Trying to get support for the Pellini's Corner Development for Monday's Council Meeting

On Monday there will be a City Council Meeting to discuss the Design Review Committee's denial of the Pellini's Corner development. As often happens in this town, the opposition and action against the project have been based on selfish and ill-informed rational. I want to promote a vitally needed (economically and civically) project that was very carefully thought out and laboriously conceived. I will debate all reasonable objections..unreasonably ones are not worth the time.
For those of you who are not very aware I would encourage you to look carefully at the plans which would turn that location into a an economically boosting, family, environmentally, and pedestrian friendly location.

Sal

One of several design review board documents;

https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de....3.11_copy.pdf

I thought I would respond to what is probably the biggest bogus objection;

"The Development is 'Big Box'"

Some facts that shoot this down;

The largest proposed building would be 15,000 square feet which is less than half the Zoning ordinance requirement that single use buildings have no more storage space than 35,000 square feet.

The current CVS in the Redwood Market area is 25,000 square feet. So the new development will REDUCE the single use profile of the city in a nice way.

If you consider the new development to be 'Big Box' then you would have to consider just about any large single-use building in Sebastopol Big Box. The new development is far more pleasing, visually, than what is currently there (and what is currently there is probably more 'Big Box' profile than what is being proposed)

For the most part, I like the Sebastopol downtown but it is, essentially, a gift shop. How many crystals, expensive organic clothes, designer soap etc do you need ? I like all these things and they are what give Sebastopol its character but there has to be a reasonable compromise to the development hostile environment that currently exists. If I was a young family with a modest income or a retired person with fixed income, I couldn't afford to be in Sebastopol and you have to admit, most of the downtown businesses do not cater to the two.

Sal

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

On Monday there will be a City Council Meeting to discuss the Design Review Committee's denial of the Pellini's Corner development. As often happens in this town, the opposition and action against the project have been based on selfish and ill-informed rational. I want to promote a vitally needed (economically and civically) project that was very carefully thought out and laboriously conceived. I will debate all reasonable objections..unreasonably ones are not worth the time.
For those of you who are not very aware I would encourage you to look carefully at the plans which would turn that location into a an economically boosting, family, environmentally, and pedestrian friendly location.

Sal

One of several design review board documents;

https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de....3.11_copy.pdf

---

To all Council members 6:56 a.m 1/17/12 from Bob Beauchamp. Design Review Board member

Greetings: The upcoming City Council meeting, addressing the CVS appeal, promises to be lengthy and contentious. This highly unpopular project enjoys a level of notoriety almost without precedent in our small community's history. The DRB findings for denial, the DRB guidelines, as well as the Architectural & Site Plans themselves, will be primary bodies of information that will need careful scrutiny as you prepare for the event.

Equally significant, while existing a bit in the shadows, is the Design Review Staff Report ( 11/16/11- pp 1-17). It is cloaked in an impressive format, representing the very professionalism of the Planning Department of the city of Sebastopol, and by that alone, it enjoys an illusion of credibility that easily masks its many flaws. In fact, it is little more than an "opinion piece" that has completely failed in its responsibility to provide the reader with a useful, well-balanced and objective assessment of the facts ( both sides, good and bad ). Its glaring across-the-board support (for a project of such controversy), its frequent manipulations of the obvious intent of the DRB guidelines, its presumed expertise in Architectural design (superseding the DRB itself), all combine in a highly biased attempt to make the project seem utterly flawless. Its unfettered approval is quite probably a major catalyst for misunderstandings (something the City may want to officially clarify ) by the applicant, as well as many of our prominent citizens, with regards to its role relative to the DRB findings, as well as official city policy towards this issue. It is also,I'm sure, directly related to the filing of this appeal.

Finally, current rumors of a possible lawsuit cast a gloomy cloud over these proceedings, as one final outrageous demonstration of the applicant's preference to "fighting" as a more arrogant, more corporate alternative to cooperation with our community's uniqueness as well as its standards. In this light, your deliberations will take on an additional, very unpleasant reality. A vote for denial, in line with the DRB findings, will quite possibly (inadvertently) "trigger" the litigation as well as the many possible negative consequences that would follow. On the other hand, and in this nasty context, a vote in favor of the project, whether the result of personal preference or one stemming from an overriding fear of the lawsuit, will reverberate throughout the "big box" community, setting a loud and clear precedent that our city can be bought, bullied, and coerced into submission to their reckless ways. The result will be, of course, disastrous for our community, as we watch it quickly, permanently, uncontrollably trend towards those other unfortunate cities that have lost their way.

