NEWS
SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE
News items relevant to the SCALE/SCT lawsuit and/or development of the SDC core campus are posted on this page as they come in. SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE for older items.
BOS moves Rogal/Grupe plan forward
.jpg/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:400,cg:true)
Read our recap of the 12/3/2024 BOS Meeting
At their monthly meeting on 12/3, the Board of Supervisors decertified the EIR and withdrew approval of the Specific Plan as a result of the CEQA lawsuit successfully litigated in favor of SCALE and SCT, but there's a catch. Read more...
Rogal/Grupe resubmits builder's remedy application
6/18/2024
Developers Rogal/Grupe submitted a revised development plan application for even MORE housing on the SDC core campus claiming vested rights under Builder's Remedy law (SB 330). CLICK HERE to read resubmitted application documents.
CLICK HERE to read Judge Bradford DeMeo's tentative ruling in favor of SCALE/SCT setting aside the Specific Plan and the EIR, which was issued on 4/26/2024 and is still pending subject to finalization of the writ and order.
CLICK HERE to read letters from the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Glen Ellen Historical Society on the Rogal/Grupe resubmitted application.
CLICK HERE to read Tracy Salcedo's "Revised plan for SDC redevelopment" in the 7/15/24 edition of the Kenwood Press.
Major Victory for SCALE and SCT!
Ruling sets aside SDC Specific Plan and EIR
Superior Court Sets Aside Approval of the Sonoma Developmental Center Specific Plan for Violations of California Environmental Law
Local environmental groups Sonoma County Tomorrow and Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE), a coalition of Sonoma Mountain Preservation, Eldridge for All, the Glen Ellen Historical Society, and the Valley of the Moon Alliance, have prevailed in their lawsuit challenging approvals of the Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) Specific Plan and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process.
At the close of a court hearing on April 26, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo ordered that the SDC Specific Plan and EIR approvals be set aside. In a comprehensive 40 page decision, the Court held that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in numerous respects including that the Plan EIR failed to: include an adequate project description with respect to the number of housing units allowed; adequately address impacts on biological resources, wildlife corridors, and wildfire evacuation; address cumulative impacts of the pending Hanna Center project; and adequately respond to the comments of concerned community members on the Draft EIR.
The Court also addressed the lawsuit’s overarching challenge to the Plan regarding its questionable “self-mitigation” approach, ruling that “purported mitigation measures in the Plan are, as a whole, ineffective, vague, and devoid of any semblance of performance standards in violation of CEQA.”
The Court held that the County’s failure to identify mitigation for environmental impacts was compounded by the omission of a legally required mitigation monitoring plan to “implement such mitigation measures as are presented.” The Court also found “no substantial evidence or analysis whatsoever” to support the County’s contention that there are no feasible mitigation measures for the Plan’s significant impacts to historic resources and transportation. The Court concluded that the Plan’s proposed mitigation measures are on the whole "vague and limited to hopeful intentions.”
Finally, the Court rejected the County’s findings that the EIR's identified Historic Preservation Alternative for a reduced size project is infeasible. “The EIR and the entirety of the cited portions of the record are wholly devoid of anything resembling either substantial evidence or the analytical route which could support the finding that the Preservation Alternative is infeasible.”
“The EIR failed to provide the County Board of Supervisors with sufficient information to properly analyze and make an informed decision on alternatives and mitigation measures for the SDC project,” said Vicki Hill, SCALE steering committee member and local professional land use planner. “We deeply appreciate the Court’s comprehensive analysis of this important case, and look forward to meaningful environmental review and approval of a Specific Plan of appropriate scale for this unique site and irreplaceable community resource.”
“We are confident that a revised analysis will demonstrate what hundreds of community members and experts have said – only a smaller scale development can balance impacts with development goals,” said Sonoma County Tomorrow Board member Reuben Weinzveg.
SCALE steering committee member and long-term Sonoma Valley resident Alice Horowitz stated that “the community support for the challenge to the County’s EIR was amazing and made this result possible. As we consistently advocated to the County, we need a plan that prioritizes and ensures housing first (before a hotel and extensive commercial development) at a scale that is compatible with the surrounding community, ensures wildfire evacuation safety, protects the critical wildlife corridor, and preserves the historic character of the site.”
Thank you!
First and foremost, a huge THANK YOU to attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, who led the way to this amazing victory. And a huge shout-out to EVERYONE who supported this effort, be it by showing up at community meetings, sending your comments to Permit Sonoma, writing letters to the editor, or supporting the cause with your financial contributions large and small. We simply could not have done this without you!
Developers Rogal/Grupe submit development plan application
2/16/24: Developers Rogal/Grupe (Eldridge Renewal, LLC) submitted a Development Permit Application for the Sonoma Developmental Center. CLICK ON THE BUTTON BELOW to access plan docs. For a concise summary of the plan, read the Development Plan Application Cover Letter attached below as a downloadable pdf.
sdc ceqa lawsuit update
Dec. 10, 2023
Although Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE) and Sonoma County Tomorrow, Inc. (SCT) filed a lawsuit last January challenging the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ certification of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Sonoma Development Center Specific Plan, litigation has been in a holding pattern till now.
Finally, last week, Sonoma County delivered the administrative record for the case, a chronological list of documents relevant to deciding the EIR lawsuit. This includes thousands of documents — hearing transcripts, emails, environmental reports, etc.— enabling us to prepare our legal briefs. A court hearing will be set for sometime this spring.
