CITY OF SEBASTOPOL CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM REPORT FOR MEETING OF: April 7, 2026
================================================================================= To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Sebastopol Commons: Building the Commons Committee Responsible Department: Public Works
Subject: Sebastopol Commons: Building the Commons Committee Second Quarterly Report
=================================================================================
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive the second informational report from the Building the Commons Committee.
PROCESS OF AGENDA ITEM
a. Presentation of agenda item by the Requestor or Responsible Department b. Questions and discussion from Councilmembers
c. Public comment period
d. Presentation Received
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report reflects the Committee’s continued work and progress to advance the Sebastopol Commons as a vibrant, shared civic asset.
BACKGROUND
The Sebastopol Commons is envisioned as a shared civic space and multi-use community hub within Sebastopol city limits, serving West Sonoma County residents. It is intended to support education, arts & culture, health & wellness, senior services, community connection, recreational classes, and potentially public library or libraryadjacent functions that foster learning, access, and civic engagement.
The Building the Commons Oversight Committee was established by City Council action in 2025. It is charged with guiding early concept development, assessing community needs, exploring funding strategies, and providing quarterly reports to Council on progress in the following areas:
• Identifying and securing membership
• Developing lists of needs and shared needs
• Compiling research on similar projects
• Exploring and defining the project concept and determining the scope of a feasibility study • Performing other related duties as assigned by the City Council
DISCUSSION
As part of the responsibilities of the Committee, the Committee was tasked with providing quarterly updates.
Tonight’s item provides the second quarterly update. The Committee has two ad hoc committees formed: The Finance Committee and the Community Needs Committee. Both have provided informational status reports and those are attached for reference. Highlights of the reports are listed below:
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
Building the Commons Ad Hoc Finance Subcommittee Report:
The attached February 10, 2026 report from the Ad Hoc Finance Subcommittee provides a preliminary analysis of six location/approach options. No location is final or preferred; all are early-stage concepts only. The committee discussed preliminary options, financing overview on preliminary options, as well as Facility Needs Priorities (critical/immediate/future/peripheral and subsidiary).
At the February 10, 2026 Committee Meeting, the Committee approved to define the purpose of the subcommittee as follows:
Our purpose is to create a long-term solution included with the charge of our advent and that in doing so we're weighing the elements of cost, location, and access, and that timeliness and immediacy of satisfaction of these needs are elements thereof.
This motion was moved by RM Horrell and seconded by Sarah Glade Gurney. Yay’s: 8, Nay’s: 0, Absent: 1.
Building the Commons Ad Hoc Needs Assessment Subcommittee Report:
The attached DRAFT survey packet is a guide that the ad hoc committee members will be using to conduct oneon-one interviews with community leaders to gather high-value, in-depth insights on community assets, motivations, challenges, partnerships, public spaces, identity, resiliency, and priorities. These personalized sessions will build trust, strengthen relationships, map stakeholders, and uncover opportunities that inform the Commons vision.
Future Items:
It is anticipated that the Committee will complete initial community needs assessments; advance potential site and funding options evaluation; and report back with progress toward a viable commons concept with recommendations at that time for Council discussion and consideration.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Committee continues refining the vision while working on immediate needs as planning progresses.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS / PRIORITIES / GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY This item aligns with City Council goals:
• Community Vitality: Enhance Sebastopol as a great place to live that values community health and wellbeing; preserve unique character.
• Infrastructure: Maintain high-quality facilities and services, including repairing/replacing outdated city facilities.
• High Performance Organization: Restore public trust; improve public communications. • Economic Development
And included in the General Plan
• Action CSF 6c–6d: Collaborate with County library system and partners to expand library services/facilities.
• Action CSF 6j: Conduct needs assessments and prioritize public/community facility improvements with extensive outreach.
• Action CSF 6e: Establish innovative funding approaches for cultural, community, and library facilities/services.
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
Supports Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers Association priorities on shared facilities, mental health, homelessness, and emergency preparedness.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
One-on-one leader interviews using the attached discussion guide to gather insights on assets, challenges, partnerships, public spaces, and priorities will be conducted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
As of the preparation of this staff report, no public comments have been received. Any written public comments received after publication of this report will be provided to the City Council as supplemental materials prior to or at the meeting. Members of the public may also provide oral comments during the public comment portion of the agenda item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act; available for public review at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional fiscal impact associated with receipt of this informational item.
RESTATED RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive the informational report.
OPTION(S)
None. This item is informational only.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sebastopol Commons Finance Subcommittee Second Quarterly Report to Full Committee, adopted February 10, 2026 (7 pages; includes S.W.O.T., financing analysis, needs summary, and map).
