Thiessen Forestville Project Set For Final Approval, May 2010

Update 6/1/2010:
After the June 1 public hearing, the Board of Supervisors,
on a straw vote, approved the Project.
An official roll call vote on the Project is set for June 8, 2010 at 2PM.

Reprinted courtesy of The Sonoma County Gazette, May 2010

by
President, Forestville Planning Association

Stand Up and Be Counted!
Below is a report and analysis on updated details obtained by the FPA at the April 15 Sonoma County Planning Commission hearing regarding the Thiessen Downtown Development Project (the “Thiessen Project” or “Project”). It has been over two years since the last Town Hall meetings on the Project in Forestville.

Click to enlarge photo. Then stretch window.

So, no matter what your opinion on the development, it’s a good idea to get updated on where the project currently stands. The FPA would also like to remind everyone that the FPA’s function is primarily educational. Therefore, the FPA does not have a position (“for” or “against”) on the Thiessen Project. However, this is the time for you to become informed and to make your own opinions known to the County Board of Supervisors!

Planning Commission Recommends Supervisors’ Approval
On April 15, 2010 the Sonoma County Panning Commission voted unanimously to adopt the County Planning Department’s environmental review/findings and recommended the Board of Supervisors approve the Project. The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing for a final vote on the fate of the Project on a date yet-to-be determined (possibly as soon as June 1, 2010).

The FPA encourages people who live in Forestville to contact the County Planning Department (565-1900) and/or Supervisor Carrillo’s office (565-2241), ecarrillo@sonoma-county.org for any Project-related questions and to find out when the Board of Supervisor’s hearing is going to be held.

If you wish to be alerted by email with updates, please send your email address to Max Broome at:

• The Rural Character of Forestville
  Despite recommending approval, the County Planning Department staff noted several concerns with the current Project.
  
  For example, the staff found that the Project does not comply with County planning policy to maintain “the ‘rural village’ character of Forestville because it is not a small-scale development, and although it creates a town square, the square is too small (only 10% of the development); cannot be considered ‘substantial’ open space; and does not provide adequate native plants.”
  
  
• Design Review
  Design Review provided another conflict between the Project and County planning policy for Forestville. In short, the Planning Department found the Project design does not give priority to natural landscape over development, and does not preserve and enhance significant natural features. Nor does it appear to retain open space amenities associated with rural lifestyle.
  
  
• Boutique Hotel & Open Space
  The County previously established a land use policy or at least the intent that any mixed-use portions of any development on the Crinella property include common open space and an open plaza with direct pedestrian connection to main street sidewalks, opening out directly onto the open space area “with a view to the hillside beyond.”
  
  This policy was reinforced in 2007 when the Board of Supervisors approved the development of the back 62 acres of the Crinella property, which shifted the higher density development to the front 8 acres for the (planned mixed-use) Thiessen Project.
  
  However, the open space is quite minimal (the town square is only ½ an acre) and the very limited view of the hillside in the current Project plans (from one or two streets within the Project) is now blocked even further by a proposed 18-room boutique hotel, which adds another 15,000 square feet to the Project.
  
  The FPA is concerned the town of Forestville has not had a chance to sufficiently evaluate and comment on the hotel and its impacts, including the fact that it blocks out any meaningful remaining views of the hillside beyond (i.e., Green Valley.) County planning policy for Forestville states that, “design review approval shall assure that” projects, “to the extent allowed by law, require a long term scenic easement for the undeveloped portion of the property.”
  
  
• Affordable Housing
  Unlike the previous Thiessen Project plans, the Project as submitted on April 15 included no affordable housing units. However, it was clear that the Planning Commission requires meaningful affordable housing dispersed throughout the development, and the “Conditions of Approval” for the Project include at least 10 affordable housing units.
  
  
• Traffic Issues
  According to the County, the Project is going to make traffic in Forestville worse, especially during the morning rush hour. The proposed HWY 116/Mirabel Rd. roundabout needs to be completed to mitigate the traffic problems, in addition to a signal or roundabout at the northbound approach to the intersection of River Rd/Mirabel Rd.
  
  As for the bypass, the County does not own all the property required for its construction. Time of completion estimates for the bypass are from five to ten years, or maybe never, and about three years for the roundabout at HWY 116/Mirabel Rd.
  
  
• Low Turnout
  At the April 15 hearing, only about 5-6 people addressed the commissioners about the Thiessen Project, which seemed surprising considering the Projects magnitude and controversy. The FPA would like to note its frustration with the lack of adequate notification about the hearing and about the new aspects of the Thiessen Project, particularly the hotel.
  
  We received notification of the hearing less than 48 hours in advance, and no updates were provided to the FPA either by Orin Thiessen or by the presenters at the recent Forestville Town Hall Meeting. We encourage residents of Forestville to get their voices heard, and we will do our best to keep you apprised as we obtain more information.

Feasibility Issues — Can the Project Ever be Built?
At the April 15th hearing, Mr. Thiessen told the Planning Commission he would not be able to begin construction of the Project for at least two years, and probably longer. The Planning Commission, staff, and County Counsel expressed concern with approving the Project without an ascertainable timeline for its construction and completion. The issue here is that approval of such projects comes with the condition that construction commence within a certain amount of time (usually 2-3 years after approval).

Therefore, if the Project was approved and construction did not commence within the required time, the approval/use permits, etc. would expire. (Interestingly, Romona Crinella recently requested and received (as allowed by law) a two-year extension on construction of her subdivision on the 60 or so acres behind the Thiessen Project site.)

This uncertainty further fueled the Planning Commission’s concern about sending the Project up to the Board of Supervisors for its vote, as approval by the supervisors would necessarily include a General Plan amendment to rezone the property to accommodate the building density called for in Project. (Think of the General Plan as the County’s Constitution, at least as far as land use and development are concerned.)

Mindful of the significance of a General Plan amendment, the commissioners expressed concern regarding the extent to which voting to move the Project forward could be perceived as unwise and backfire if it was never built.

As an alternative approach, commissioners, staff and County Counsel discussed moving the Project forward under a phased-map development scheme. Here, discussion focused on the complexities, requirements and potential legal impediments the County could face by approving phased subdivision maps in connection with the Project.

In spite of these and other issues and concerns raised during the hearing, the commissioners voted to approve the environmental documents and recommended the Board of Supervisors approve the Project.