This is a step forward in a legal challenge that Plaintiffs expect will ultimately result in scaled-down redevelopment of the Sonoma Developmental Center campus, a 180-acre parcel located in the wildland-urban interface of rural Sonoma Valley. Among SCALE and SCT's concerns is that the EIR for the Specific Plan, which allows for construction of up to 1,000 homes, 410,000 square feet of commercial space, and a resort hotel on the campus, does not adequately address detrimental and dangerous impacts on wildfire evacuation, preservation of historical resources, and the Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor.
SCALE and SCT must now review the administrative record, which was prepared by Permit Sonoma, the County’s planning agency, to ensure all relevant documents generated during the SDC Specific Plan process are available to Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo, who will render a decision on the case.
It’s a mighty task, given the thousands of pages of hearing transcripts, emails, environmental reports, and more that must be reviewed. But citizen activists from SCALE’s organizing partners, Sonoma Mountain Preservation, Valley of the Moon Alliance, Sonoma County Tomorrow, Inc., Glen Ellen Historical Society, and Eldridge for All, working under the guidance of renowned CEQA attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, are confident their review will guarantee Judge DeMeo has everything he needs to render a decision in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Thank you to everyone who has supported our efforts, with letters, donations and moral support. Thanks too for your patience as we waited for the County to provide the necessary materials for our detailed work to begin formulating our case.
Alice Horowitz, Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment, Glen Ellen
Padi Selwyn, Sonoma County Tomorrow, Inc., Sebastopol
DGS Developer pick submits builder's remedy pre-app
With DGS signing off on the paperwork, developers submit surprise Builder's Remedy application
On Aug. 21, 2023, DGS (as owner of the SDC property) and the Grupe/Rogal partnership (DGS developer pick) submitted a Builders Remedy (Senate Bill 330) application to Permit Sonoma for 930 housing units, a 170,000 sqf hotel, a 161,000 sqf "innovation center," 80,000 sqf of nonresidential construction, and 3,060 parking spaces.
Community Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Sonoma Developmental Center Redevelopment EIR
Glen Ellen, Calif.
January 20, 2023
Calling it “a short-sighted plan with serious environmental consequences,” two community advocacy organizations have filed suit requesting Sonoma County revise the environmental impact report (EIR) for the SDC Specific Plan and scale back proposed redevelopment of the former Sonoma Developmental Center campus.
The goal of the lawsuit is to require the county to revise the EIR to address critical environmental issues and provide accurate analyses for appropriate mitigations. The current EIR is incomplete and deeply flawed, according to the plaintiffs.
The advocacy coalitions, Sonoma County Tomorrow, Inc. and Sonoma Community Advocates for a Liveable Environment (SCALE), contend the EIR for redevelopment of the 180-acre SDC campus violates the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on a number of issues. The plan, which allows construction of up to 1,000 homes, 400,000 square feet of commercial space, and a resort hotel in the middle of rural Sonoma Valley, must be scaled back to bring it into compliance with environmental law.
“This intensity of development is completely out of scale with the rural community that surrounds the site and, because of the high wildfire risk, could endanger the lives of thousands of current and future residents of Sonoma Valley,” said SCALE spokesperson Tracy Salcedo. Portions of the SDC campus, as well as the surrounding village of Glen Ellen, were devastated by the Nuns Fire in 2017, when residents struggled to navigate backed-up one-lane roads trying to evacuate.
The EIR’s wildfire evacuation analysis found that adding 2,400 residents and about l,000 workers on the site would have virtually no impact on evacuation travel time. “This analysis defies the real-world experience of Sonoma Valley residents in both 2017 and in the 2020 Glass Fire,” Salcedo said.
The EIR also fails to adequately analyze biological impacts of the redevelopment, including impacts on the critical Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor, a pinch-point running through the property that supports the movement of a variety of species within the Sonoma Valley and as far as Marin County’s coastal region and Berryessa Snow Mountain National Wildlife Monument. Excessive development puts the wildlife corridor and the surrounding 750 acres of open space at risk, diminishing the ability of plants and animal species to adapt to climate change.
The SDC Specific Plan also recommends removal of historic structures and landscaping. Instead, the plaintiffs say adaptive reuse of historic buildings, where feasible and as required by state law, would reduce resource and material consumption, put less waste in landfills, and consume less energy than demolishing buildings and constructing new ones.
While advocates support construction of affordable homes on the site, they stress it should be at a reduced density that doesn’t transform the rural site into a small city. “If Sonoma County continues on this misguided path to create new urban centers in its unincorporated areas, in the wildland-urban interface and on agricultural lands, both lives and communities will be at risk,” Salcedo said.
Because the county’s EIR doesn’t adequately study or mitigate the environmental impacts of such high-density development based on real-world conditions, “holding the county responsible for doing the job right is imperative,” Salcedo said. “We, as citizens and taxpayers, deserve nothing less. The property, as critical as it is to our health and well-being, deserves nothing less.”
Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor Apex Predator
Mountain lions have been recognized for their importance in maintaining the integrity of ecosystems. Humans are the biggest threat to mountain lions across their range through habitat encroachment, loss of habitat, and conflict.
.jpg/:/cr=t:19.69%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:60.62%25/rs=w:1183,h:538,cg:true)
Read the latest news
Click on the button below to read Sonoma Valley Next 100's press release on its January 14, 2025 filing of its lawsuit against the state Department of General Services, which challenges the state's plans regarding the SDC.