I do not envy the awesome responsibility before you. Trying to make any kind of decision under such a threat is almost incomprehensible to me. My only hope is that, in the thick of all this pressure, you will not lose your perspective, your common sense, your grasp of the historic level of standards that has caused Sebastopol to be what it is today, and to cast your vote in a way that acknowledges all the hard work done by the many in our community who care deeply about our community's urban quality; in a way that transcends simple concerns about money, or politics; in a way that does not tolerate favoritism towards the rich and powerful. There's too much at stake here for anything else.

Sincerely, Robert Beauchamp

Sonoma West Publishers
707.433.4451 x215

------------

This commentary has been updated to reflect the correct day of the City Council forum, which will take place at the Sebastopol Community Cultural Center on Monday, Jan. 23 at 6 p.m.

Sebastopol has a major traffic problem. Many drivers traveling back and forth from West County already avoid the city entirely by using alternate routes such as Occidental Road. Others avoid downtown Sebastopol by driving through Sebastopol's neighborhoods.

Even with the impacted traffic, CVS/ Chase is just one of a large number of proposed developments, including the Barlow development (two new wineries), Laguna Vista (145 new homes), a new motel at the French Garden, and many others.

With impacted traffic, Sebastopol must weigh for each project whether the added value to the community outweighs the inevitable degradation of traffic.

Everybody realizes that Pellini's corner is an eyesore. Any project there will be required to improve the street, the landscaping, the crosswalks, the utilities, etc. The City does not need to accept an inferior project. This site will be developed.

But in return for accepting the increased congestion, the City should demand new businesses that would generate new sales tax, or businesses plus offices, or businesses plus downtown apartments, which would draw residents who would enjoy the amenities of living downtown in a small community.

CVS/Chase wants to move downtown from the Redwood Shopping Center. This will not increase sales taxes; it will draw current CVS/Chase customers into the heart of downtown, minimally 2,000 additional in/out trips daily, adding to the congestion at the second most congested intersection in the City.

The project in a 4 to 2 vote, was turned down by the Planning Commission, but was approved by the City Council on a technicality: the findings of the Planning Commission, later found on the DVD of the meeting, were not transmitted to the City Council before they voted.

Now the project has again been turned down, this time by the Design Review Board (DRB), because the developer refused to modify the project to conform to Sebastopol's Design Review Guidelines.

The members of the DRB are appointed because they are qualified architects, planners, engineers, and builders: They bring their expertise to the task of making proposed projects compatible with the standards and goals of the City, as specified in Sebastopol's Design Review Guidelines.

After hours of DRB meetings (with more than 100 people expressing their viewpoints), the developer refused to make any but cosmetic changes or to engage further with the DRB; here was only a partially reviewed project and no cooperation. The DRB had no choice. It denied approval of the project, by a 3 to 1 vote, with member Massey absent.

Now the proposal stands in stark contrast to the human scale buildings on the west side of Petaluma Avenue and across Sebastopol Road. From the Hop Monk, Polley Polley Madsen building, First Community Credit Union, Screamin Mimi's, and the quaint, southwest-baroque CPS building, this is a neighborhood of varying, interesting, and moderate-size designs.

The CVS/Chase proposal is two masses: a very large rectangle or block at the intersection of Petaluma Avenue and Sebastopol Road; a second small block at the South end. The windows of the CVS building that face the street are fake windows that look only about 6 inches into the store backed by display panels.

CVS and Chase would be separated by a parking lot and a two-lane driveway which is predicted to have in/out traffic every 30 seconds. This is the formula of a suburban mall. And this will be the destiny of that corner for the next 100 years.

The architect's rendition misleads. At this, the second busiest intersection in town, his picture shows almost no traffic, a person wheeling a baby carriage across the intersection.

The developer has appealed the denial of the DRB to the City Council. Next Monday the City Council will vote whether to uphold the findings of the Design Review Board or overturn them and give final approval to the project. We urge you to come and make your views known.

Helen Shane, John Kramer and Jane Nielson are members of the Committee for Small Town Sebastopol.

