by Craig S. Harrison

Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo ruled in late April that Sonoma County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it approved an Environmental Impact Report for the Sonoma Developmental Center in Glen Ellen. The ruling slows down the project and may allow for a scaled down version with a smaller footprint.

The 133-year-old, 945-acre campus for people with developmental disabilities closed in 2018 and has been scheduled for redevelopment since. Already 650 acres of the property have been transferred to the state park system.

There was extensive public outreach to involve the community in the redevelopment plans. During the environmental review process, the BVCA objected to the short shrift that was given to evacuation problems during a wildland fire, which could divert traffic into Bennett Valley. The BVCA also noted the traffic increases on Bennett Valley Road during construction and after completion with thousands of additional daily vehicle-trips.

The BVCA noted that protections in the proposed “specific plan” can be illusory, and that the County often ignores the requirements of the specific plan for Bennett Valley. The BVCA recommended drastically reducing the number of housing units and eliminating the hotel and commercial space. [link to letter]

In December 2022 the supervisors approved a project of 620 housing units, a hotel, and 410,000 square feet of commercial space. A coalition of local community and environmental groups filed suit challenging the adequacy of environmental review.

When Eldridge Redevelopment was selected to be the developer, it announced that it would invoke a provision of state law called “the builder’s remedy” that allows local zoning laws to be ignored and 1,000 housing units to be build. Supervisor Susan Gorin said that she was blindsided by the escalation in the size of the project. All supervisors, of course, rely on the advice of County Counsel, which failed to alert them to this state law. No county lawyer has been dismissed for apparent malpractice. The county obviously does not employ the best and the brightest lawyers.

Judge DeMeo, often using acerbic language, ruled that the County failed to respond to community concerns. It did not explain why it did not approve the environmentally-superior Historic Preservation Alternative, which allowed 450 housing units. Among the many CEQA violations that he found were a failure to clearly define the number of housing units; a failure to account for the cumulative impacts from the nearby development of the Hanna Center on Arnold Drive; and a failure to protect the Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor.

He chastised the County for failing to explain why 3,000 additional vehicles would have virtually no effect on evacuation times during an emergency. During recent fires Route 12 and Arnold Drive have essentially been parking lots choked with fleeing residents. It is obvious to most everyone that our basic infrastructure is at the breaking point and cannot serve huge numbers of additional residents.

Finally, Judge DeMeo ruled that the County violated CEQA because mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts were toothless, vague, and unenforceable. They lack performance standards and there was “no analytical route from evidence to action.”

The County has not yet announced how it will respond. It can appeal the decision, which could take a year or more and likely lose again. The wisest course of action might be to correct the deficiencies in its approach and approve a much smaller, more environmentally friendly redevelopment plan along the lines advocated by local residents.