2. Sebastopol Commons Needs Assessment Subcommittee’s Refined Stakeholder Questions, adopted March 10, 2026 (1 page; includes engagement for business or non-profit leaders, community members, and potential partners).
APPROVALS
Department Head Responsible for Agenda Item:
CEQA Determination (Community Development/Planning):
Approval Date: 03/24/2026
Approval Date: 03/24/2026
The proposed action is Exempt from CEQA pursuant to §15306.
Administrative Services (Financial): Approval Date: 03/24/2026 Costs authorized in City Approved Budget: ☐ Yes ☐ No N/A City Attorney Approval: Approval Date: 03/24/2026
City Manager Approval: Approval Date: N/A
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
Sebastopol Commons Finance Subcommittee
02/10/2026 Report to Full Committee
Subcommittee Members:
RM Horrell (Chair)
Phill Carter (Council Member)
Naomi Hupert
Kent Jenkins
PROCESS and PRIORITIES
The following is the Finance Subcommittee’s February Report to the full Committee.
This Subcommittee is focused on serving the community’s needs and ensuring the City’s financial viability. The FInance Subcommittee invites the full Committee, and indeed the Community, to collaborate in this process.
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
Below, this Subcommittee has identified several different options that we are considering as possible locations for a Commons location.
These are each examples of different approaches:
● a new build, where new construction is needed to create a Commons building; ● the repurposing or remodeling of an existing structure that would need a moderate to extensive amount of construction to accommodate a Commons; and ● a remediation or rebuilding of an existing structure that would take minimal to moderate construction to accommodate a Commons.
Please note:
● These are options that we have considered in light of their respective:
○ location, size, availability, proximity to Sebastopol’s downtown, and ○ a range of other criteria that we have gathered from members of the Commons Committee as they continue their outreach to the community. ● None of these options has been pursued outside of gathering the information below. We encourage feedback or questions regarding this information, and additional suggestions regarding locations to consider.
S.W.O.T
The following is a preliminary analysis of plausible locations, looking at Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of each.
1 ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
New Build Repurposed/Remodel Remediated/Rebuild
Proof of
Concept/
Example
RAILROAD PROPERTY THE TOWING CO.
BUILDING/Other brownfield
CALDER CREEK
CORRIDOR
STRENGTHS ~Laguna/forest area
~Beautiful and well treed,
~Centrally located
~Walkable location
~Purchase Price (1.5M)
~Lot is big enough to build a
40,000 sqft building
envelope
~Existing building has a
footprint of 15k feet and 35k
usable interior space.
~ PRIVATE FINANCING
more enticing
~Walkable Location
~Ives Calder Creek Corridor
adjacent
~Lowest cost option by far
($2-4.5M)
Fastest acquisition and
retrofit timeline (12-18
months)
~Low risk—small
investment, reversible
decision
~Central and close to other
city-related institutions: city
hall, Center for the Arts
~remediates environmental
problems
~Walkable location
~Possible collaboration with
ongoing Corridor walkway
planning
WEAKNESSES ~Not city-owned,
~floodplane
~Outside of the heart of
downtown Sebastopol
~Likely extended
development process for
purchase, planning and new
construction ( Laguna
environmental studies)
~Impacts on traffic on the
congested 12 and 116.
~Not city-owned
~Likely extended
development process for
purchase, planning and new
construction
~Existing conditions
UNDERSIZED: 3,700 SF
existing + space for parking
and vs. 20-30k+ SF need—
~Existing requires full
renovation or demo
Cinderblock construction
limits architectural quality
~Difficult to solve for 2
library, Senior Center or
CommunityCenter
~Location not central, not
environmentally beautiful (
Library), nor high-visibility
~MOST COMPLEX option
(building + creek restoration +
business relocations)
~City-owned portion
limited/existing facilities
~Extensive remediation
~Possible conflict with
ongoing Corridor walkway
planning
~Likely extended
development process and
cost for purchase, planning
and new construction
OPPORTUNITIE
S
~Revitalizes the Sebastopol
edge of the Joe Rodota Trail
~Accessible via the Joe
Rodota Trail for equitable
access via bike/foot/bus/car
~ Position Sebastopol as
model for nature-integrated
civic infrastructure
~Create year-round outdoor
programming connection to
forest/trails
~Potential partnership with
~Revitalizes a Sebastopol
derelict property
~Interim solution while
planning larger project
~Could become permanent
satellite senior activity space
~Low-stakes pilot for city
facility operations (
Resellable)
~ Transform downtown
identity—becomes 'the creek
town' destination
~ Combine grant potential
from state/federal climate and
CUSP and CalTrans
~Create model for California
downtown ecological
restoration
~Attract regional visitors and
tourism with iconic public
space
2 of 6
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
Laguna Foundation for
stewardship
~Catalyze private investment
in adjacent parcels
THREATS ~Proximity to Joe Rodota
Trail and any safety issues
connected thereto
~Challenging street crossing
at 12 despite crosswalk
lighting
