Letters to the Editor 3-5-15

On our terms
Editor: One would think that if Bob Bisno, the prospective developer of Bell Village and the Windsor Mill projects, was going to bring the Los Angeles and Southern California lifestyle to Windsor and Sonoma County, he would be required to bring it on our terms, not his. At last Wednesday’s council workshop, that just wasn’t the case. Our Town planning department, through a contract with M Group, outlined a fair number of issues with Mr. Bisno’s site plan, which they felt was a departure from adopted policy and the direction provided by previous councils; a nice way of saying that the plan is inconsistent with our current planning principles. The policies referred to requirement, our Station Area Plan and our Downtown Specific Plan.
A lot of planning and investment by the Town provided us with a Downtown and Town Green that I admire and enjoy. It is the Town Green and Downtown that has attracted Mr. Bisno and his two Southern California partners to Windsor. They said it, not me. The problem I see and felt is the inability of Mr. Bisno to have flexibility. The proposal has no real streets for the public to use, only alleys. Gone is the principle of an Interconnected Street Network. Gone are the Street Design Standards, and finally gone is genuine oak tree preservation. All these issues and more have been compromised in the name of money. Mr. Bisno has a townhome product and that is all he is willing to build on this site. He didn’t tell us how much income and profit he and his partners will see from the 387 units of rentals. I wouldn’t expect him to, but I’m assured it is substantial. It’s simple, to realize the return on investment they require, the plan is inflexible.
The following is what I have seen, felt and heard from staff. The Bisno team has been very difficult to work with. Pretty much it has been their way or the highway since the beginning. Town staff held multiple meetings with them, asked the same questions, provided the same information and always received the same response. They have one product type in mind, and that’s what they’re going to build even if it goes against most planning policies and practices implemented in Windsor over the past decade.
Are we willing to accept this inflexibility because we fear he will take his money and project somewhere else? If we accept this, is Windsor going to become that someplace else? Are we now accepting the Southern California model where our too little water and too much traffic are problems kicked down the road, and in exchange for what?
Mr. Bisno’s townhome rental development has its attraction, but as proposed it has too many units to accommodate the Town’s fundamental planning principles. These principles provide for a safe, livable, family-friendly, sustainable community with a small-town character. We deserve this much and we could easily lose it. We spent time and money-making plans for the future of our community. At council’s direction, Mr. Bisno and his partners will be bringing back the Bell Village plan for final approval soon. At this point, it is apparent he has council approval subject to police and fire acceptance. I tell folks, “I am right about one-half the time.” What this means is many of you may disagree with me and many agree. We can celebrate success and learn from failure. It is the sharing of information and dialogue that will make Windsor the best it can be.  
Sam Salmon
Windsor