Helen,
Thank you for your replies. I appreciate what appears to be an attempt at a respectful debate. Let me try to summarize what was said in your posts as it pertains to objecting to the development. Please feel free to correct me if I have incorrectly summarized what was posted;

1. The development will cause a LOT more traffic congestion at one of the busiest intersections in our city and the development plan was misleading about the amount of congestion.

2. The development will not significantly increase tax revenues since one of the two main businesses is just relocating to this location.

3. The Design Review Board is made up of unbiased competent experts who have the best interests of the community in mind.

4. The development's profile will be higher and more 'big box' in nature and less pedestrian oriented than any adjacent buildings.

5. The developers have been uncompromising and unwilling to compromise or accomodate the high standards for development we have in Sebastopol.

6. Development will happen there anyway so we should 'stick to our guns' no matter what and only accept those developments that strictly adhere to our high standards of vision.

7. If we 'give in' to this it will open the door to all the other big developers and, essentially ruin the town's character.


I apologize if I have unfairly used any rhetoric language for the sake of brevity and please correct anything above that I have stated incorrectly. Quite frankly, I don't agree with any of these points. Point by point;

1. The development will certainly mean more actual vehicular traffic on the development site but the street improvements, parking improvements, reduction of vehicle conflict points will likely increase traffic flow rates. I have seen traffic studies done on other developments around town that were grossly overstated when compared to reality. I encourage you to take the time to do the research yourself. If, instead of two businesses you want to have a slew of small businesses with vastly different customer targets, do you really think that will cause less traffic issues ? Final point, except for in-town festivals (Apple Blossom etc) the major traffic congestion is caused by work commuter traffic going THROUGH town rather than stopping at the downtown area. Most of the rush hour traffic is from out of town and does not stop in town. Ultimately, the development will definitely be more pedestrian friendly and, for town residents, this is essentially a pedestrian town (in fact, the proximaty to Palm Drive and the nearby doctor's offices may reduce the amount of vehicles going across town to the current CVS pharmacy). The current traffic pattern there is just plain dangerous and needs to be improved even if it involves slowing traffic.

2. I believe the relocated CVS will be smaller but the combined property will provide a bigger tax revenue than the current CVS. In addition, the purchase of right aways and other on-time expenditures will be over $400,000 which 4 times the estimated annual tax rate. When/if CVS relocates, its current location, being in the Redwood Plaza will be very attractive to new business which will replace the current CVS tax base. I can't imagine that current CVS building would be abandoned for any significant length of time.

3. Don't know how to respond to this without getting personal and biased. I believe that the DRB is far from objective in most of their findings. Thoughtful, yes, but it is my belief that the findings are based largely on a personal wish for a specific vision rather than an objective overview of whats best.

4. I think thats just plain wrong and I promise to 'eat crow' if I am proven false but the currently development plan's maximum building height is significantly less than several neighboring buildings and certainly is a lot less than allowed. The plan calls for very community oriented amenities (such as green landscaping, pedestrian safety features, public art work, benches etc etc) that have to be much better than what is currently there and certainly in league, or better than any neighboring locations (including Hopmonk which has no street facing pedestrian amenities that I am aware of and definitely no Public amenities..you have to go inside the business to take advantage of their amenities. I love Hopmonk but can you imagine a 78 year old woman sitting on bench beneath some greenery without having to purchase a picture of beer there ? :0))

5. Yeah..this one I think i am not gonna respond much to except really talk to both sides and look at all the volumous proceedings and minutes. Has there really been any developer, in that last 20 years in this town that hasn't had to go through a HUGE fight and very laborious set of compromises to pass a project here ?? I like the restrictions and high standards for development but I also like being practical and fair. I think its more fair to say thet the Pellini's corner developers have probably had had to do enough compromises to the point where they are tired of it. I will let them speak for themselves (e-mails at the end)

6. It could easily be delayed years or decades. We need the economic vitality now. A number of you may be established and well off but if we want a vibrant influx of new young people here and not just rich aging people with a very specific vision that excludes many then we need something like this. Again, as nice as the 'Gift Shop' nature of downtown is, there has to be a combination of basic resident-oriented need and 'tourist' needs. I love this town and love the progressive nature of the businesses, which I regularly use, but I am tired of how many downtown businesses cater to, basically, well-off tourists. What not have a pleasant location close to downtown that caters to the needs of the elderly and young average income families as well as the other stuff ? Have some big developers and retailers in town provides a bigger and steadier tax base than the small business model.

