Creating a Better NEAP

Article: Creating a Better NEAP
(Sebastopol Northeast Area Plan)

Notes:
* For a shorter flyer version of this article (removing the news introduction and slightly shortening the other points), see my NEAP Essay. You can view that online or download it as a one-page flyer.
* For an expanded exploration of these points plus additional ones, you can download my 7/14/08 letter to the City Council (PDF file).
* For more information, including citizen comments and official City documents, see A Better NEAP.* Letters in response to my July 2008 WCG article.

Creating a Better NEAP (Sebastopol Northeast Area Plan)
By Patricia Dines
West County Gazette, July 2008

On July 1, the Sebastopol City Council (CC) started discussing the City's final proposed Northeast Area Plan (NEAP). This flood zone region (on your right as you enter on Hwy 12 from Santa Rosa) is currently used primarily for light industrial activities. Under this proposed rezoning, it could be raised by fill and podia to hold up to four stories of housing and stores.

After years of participating in this process, I came to this meeting with cautious hope. I was impressed by the citizens who'd spoken at the previous three meetings, the vast majority describing with notable competence their concerns about the plan's reality. Still, too often in this process I've seen vital issues brushed aside. Would the Council finally hear?

At this point, I see both positive and negative signs. I was cheered that two Councilmembers (Kelley and Gurney) asked key questions that indeed need to be addressed before committing our town to this substantial financial risk and change in character. Even Planning Director Webster suggested amendments that touched on some of our points.

Still, I was disappointed that some City officials, both at the meeting and in the press beforehand, focused not on refining the plan to reflect the community's wisdom and democratic choice, but instead on continuing to make ecological and economic claims about it that citizens have found unsupported by its facts.

So, to encourage a truly fruitful assessment process, I feel I must speak my perspective.

Let me be clear: I'm deeply committed to environmental change, and understand the ecological and economic needs that plan proponents describe. I entered the NEAP process wanting to like it. However, I feel that there's a huge gap between the NEAP's hopes and its reality, and that confounds its viability.

My Key Concerns

Many people brought forward useful specifics about the plan's problems. Here's a summary of my primary concerns.

1) Building this extensively in a flood and earthquake liquefaction zone would likely be expensive, dangerous, and not ecological. It violates the first two eco-principles (align with nature, and reuse before building new) with impacts that include dredging tons of fill dirt from the Laguna; redirecting nature's floods; and bringing in traffic, pollution, noise, and light that will push wildlife further from the town's edge. Plus, disasters like Katrina's floods and the Marina's quake-collapsed homes warn us about intensive building in such areas.

2) High construction and insurance costs would greatly limit what's possible here, making it primarily for the rich and likely unaffordable for community activities.

3) It's questionable that there's a market for such costly stores and housing. The retail scenarios considered viable in the City's economic analysis were distinctly low-rent, such as outlet stores and art galleries. Sebastopol's housing is expensive enough without creating an ultra-expensive district.

4) High costs would make mixed use (and its potential benefits) less likely. I love the idea of people living, working, and shopping in the same area, saving car trips and increasing convenience. But, even if retail comes here, a person who can afford the $500-750k condo won't be working for the coffee shop's minimum wage, and those now living and working in town will likely not afford the expensive stores. Thus many trips will still occur. To me, smarter mixed use would be to grow organically in non-flood-zone areas of town, avoiding the NEA's serious downsides.

5) Worsened traffic would likely block needed shoppers. This plan is actually quite car-centric. The economic analysis says that NEAP retail will depend on many new shoppers driving in, making traffic much worse, which the City says is basically unsolvable.

Traffic already discourages people from coming into town. Will that many more people really tolerate gridlocked delays to shop here, as the plan assumes?

Fortunately, the citizen-created General Plan (GP) has traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards for downtown. Unfortunately, NEAP proposes removing them! But that won't stop the traffic's negative consequences, including hampered emergency responses.

6) The City (and taxpayers) would be committing to millions up-front based on economically-problematic scenarios.

Overall, I think this plan inaccurately applies an urban idea to a rural spot where it just doesn't fit (an error that an early "New Urbanism" proponent actually cautioned against).

Answering Proponent Assertions

1) Will traffic magically create a better public transit system? This assertion is unlikely in our spread-out county, especially with government budget cuts.

2) Will peak oil reduce traffic? It might, but it'll also reduce the imported shoppers required for the plan's projections. Plus we won't need expensive chi-chi shops then, but affordable ones serving our daily needs. Also, building costs will skyrocket, making this area even more expensive at a time when funds and resources will be even more scarce. Thus, I think a sensible peak oil plan would look quite different.

3) Does this plan allow less development than current zoning? This odd new claim is directly contradicted by many facts, including consultant David Early's statement (at the May 20 CC meeting) that the GP's standards for traffic and growth management were preventing developers from building in this area. Was serving these developers actually a key goal of this process? That seems to better fit the facts.

Essential Solutions

1) Sincerely address the inadequacies of the plan and EIR, as revealed in Councilmember questions and citizen statements. This should help create an approach that actually achieves our ecological and economic goals.

2) Retain the General Plan's traffic standards and growth management ordinance. Let's grow modestly, within our constraints. If this plan is truly less dense than now allowed, it shouldn't require eliminating these GP provisions.

3) Create a complete economic analysis that: demonstrates demand for added retail that can afford higher rents and won't cannibalize current businesses; realistically calculates full City costs and income, to ensure timely net gain; specifies funding sources; and understands that traffic will limit new shoppers.

4) Do a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis that reflects this plan's actualities, including: construction for fill and podia; increased pollution from clogged traffic; and our real-life limits to mixed use. Compare that to the GHG picture for modest growth on higher ground.

5) Place the plan on the ballot, providing complete information to citizens. A change this significant and costly should only be done if the majority makes that informed choice.

TAKING ACTION: To find out the current NEAP status, see City Council agendas and minutes at <www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/citycouncil.shtml>. As long as this is an open issue, you can send your comments directly to Councilmembers (emails are on that webpage) or to <mgourley@sonic.net> or to: City Clerk, 7120 Bodega Ave., Sebastopol CA 95472.