~ Laguna flooding
/environmental issues could
delay or halt project
CEQA review
~ Property owner may not
sell or may demand
premium
Creates distraction from
necessary larger investment
Consumes staff time and
political capital for minimal
benefit
Community perceives as
'giving up' on real solution
Renovation costs could
exceed value for such small
space
May require additional
investment just to meet
accessibility standards
~Cost overruns on complex
multi-phase project
~Business displacement
creates political opposition
~Environmental permitting
delays from multiple agencies
~Economic downturn could
strand project
mid-construction
~Creek restoration could
uncover contamination or
infrastructure conflicts
~Community fatigue from
extended construction period
SCALE:
SUBTOTAL
WEIGHT
TOTAL
FOLLOW-UP
Renovate/Remodel Renovate/Remodel Repurpose
Proof of
Concept/
Example
The Rite Aid Building
Adaptive reuse
CURRENT LIBRARY
BUILDING
O’RILEY BUILDING
STRENGTHS ~Downtown location (50
yards from current senior
center)
~Fastest timeline of
renovation options (18-24
months)
~30'+ ceiling height enables
dramatic loft library design
~Solves site vacancy
problem if Grocery Outlet
permit is denied
~Supports downtown
businesses and walkability,
near current assets
~No land acquisition
cost—city owned
~Downtown location
preserves library's current
central role
~Maintains continuity with
existing civic campus
identity
~Could integrate City Hall
modernization in single
project
~Avoids 'abandoning
downtown' political narrative
~Protected outdoor open
space
~Multigenerational safety and
access
~Walkable location, but
outside of Central downtown
~Ample parking already
on-site—no parking crisis to
solve
~On protected walking train
from Analy to location
~Proximate to new 80-home
Canopy project
Single-site consolidation of
~ALL civic functions (library,
senior center, commons,
potentially City Hall)
3 of 6
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
~Existing building
infrastructure significantly
reduces construction costs
vs. new build
~Turnkey - Low entitlement
risk (existing commercial
use, minimal regulatory
hurdles)
~Highway 12 visibility
provides strong regional
access and wayfinding
~Partnerships with private
office medical or Sonoma
County
WEAKNESSES ~UNDERSIZED for cost?:
36K+ SF community need if
city subsidized property
leveraged
~Substantial retrofit required
(HVAC, interior build-out,
accessibility, acoustics,
parking)
~Grocery Outlet wildcard
(outcome by August 2026)
~Not purpose-built,
compromises on
library/senior center design
ideals ( Not as stunning as
new build)
~Structural condition and
true retrofit costs uncertain
until acquisition
~Existing buildings cannot
support additions—FULL
DEMOLITION required
~Parking crisis: Current lot
already strained; doubling
size makes it worse
~Downtown businesses
harmed by 2-3 year
construction disruption
~Operational transition
nightmare: Where does
library/City Hall operate
during rebuild/cost??
~Site constraints limit
optimal building layout and
future expansion
~May NOT solve
Community Center and
Senior Center Needs
~FINANCING: Zero asset
sale potential + adds
temporary relocation costs
~Not city-owned
~Sidewalk improvements
needed between Main Street
and location
~Not downtown—perceived
disconnect from Main Street
commercial core
~Requires relocating library
from current downtown
location (political/emotional
resistance)
~May require significant
interior build-out, or
commercial kitchen addition
~Lease/acquisition private
partnership negotiations for
supportive leasing of unused
space
OPPORTUNITIE
S
~Quick win: Could be
operational before other new
build renovation options
~Demonstrate city
commitment to downtown
investment
~Modernize City Hall
infrastructure simultaneously
~Redesign site for better
pedestrian/traffic flow
~Signal commitment to
downtown core
~Potential for more
downtown underground
parking (expensive)
~Separates traffic flow to
allow less traffic congestion
~Proximal to Analy
highschool
~Bikable stop on the West
County Tail
~School pickup alternate site
~High elevation site during
flooding episodes/alternate
evacuation site
~Fire-resistant construction
and on-site generator
THREATS ~Grocery Outlet permit ~Construction costs ~Downtown businesses may 4 of 6
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
approved or → option
disappears entirely
~Retrofit costs exceed
estimates once building is
opened up
~Creates 'good enough'
complacency that prevents
visionary solution
~Divides community support
between this and
transformational options
~Property owner may not
accept city's offer price
escalate during extended
timeline
~Temporary relocation costs
add significantly to budget
~Downtown businesses
suffer during multi-year
disruption
~Community opposition to
demolishing familiar
buildings
~Project creep as City Hall
needs expand scope
Senior or Community center
STILL not solved even after
$20M spent
oppose losing library foot
traffic
~Community perception:
'abandoning downtown'
narrative could gain traction
~Building owner may decline
to sell on CIty’s terms
~Economic downturn could
reduce City’s ability to absorb
costs or city bond capacity
SCALE:
SUBTOTAL
WEIGHT
TOTAL
FOLLOW-UP
FINANCING STRATEGY ANALYSIS
Each option's assessment for development costs, operations during build, fundraising ability and incorporation of city owned property (usage or sale proceeds).