7. If we don't compromise sometimes then the only big developer's that will make into town will be the truly big, uncompassionate ones with the money and lawyers to force themselves on use. Keep in mind that the development is in on a property owned and condoned by a local, Pellini that has been here and helped the city's coffers and vitality for longer than probably most people reading this.

For questions about the project;
Bill McDermott [email protected]
Kevin Kellog [email protected]

Thanx for reading and considering,
Sal

Hi Sal -

Most of your listed points have been addressed by "the people" over the months;
I regret I don't have the time before Monday evening to respond fully; I know you understand that. I will comment briefly.

I feel that you do not have an accurate reading on who "we" are. Your statement " We need the economic vitality now. A number of you may be established and well off " suggests that. Probably we are representative, demographically, of the community's population.

Right after I read your posted message, I read a message from one of the thoughtful people who live in Burbank housing, and who has been following this saga almost from the public beginning. Here is what she said, unedited, except for the removal of her name:

Helen, I would like to know from you how many people our "side" can use there, how many you anticipate and how many people should make comments. My health needs always to be my first priority and your response will influence my decision.
I did send e-mail requests to the board and was glad I went to the Design Review Board meetings. My pension is modest but I have made a contribution and and hope to send another one. My first thought was that it might be hard for me to attend this meeting given my current state of my health. Even the stress and weight of the problem effects me.
But I certainly want us to win this one. I saw comments in favor of the plan in the paper and I know we should't assume we have the upper hand. Your honest opinion would help me a lot though I know I ultimately need to choose what feels right. I don't want to pressure you either so I understand if you don't feel you can speak to this. You've got plenty to do in this campaign. Thanks so much for all your doing.

I responded to her: Hi xxx - I believe we will have a good turnout, and while everyone counts, it is also true that your health comes first. I appreciate your contribution, and was impressed by your check, because I know you have limited income.
Feel free to email. Stay well, stay tuned, stay home. Gratefully, Helen Shane.

FYI my husband and I live in a "granny" unit of 600 sf in the rear of our larger house (all of 1134 sf) on the income from the rental and some small pensions we earned during our long working years, plus social security. While we are established, we are not "well off". I am not complaining, but explaining, that this suits our lifestyle.

The fact that your post refers readers to the Armstrong reps kind of negates, in my mind, your neutrality. (sp).

Most of your points are subjective. I would respond in kind, but can't now given other tasks.

I would like a response from you, but I hope that you will understand I can't take the time to debate you at this point.

Cordially, Helen Shane

Helen,

1. I never claimed to be neutral on this issue..I have been very clear that I want the development to be improved. My lack of neutrality comes from a rational look at the facts and a belief for whats best for the community rather than an upfront agenda before looking at the facts. I do claim that I would probably have less of an agenda than the DRB and would probably be more 'objective' than at lease several members of the DRB. Do you claim you are neutral ? Why would you ? Your posts definitely weren't objectively neutral (and parts of them were just plain factually wrong). There are times I might want to tone the rhetoric but its an emotional issue. That doesn't take away from the facts and rational argument I am trying to put forth.

2. While I appreciate the anecdotes not sure that one communication from one resident of Burbank housing who gives no specific reasons for objecting to the development does anything substantial for the debate. If your point is that there are people who object to the development who aren't well off financially..point well made but then I never claimed that every objector was rich or even a majority. My 'rich' comments were more targeted towards the downtown character than any one personal group. I do claim, subjectively, that the downtown caters primarily to the non-poor looking for luxuries and that the new development doesn't.


I realize that most of the content of my posts have been addressed before but (1) as a cursory glance I haven't seen any posts that have overturned my points for the development and against what I consider to be a very irrational non-fact driven argument against the development and (2) I wanted resurrect the debate since the meeting is coming up very soon and it will be the final decision meeting, supposedly.

The bottom line for me is I hope everyone will truly look at what the real facts are rather than accepting the bogus info (from both sides) that is being thrown out there (mainly by people with a personal and selfish agenda..perhaps well meaning but no less subjective). I would be sad if there was no protest to the development but I think the objecting argument is just plain invalid and wrong.


