At Sonoma Developmental Center, a tension between housing, open-space needs

When the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors convened on Jan. 25, one of the biggest items on the agenda was redevelopment of the Sonoma Developmental Center campus in Glen Ellen.

The county had conducted two community workshops, five meetings and an online survey by then, and many of the neighbors who live nearby had complained that early concepts of the project, particularly the housing component, were scaled too large.

The concerned citizens were buoyed that day by the words of Supervisor Susan Gorin, who advocated reducing the proposed number of housing units from the 900-1,000 range to something like 450-700.

The board was not scheduled to vote on anything Jan. 25, but Gorin’s opinions were expected to steer the plan. Her district includes the iconic site, which served as a state institution for the developmentally disabled for 130 years. Gorin sought another term in office largely to bring clarity to its anticipated reinvention.

But the day after the Jan. 25 hearing, Permit Sonoma, the county department that oversees land use planning, distributed a press release that included a “proposed framework” for the upcoming environmental review process at SDC. It again called for 900-1,000 housing units.

Neighbors were stunned. Many wondered why the county was working so hard to solicit input if it wasn’t willing to change course on redeveloping the site.

“The general feeling of this community ranges from flat-out anger to being crestfallen,” said Teresa Murphy, who lives in Glen Ellen and worked at the developmental center in several capacities from 1979-2012. “I feel the organizations and stakeholders who have presented so many letters, and a volume of oral testimonies, have been slightly sidestepped in order to get to 1,000 houses and 1,000 jobs. And those densities will not work in Glen Ellen.”

Murphy ticked off a number of reasons why, citing traffic congestion, fire safety and impacts on wildlife at the 930-acre campus.

She is far from alone in her convictions. The North Sonoma Valley Municipal Advisory Council, Sonoma Mountain Preservation and Sonoma County Transportation & Land-Use Coalition are among the nonprofit organizations calling for less density at SDC.

Last week, the law firm Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, acting on behalf of Sonoma Land Trust, sent a 42-page letter to Permit Sonoma that said, among other things, that, “As an initial matter, the Project described in the (Notice of Preparation) is too abstract and too uncertain to facilitate informed environmental review or allow for meaningful comments on the NOP or the Project.”

Short of a lawsuit, preservation advocates are running out of opportunities to make their voices heard. The county cut off public comment on the in-progress draft environmental impact report last week, and the window for comment on the broader “policies and procedures” framework for the property closes next week.

Permit Sonoma expects to release a draft environmental impact report in June.

In the meantime, department program manager Bradley Dunn vehemently disagrees with the idea that Permit Sonoma is ignoring its constituents.

He notes that one of the first proposals the county floated to the public mentioned 3,000 housing units — and that figure was lower than preliminary suggestions from the state of California, which owns the property and is ultimately responsible for selling it.

“We have listened to the public extensively in scaling down the number of units proposed, by about a third,” Dunn said. “We are studying a wide range of unit outcomes, including lower proposals than what Permit Sonoma initially looked at. So we are listening to the public — where it’s possible.”

The state has provided Sonoma County with a unique opportunity to help define this project, something it hasn’t allowed other local governments when selling off former state institutions, Dunn said. In return, Sacramento is insisting that planners prioritize housing (among other elements) at the site, and that the ultimate package be financially feasible.

“Where public opinion hasn’t conflicted with that, we have put it in our proposals,” Dunn said.

Gorin said it’s too soon to conclude that Permit Sonoma isn’t responding to input. The proof will be when the draft EIR is released, she argued, and even then there will be opportunities for community input.

“My advice to everyone engaged in this process is bring forward your ideas. And don’t be alarmed if it’s not immediately evident your ideas have been embraced,” Gorin said. “I’m still optimistic we can reach a consensus that works for the whole community.”

The “whole community” has not been equally represented at planning sessions and board meetings conducted via Zoom. Those meetings tend to be dominated by local property owners, a tech-savvy population that skews older, white and affluent.

Permit Sonoma has also organized in-person meetings in Spanish, including a workshop last Friday at La Luz Center in Boyes Hot Springs. The message at those events, county representatives say, has been much different, with Latino residents and advocates calling for more housing, and especially affordable housing.

Sonoma Developmental Center won’t be the solution to the county’s housing needs. But some see it as a vital opportunity that can’t be allowed to slip away.

Leonardo Lobato, executive director of La Luz Center, recited a note he received from a Boyes resident: “Throughout the year, we struggle because we have to make sure we have enough money to pay rent at the end of the month. This means we have to also do with less money for food, clothing, medicine and paying other bills. Rent is where our wages go. And every year we get rent increases.”

Members of the Latino community, Lobato said, will generally seek to borrow money from friends and family rather than owing to landlords or other authorities.

The Spanish-language SDC workshops were not accessible remotely, and were not videotaped for the county website. But a post on the subject on Permit Sonoma’s Facebook page on March 15 drew more than 20 comments in Spanish, plus a couple more composed only of emojis. All of them were pleas for reasonably priced living space.

“We want affordable housing,” Pola Garcia wrote in Spanish. “May we live right, not live crowded together. And sometimes homes with only one bathroom, we lived like this. Because rents are too high.”

Many people believe these two fundamental goals, affordable housing and a footprint that protects open space, are compatible.

“I don’t think any of the organizational stakeholders are against housing at all,” Teresa Murphy said. “Everyone just wants to have the right scale. Affordable housing is a bonus point, as far as everyone I’ve talked to believes.”

Murphy knows time is running out on her quest to protect the forests, streams and history-steeped buildings of the SDC property. But she remains resolute. She notes that the Glen Ellen Historical Society recently submitted a 150-plus-page application to get the site listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

“I will not give up,” Murphy said. “I mean, I spent 40 years of my life on that property and I know how special it is. I cannot fathom that it will turn into what amounts to a new town.”

You can reach Phil Barber at 707-521-5263 or phil.barber@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @Skinny_Post.