Option Time from
initial
decision
Rough Cost / or
realistic budget
City Owned ($0)
or City Asset
Sale $1.5, $4M
Difficulty Funding
Site-Development (Scope
relative)
O'Reilly Campus 20 months $12-$23M $4 Least Difficult ( Least inflation sensitive)
Railroad Forest
Community Commons
5-10 years $12-$23M $4 Medium Difficult- Laguna
Permits
Calder Creek Civic
Commons
8-15 Years $12-50M (w/o
Calder Creek
Daylight)
$0-$3.5 Difficult-Extremely Difficult
Creek Opening in city plan /
Office Movement
Rite Aid Building
Adaptive Reuse
2-5 Years $13-20M $1.5 Medium Difficult
Current Library/City 5-8 Years $13-20M $1.5 Difficult - Very Difficult unless 5 of 6
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
Hall Site Rebuild parking garage
Tow Building (or other
brownfield) 332
Petaluma Ave
2-5 Years $13-20M $1.5 Medium Difficult
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: APPROACH & CONTEXT
It is essential to recognize that Sebastopol faces both immediate and longer-term facility needs, each with different urgency levels. This analysis examines six potential pathways for addressing Sebastopol's civic facility needs, each evaluated with sincerity and an open mind toward its merits and challenges.
While this is not an exhaustive inventory of every conceivable alternative—new properties may become available, and creative combinations of these options could emerge—it represents an initial examination of currently viable opportunities. All city-owned property has been assessed. The current civic campus footprint and the Calder Creek corridor represent the only city-controlled sites capable of accommodating expanded facilities.The following table outlines those needs and organizes them into levels of priority:
Priority Facility Need Status
Critical Need Senior Center 10k+ (15-20k total) SF for
expanded services, full kitchen,
craft store
Most pressing—current space
cannot meet demand, craft
store lease renewal near
Immediate Need Community
Center
Significant Building repairs +
ongoing operational
sustainability. Modernization
Deferred maintenance and
budget strain
Future Need Library Additional 10k SF would enable
full utilization
Functional but constrained; not
in crisis
Peripheral Need City Offices/
Meeting Space
Consolidation preferred; multiple
locations not optimal
Some consolidation achieved;
workable for now
Subsidiary Need NonProfit Space Unconfirmed 5k SF?
6 of 6
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
2. 1.
5. 7.
3. 4.
6. 7.
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026
Needs Assessment Subcommittee’s Refined Stakeholder Questions Survey Questions for Business or Non-profit Leaders
How large is your organization/ business?
o Number of staff?
o How many customers/consumers on a monthly basis?
o Who do you serve?
Are there major obstacles for your business or organization at this time? o If yes, what would help to address them?
What will help your organization or business succeed in Sebastopol and the West County community?
Have you or would you considering partnering with another business or organization to achieve your goals?
If there was a community space to share, what would make it work for you? o What resources are needed?
o What schedule?
o Amount of space required?
What size of space and what amenities do you require? Survey Questions for Community Members
What do you feel are the most important spaces and services a community needs to thrive? Do you feel these spaces are adequately addressed in Sebastopol and in the West County community?
Where do you live?
Would you need access to public transportation?
If not, what would you like to change to make you want to use community spaces? Out of the following, which community spaces are you most likely to use? o Meeting rooms
o Playgrounds/parks
o Art display area
o Community gathering space
o Gathering spot
o Community kitchen
o Office space
o Co-working space
o Outdoor space
o Conference room space
o Childcare facility
o Other:___________________________
Survey Questions for Potential Partners
Who should be invited to join the Commons?
o Who needs a new home?
o Who is willing to join others?
o What are their space needs and special feature requirements? What commercial entities might be a good fit?
Who would be influential in bringing these people and entities together? Who in the greater Sonoma County needs to be involved? Who might have access to additional funding sources and/or grants? What do you look for when you donate to public or civic ventures? ATTACHMENT 2
Agenda Item Number 7
Agenda Item Number 7
City Council Meeting Packet for April 7, 2026