It's time to get behind our small town and support it as it wages a legal struggle against three giant corporations: the U.S.'s largest bank, Chase, its 18th largest corporation, CVS Pharmacy, and their developer, Armstrong. This is a classic David vs. Goliath struggle. Let's not be intimidated but express the power that people can have.
Shepherd
CVS files lawsuit against City of Sebastopol
https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_we...a4bcf887a.html
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:51 pm | Updated: 12:29 pm, Fri Dec 28, 2012.
David Abbott
The City of Sebastopol received a lump of coal for Christmas, as CVS filed a lawsuit in response to a drive-through moratorium enacted by City Council on Dec. 18.
The suit was filed on behalf of Long’s Drug Stores California and Armstrong Development Properties, Inc., the developer hired by CVS to shepherd the process to completion, and requests that the court declares the ordinance unlawful, prohibits the City from enforcing the ordinance and directs the City and City Council to vacate the ordinance, according to the 13-page filing.
In a letter submitted to Council prior to the Dec. 18 meeting, attorney Amanda J. Monchamp of Holland & Knight, LLP of San Francisco, stated that it was their belief that the ordinance was directed at the CVS project, calling it an “arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory act by the City.”
HEART OF CONTROVERSY
The site of the former Pellini Chevrolet,
which has been vacant since 2009, is at the
heart of a lawsuit against the City of Sebastopol.
CVS now owns the property and is suing the
City over a drive-through moratorium enacted
at the Dec. 18 City Council meeting.
“There is no basis in law for the City to adopt an urgency ordinance on drive-through uses,” the letter states. “If the City Council adopts (the ordinance) … Armstrong will pursue all legal remedies, including litigation against the City.”
That threat came to fruition on Christmas Eve, when a skeleton crew was manning City Hall.
Acting City Manager and City Attorney Larry McLaughlin was on hand to receive the summons.
“The City disputes any contention that the moratorium is just about CVS,” he said. “The City has every right to reevaluate its laws … and a right to enact a moratorium while it studies those laws.”
McLaughlin added that a moratorium is not a ban, but that Council could come back in 45 days and extend the ordinance for another 10 months and 15 days in order to have more time to consider the subject.
CVS finalized the purchase of the property in November, but, according to McLaughlin, the project has yet to receive design approval and Armstrong does not have either a demolition permit or a building permit, although Bill McDermott, who represents Armstrong, went to the building department on Dec. 18 and paid $300 for a “Plan Check Deposit.” The employee that took the deposit is on vacation and it is not certain what the deposit was for, although McLaughlin speculates it may have been for “Demolition and/or Pavement/Curbing permits.”
“CVS has no vested right to build the project,” he said, adding, “You receive a vested right to build when the building is demolished and then you have a building permit.”
The project, located at the intersection of highways 12 and 116, has been at the heart of Sebastopol politics since it was proposed in 2009. Over the course of 16 months — from April 2011 to August 2012 — there were more than 20 public hearings surrounding the project, which was approved by a conditional 3-2 City Council vote in August.
The Council election exposed a rift in the community and two councilmembers who voted in favor of the project, Kathleen Shaffer and former Mayor Guy Wilson, were replaced by candidates who ran in opposition to the project, Councilmember John Eder and Vice Mayor Robert Jacob.
Shaffer lost by 62 votes and Wilson chose not to seek reelection.
Patrick Slayter is the only councilmember that voted in favor of the project, but it was he who proposed the moratorium on Nov. 20 and who joined the other four members of council for the unanimous vote in favor of the ordinance.
“The urgency order came about because if we didn’t have it, we could potentially have a dozen project applications come in with drive-throughs,” Mayor Michael Kyes said. “I don’t know why they haven’t been outlawed all along.”
The City has 30 days to answer the lawsuit, which could potentially cost many thousands of dollars.
“We are developing a litigation budget for the handling of this lawsuit with a range of costs (depending on how the legal issues play out), and a timeline. I plan on finalizing that in the next week or so,” McLaughlin said. “Right now, I'd say total expenses over at least a year would be in the $100,000 range.”
McDermott did not answer e-mails requesting comment and Monchamp did not return phone calls.
© 2012 Sonoma West Publishers .