Thanx,
Sal

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

Hi Sal -

Most of your listed points have been addressed by "the people" over the months;
I regret I don't have the time before Monday evening to respond fully; I know you understand that. I will comment briefly.

I feel that you do not have an accurate reading on who "we" are. Your statement " We need the economic vitality now. A number of you may be established and well off " suggests that. Probably we are representative, demographically, of the community's population.

Right after I read your posted message, I read a message from one of the thoughtful people who live in Burbank housing, and who has been following this saga almost from the public beginning. Here is what she said, unedited, except for the removal of her name:

Helen, I would like to know from you how many people our "side" can use there, how many you anticipate and how many people should make comments. My health needs always to be my first priority and your response will influence my decision.
I did send e-mail requests to the board and was glad I went to the Design Review Board meetings. My pension is modest but I have made a contribution and and hope to send another one. My first thought was that it might be hard for me to attend this meeting given my current state of my health. Even the stress and weight of the problem effects me.
But I certainly want us to win this one. I saw comments in favor of the plan in the paper and I know we should't assume we have the upper hand. Your honest opinion would help me a lot though I know I ultimately need to choose what feels right. I don't want to pressure you either so I understand if you don't feel you can speak to this. You've got plenty to do in this campaign. Thanks so much for all your doing.

I responded to her: Hi xxx - I believe we will have a good turnout, and while everyone counts, it is also true that your health comes first. I appreciate your contribution, and was impressed by your check, because I know you have limited income.
Feel free to email. Stay well, stay tuned, stay home. Gratefully, Helen Shane.

FYI my husband and I live in a "granny" unit of 600 sf in the rear of our larger house (all of 1134 sf) on the income from the rental and some small pensions we earned during our long working years, plus social security. While we are established, we are not "well off". I am not complaining, but explaining, that this suits our lifestyle.

The fact that your post refers readers to the Armstrong reps kind of negates, in my mind, your neutrality. (sp).

Most of your points are subjective. I would respond in kind, but can't now given other tasks.

I would like a response from you, but I hope that you will understand I can't take the time to debate you at this point.

Cordially, Helen Shane

---

Hi Sue - you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and your right to assert it. I wish we had started this dialogue a long time ago. I simply don't have time to rebut one person at length. Cheers. Helen Shane

p.s. Your referral of questioners to Bill McDermott and Kevin Kellog prompted my point about your nuetrality.

I recommend to you a book called "A Pattern Language", published in 1977 by Oxford University Press. I found it right after I was appointed to the Planning Commission. This would be a good, substantive reference for anyone concerned about urban planning. In fact, i lent it to the Planning Dept. for a few years...got it back about three years ago; I fear it had been used there. hs

Sal,
In my opinion, the Chase/CVS is "Big Box" because Chase and CVS are big corporate entities. Similar to McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Home Depot. They seek to suck the blood out of the life of a small town like Sebastopol. They are drawn to Sebastopol, like a virus, a predator, because they see a vital, alive, energized town. Sebastopol is alive, vitalized, and energized precisely because it has very few big corporate entities. If it did, it would closely resemble the unfortunately developed Rohnert Park, where the downtown consists of a Safeway, a CVS, a big gas station, and other corporate entities.

What you refer to as the existing crystal, organic clothing, and soap shops, also include Milk & Honey, Silk Moon, Rosemary's Garden, Copperfields, East West Cafe, the Gypsy Cafe, Many Rivers Books, K&L, Sebastopol Gallery, and others, all that give Sebastopol a unique and appealing flavor.

Contrary to your statement, it would be far more appealing to convert the existing Pellini Chevrolet Building into prdestrial friendly green local stores, a tasting room, cafe, and housing. A visit to any city, such as New York, San Francisco, Sonoma, Boulder, will show you old buildings that have been tastefully restored and upgraded to contemporary uses. Not only is it green, but it preserves the existing harmony, of building that have been sited for years, and builds on tradition, instead of destroying it in favor of big box crap.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

On Monday there will be a City Council Meeting to discuss the Design Review Committee's denial of the Pellini's Corner development. As often happens in this town, the opposition and action against the project have been based on selfish and ill-informed rational. I want to promote a vitally needed (economically and civically) project that was very carefully thought out and laboriously conceived. I will debate all reasonable objections..unreasonably ones are not worth the time.
For those of you who are not very aware I would encourage you to look carefully at the plans which would turn that location into a an economically boosting, family, environmentally, and pedestrian friendly location.

