scant mention, it ignores state law and the Sonoma County Housing Element. Certainly, it does not begin to touch on the county’s requirement to provide for its burgeoning homeless population, a significant aging population unable to live on its paltry retirement income, or an agricultural community ignored in this process – as usual.
Our second point also concerns process. While the people of Sonoma County, of the State of California have been encouraged to participate in a planning process sold to us as public, above board, and time constrained, we have just learned of another process. This one private, ongoing, underhanded, free of transparency, a play for SDC by a real estate developer and his business partner — both with lengthy histories of questionable business ethics. This time, having sufficiently inserted themselves into the state system, carrying satchels of cash, of many millions of tax dollars, all offered to Sonoma County in exchange for a deal requiring NO Environmental Impact Report and benefitting only the few, the wealthiest schemers.
“Public records reveal that two Sonoma County businessmen — Darius Anderson and Doug Bosco — played central roles in the backdoor negotiations for the easement sales” in a sham process meant to deflect the public’s attention away from the dealmaking between a little-known state agency headed by the same man working to bring coal through Sonoma County on the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit district — SMART line — The Bohemian
Former congressman Doug Bosco is the CEO of the private freight company Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company (NWP Co.). Along with his business partner, real estate developer (e.g., Treasure Island: Radioactive debris) and owner of the powerful Platinum Advisors political consulting firm, Darius Anderson, they leveraged their influence to lobby state and federal lawmakers for the right to transport coal, among other commodities on the SMART rail line. Although most of their plans failed to pan out, through a series of complex loans and contracts (according to The Bohemian’s 2021 report), a publicly chartered rail agency, North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA), now owes NWP Co. millions of dollars. And today they continue running freight on the SMART rails.
It should be noted that Anderson and Bosco are founding members of Sonoma Media Investments, which owns most of the print media in Sonoma County including the Press Democrat, Sonoma Index-Tribune, Sonoma County Gazette, Petaluma Argus-Courier, North Bay Business Journal, Sonoma Magazine, and La Prensa.
So it’s business as usual as the high rollers operate behind the scenes, leveraging millions of tax dollars in a play for possession of a community resource. Doug Bosco believes he and he alone can secure SDC, work around the usual requirements for an EIR, and buy off Sonoma County to create his next dream project.
When Supervisor Gorin spoke at last week’s (September 21) meeting of the North Sonoma Valley Municipal Advisory Council, there was no mention of the Bosco/Ocean Conservancy deal. Nor did County Planner Oh indicate that he was negotiating a deal with Doug Bosco when he addressed the Sonoma County Planning Commission at its September 15 meeting.
The public is entitled to an explanation – NOW! This planning process must be halted until those who will pay (in oh so many ways) are fully informed of the facts.
And now, one final point that cannot be ignored: The Sonoma Developmental Center, Eldridge, the neighborhoods south of SDC — we are one! We are Glen Ellen. We will not stand for further planning hellbent on separating our neighborhoods by this or any other planning process!
EDITORS NOTE:
Will Carruthers, news editor of the North Bay Bohemian and Pacific Sun, is the author of the news article cited above. He responded with these corrections:
A 1000 homes. How easily the county could get nearly a third of its housing obligation fulfilled. But they were dreamin’. Thanks to the folks fighting this!
Invoking Kelly Ann Conway, few alternative facts: “The community” is more than the most outraged and vocal. Wrong on the 90% market rate, there is 25% deed restricted and another 5+% as affordable by design. 30% affordable out of 1000 is rather good. This SDC Specific Plan won’t be counting to the 6th cycle Housing Element bc it won’t be built in that time frame. Census Tract analysis shows that Tract 1503.05 that goes up to Madrone Rd. hardly has anything in common with Glen Ellen, see my I-T op ed. These are different communities of interest, not all “Glen Ellen.”
Some say that building over 1000 homes, a giant resort hotel and other development on the SDC campus will benefit those that work in Sonoma Valley and currently can not afford housing here. As Deborah C. Nitasaka points out, it will mostly benefit developers and wealthy buyers and tourists. See my column for some $$ facts on this same subject. Many of us attended the walk through with county planning on 9-29. While the majority of us have been focusing on the planned development of the campus area, we missed something very important on open space. We now find that the specific plan allows for several agricultural uses, including vineyards, fenced animal farming, tasting rooms and timber activities on the land outside the campus area. I urge you all to read the specific plan and the draft EIR. Deborah is right in stating this is off the rails. As planned now this SDC plan only benefits those that are wealthy, with a bit of token affordable housing with no guarantee it will go to Sonoma Valley workers. To be a plan with real community benefit it must be changed.