Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
...I have heard a rumor that he has reconsidered [his CVS] vote and I have asked him to write about that, but so far I haven't seen anything. According to Patrick the city attorney is reviewing his comments. If he has indeed reconsidered that vote and now sees it differently, and publishes that, I would support him.
...
Patrick's comments floated in soon after I wrote this. Here they are:
From Patrick Slayter:
CVS. Those three letters can illicit more emotion, disdain and intrigue than almost any others in Sebastopol’s history. I have recently been asked about the history of the project by newcomers and find it almost impossible to accurately explain the twists, the legal actions, and all the individuals who make up the tapestry of the tale.
During the final hearing on October 9, 2014, when the Council approved the settlement of two lawsuits, my statements were brief; I found the actions of the project developers to be deceptive and purposefully deceitful, actions included: withholding information either completely or waiting until within the hour of a scheduled Council meeting to deliver; specific drawings were repeatedly requested to inform the Council of design aspects, yet were never received; the Council’s sincere desire for a two story building was somehow incomprehensively interpreted as a request for a tall one story structure; eliminating any possibility of contact (to include any last-minute questions about the design) leading up to signing the agreement, leaving the City in a take-it-or-leave-it situation; and, acting like a bully, using their significant financial resources to wear Sebastopol down and force a settlement.
The problem with hindsight is that it’s easy to assume it would be easy to revisit a decision and come to a different conclusion. However, using the power of hindsight, I should have joined Sarah Gurney in voting “no”, to not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which would have produced a 3-2 vote instead of a 4-1 vote (still not a majority). If three council members had voted “no” the project could have appropriately been returned to the Planning Commission in order to complete their work and produce a list of findings about the merits, and demerits, of the project.
After all the public hearings, the seemingly endless hours of meetings, the community divisions and the expenditure of funds on legal fees defending ourselves from an unwarranted and groundless lawsuit (CVS sued the City on the grounds that its corporation has civil rights and that somehow Sebastopol infringed upon them), the settlement has produced a better project. Among the provisions: there are no left turns allowed into or out of the site; the property will be subdivided into five legal parcels, allowing for future appropriate infill development; the landscaping design is improved; the city gains five electric vehicle charging stations, one on the project site and four will be installed at the developer’s expense at locations specified by the city; all project buildings will have photovoltaic systems installed which comply with our photovoltaic ordinance; and, there will be no drive throughs, allowing for an appropriate and environmentally-sensitive downtown urban form.
This project has also allowed the City Council, City staff and residents to understand the deficiencies in our codes, ordinances and standards. Sebastopol’s General Plan Update is currently underway and the lessons learned during the CVS project process will be implemented appropriately. Our Design Review Guidelines for downtown development were not up to the task of providing clear instruction to the developers as well as to the Design Review Board. A Council subcommittee has completely revised the Guidelines, renaming them the Downtown Design Standards with specific, quantitative standards which must be met, but still allow for architectural diversity and clever design.
I am glad this chapter is in our rear view mirrors and that we can move forward, united, towards the ultimate goal of the physical and social community we desire.
Well Patrick said the magic words:
"However, using the power of hindsight, I should have joined Sarah Gurney in voting “no”, to not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which would have produced a 3-2 vote instead of a 4-1 vote (still not a majority)."
but he doesn't really say why. Perhaps he can't, legally. To come out against such a corporate villain (with such deep pockets) on a such a prominent corner of our downtown may not be advisable, let alone the horrendous traffic impact their high volume/low value business is sure to create.
So while I believe him at his word, it's less than comforting. That leaves me still on the fence...
... or rather just outside the fence, in that my house is about 100 yards outside the city limits so I can't vote for city council!
I think our city is blessed to have 4 such quality candidates, and I'm sure that whichever 3 are chosen will serve us well!