Sal

One of several design review board documents;

https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de....3.11_copy.pdf

---

Responses below (by the way, Helen, who is Sue ?!?;

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Sal,
In my opinion, the Chase/CVS is "Big Box" because Chase and CVS are big corporate entities. Similar to McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Home Depot. They seek to suck the blood out of the life of a small town like Sebastopol. They are drawn to Sebastopol, like a virus, a predator, because they see a vital, alive, energized town. Sebastopol is alive, vitalized, and energized precisely because it has very few big corporate entities. If it did, it would closely resemble the unfortunately developed Rohnert Park, where the downtown consists of a Safeway, a CVS, a big gas station, and other corporate entities.

I don't see anyway of reasonably countering such a knee-jerk blanket anti-corporate reaction. Its not rational and is completly prejudiced against ANYTHING corporate (I wonder what you think of the Whole Foods corporation). We already have a Safeway, a chain drug store, a decent sized gas station and other corporate entities in downtown. The proposed development will beautify and make an eyesore much more community friendly (end energize the economy for residents) by moving one corporate entity to another location thereby allowing other small businesses in). I know a lot of communities that are grateful for at least some corporate influx, including my economically depressed home town. Which do you think excludes residents with modest incomes more- luxury oriented small business with few employees or modest, asthetically pleasing coporate developments with many employees and selling modestly priced necessities ?

What you refer to as the existing crystal, organic clothing, and soap shops, also include Milk & Honey, Silk Moon, Rosemary's Garden, Copperfields, East West Cafe, the Gypsy Cafe, Many Rivers Books, K&L, Sebastopol Gallery, and others, all that give Sebastopol a unique and appealing flavor.

The development is not going to displace or replace any of the businesses that give Sebastopol its character but it may even allow other like businesses like the one mentioned to move in. All the above businesses are nice to have if (1) you have disposable income for luxuries or (2) are a tourist and not a low income resident. I love those businesses and would hate to see them go but thats not even close to whats happening here. Hell, the one downtown main street small business that actually catered to moderate to low income (Copperfield's Used Books) is closing.


Contrary to your statement, it would be far more appealing to convert the existing Pellini Chevrolet Building into prdestrial friendly green local stores, a tasting room, cafe, and housing. A visit to any city, such as New York, San Francisco, Sonoma, Boulder, will show you old buildings that have been tastefully restored and upgraded to contemporary uses. Not only is it green, but it preserves the existing harmony, of building that have been sited for years, and builds on tradition, instead of destroying it in favor of big box crap.

---

You honestly believe the current building, which isn't remotely green by any standards (or even appealing) can be converted to tastefully green and small businesses ? The development calls for very environmentally friendly and upgraded standards and greenery. It is sometimes better to remove and replace rather than refurbish, both environmentally, astheticlly, and economically. The current buildings don't even closely match the emerging community friendly architecture in the area of town. The new development will. Finally, the businesses you mentioned above, with the exception of the housing (which would probably be too upscale for a modest income if placed next to a wine bar) is something this town has in overwhelming abundance and, again serves the tourist and upscale traffic rather than residents with modest incomes. Its elitist which the development opposition seems to be.


Sal

Sal,
I appreciate you opening the debate online as that is more comfortable for many that can not attend the meetings.

I am not sure if you consider these couple of points reasonable.
They are really more questions than objections.
Does the latest version of the CHASE CVS proposal address water run off retention?
Sebastopol seems like a permaculture savvy sort of space and I wonder if your program will exemplify any of those principles.
Can you provide a count of how many pharmacies and banks there are within a half mile of what is proposed?
Can you explain your connection and interest in the project?
Thank you for discussing the issues.
A.J.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

On Monday there will be a City Council Meeting to discuss the Design Review Committee's denial of the Pellini's Corner development. As often happens in this town, the opposition and action against the project have been based on selfish and ill-informed rational. I want to promote a vitally needed (economically and civically) project that was very carefully thought out and laboriously conceived. I will debate all reasonable objections..unreasonably ones are not worth the time.
For those of you who are not very aware I would encourage you to look carefully at the plans which would turn that location into a an economically boosting, family, environmentally, and pedestrian friendly location.

Sal

One of several design review board documents;

https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de....3.11_copy.pdf

---

Replies below;

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by AJL:

Sal,
I appreciate you opening the debate online as that is more comfortable for many that can not attend the meetings.

I am not sure if you consider these couple of points reasonable.
They are really more questions than objections.
Does the latest version of the CHASE CVS proposal address water run off retention?

Yes..and this is a reasonable inquiry. For details, I would e-mail the links I posted previously. They very much keep these and other environmental issues in mind..in fact, I think the proposal improves the current environmental runoff issues.

Sebastopol seems like a permaculture savvy sort of space and I wonder if your program will exemplify any of those principles.

I believe it does more than many (if not most) current businesses. Nothing like a farm or living commune would but much better than what is there now and what currently exists in much of the city.

Can you provide a count of how many pharmacies and banks there are within a half mile of what is proposed?

Off the top of my head estimate (anybody feel free to correct my numbers;
Currently 3 pharmacies. The development will not change that number but will move a pharmacy closer to the hospital and doctor's offices.
Banks- Quick estimate of at least 7 though I am not aware of a CHASE bank. A bank is not the same thing as wine tasting room (re- previous post) is that is what you are trying to compare it to. (Putting all banks together is like putting all boutique shops together into one category or even putting all gas stations together in one category).

Can you explain your connection and interest in the project?

No business, social, financially, personal connections other than I personally some of the individuals involved on both sides and have decided to agree to the development side. My interest is as a Sebastopol resident who intends on staying here until I die.


Thank you for discussing the issues.


Welcome

A.J.

---

It's understandable why CVS wants to make this move because RiteAid and the pharmacy in Safeway are cutting into their pharmaceutical business. If they were to relocate, they will be the pharmacy nearest to the medical complex. It's a no-brainer because they see an opportunity to capture a greater piece of the pie and shouldn't be faulted for thinking that way. However, CVS is currently a flagship store at the Redwood Shopping Center. There is a dedicated lane, traffic light, 3 entrances into the S/C, and an abundant amount of parking spaces. Redwood S/C has suffered business losses and will experience an even greater drop off in traffic if CVS were to relocate. Whereas if CVS were to stay put, CVS will continue to get traffic. Granted maybe not as much as they would like but the fact is, they will still get traffic. Safeway may suffer some loss but they get considerable traffic and should hold up okay. In addition to the possible danger to Redwood's businesses, RiteAid is also at risk. Last but not least, is the small deli/liquor store across from Pellini's who, no doubt, will suffer as well. Should these businesses go out of business, there will be a loss of tax revenue and a number of jobs all because Armstrong Developers (who don't even live in Sebastopol) want to make more money.

In my opinion, the writing is on the wall. It's just a matter of time before RiteAid might be faced with shutting down along with a few more stores in Redwood S/C and possibly even the deli/liquor store. Then Sebastopol could very well be faced with a larger amount of blight in the long run. It's easier to find one tenant for the Pellini's location rather than to have to find a number of tenants to fill potential vacancies which could result from such a move. For these reasons, we should say no to this project.

cvs isn't just big box, its a corporate citizen focused solely on profit, look at the record of employee complaints and medical plan manipulations for monopolizing drug sales. of course they want to plant their store at the crossroads of west county and drive all the competition out.

not only will this increase the hours of tipping point traffic congestion in sebastopol, we will all be paying more when cvs is the only pharmacy in west county. chase is next to cvs at lucky right now, there will be no increase in tax revenue, yeah chase, look up their mo.

sebastopol is an economically vibrant community. just look at the recent city budget history compared to other sonoma county towns. this store move doesn't provide any more economy shopping then what is already available, in fact there will likely be less with a smaller cvs and rite aid out.

the arguments for cvs are emotional bs. any rational analysis, as has been done twice by qualified hardworking citizen volunteers spending many hours and listening to all sides, will find that this development proposal is a bad deal for sebastopol.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dominus:

It's understandable why CVS wants to make this move because RiteAid and the pharmacy in Safeway are cutting into their pharmaceutical business. If they were to relocate, they will be the pharmacy nearest to the medical complex. It's a no-brainer because they see an opportunity to capture a greater piece of the pie and shouldn't be faulted for thinking that way. However, CVS is currently a flagship store at the Redwood Shopping Center. There is a dedicated lane, traffic light, 3 entrances into the S/C, and an abundant amount of parking spaces. Redwood S/C has suffered business losses and will experience an even greater drop off in traffic if CVS were to relocate. Whereas if CVS were to stay put, CVS will continue to get traffic. Granted maybe not as much as they would like but the fact is, they will still get traffic. Safeway may suffer some loss but they get considerable traffic and should hold up okay. In addition to the possible danger to Redwood's businesses, RiteAid is also at risk. Last but not least, is the small deli/liquor store across from Pellini's who, no doubt, will suffer as well. Should these businesses go out of business, there will be a loss of tax revenue and a number of jobs all because Armstrong Developers (who don't even live in Sebastopol) want to make more money.

In my opinion, the writing is on the wall. It's just a matter of time before RiteAid might be faced with shutting down along with a few more stores in Redwood S/C and possibly even the deli/liquor store. Then Sebastopol could very well be faced with a larger amount of blight in the long run. It's easier to find one tenant for the Pellini's location rather than to have to find a number of tenants to fill potential vacancies which could result from such a move. For these reasons, we should say no to this project.

---

Here's a bit of recent history about Chase:
JPMorgan Chase had a hand in the worst of the subprime lending excesses, providing financing to the nation's two largest subprime lenders, Countrywide and Ameriquest. This financing provided the companies with the capital they needed to originate subprime mortgages. JPMorgan Chase also owned a major subprime lender, Chase Home Finance, and has acquired two banks with large subprime operations: Washington Mutual (which owned #5 Long Beach Mortgage Co.) and Bear Stearns (which owned #17 Encore Credit Corp.). Together, these five firms issued over $295.3 billion in subprime loans from 2005-2007.
For me, new construction of a Chase Bank flies in the face of the Occupy movement and contradicts everything that the movement is trying to accomplish.
Not to mention those in Sebastopol, Sonoma County, Northern California, and most states who have been affected by the immoral practices of this institution.
At this point in time, it would be shameful to have Chase on a visible corner in Sebastopol.

Amalia

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dominus:

It's understandable why CVS wants to make this move because RiteAid and the pharmacy in Safeway are cutting into their pharmaceutical business. If they were to relocate, they will be the pharmacy nearest to the medical complex. It's a no-brainer because they see an opportunity to capture a greater piece of the pie and shouldn't be faulted for thinking that way. However, CVS is currently a flagship store at the Redwood Shopping Center. There is a dedicated lane, traffic light, 3 entrances into the S/C, and an abundant amount of parking spaces. Redwood S/C has suffered business losses and will experience an even greater drop off in traffic if CVS were to relocate. Whereas if CVS were to stay put, CVS will continue to get traffic. Granted maybe not as much as they would like but the fact is, they will still get traffic. Safeway may suffer some loss but they get considerable traffic and should hold up okay. In addition to the possible danger to Redwood's businesses, RiteAid is also at risk. Last but not least, is the small deli/liquor store across from Pellini's who, no doubt, will suffer as well. Should these businesses go out of business, there will be a loss of tax revenue and a number of jobs all because Armstrong Developers (who don't even live in Sebastopol) want to make more money.

In my opinion, the writing is on the wall. It's just a matter of time before RiteAid might be faced with shutting down along with a few more stores in Redwood S/C and possibly even the deli/liquor store. Then Sebastopol could very well be faced with a larger amount of blight in the long run. It's easier to find one tenant for the Pellini's location rather than to have to find a number of tenants to fill potential vacancies which could result from such a move. For these reasons, we should say no to this project.

---

I think that the comments about Chase and good ones and fully justified. I just can't see putting off good, environmental, attractive, economically boosting development just because you don't like one of the businesses there, which are just relocating from an already existing location in town. (In fact, it would be easier more effective to protest Chase at the new location..imagine the impact of having an occupy protest on that corner as opposed to outside Safeway). I think its a pretty big weak stretch to say the Sebastopol Deli and Rite Aid would close down because of the new relocations and that CVS would somehow jack up its prices.

I don't think its not really effective to say anything else. I think a few good points have been made towards opposition (in the midst of a large number of irrational ones) to the development but I think the pro-development view, after weighing everything, is the best view. Bottom line is that the citizens of Sebastopol will get what they want if a large number of them show up at the council meeting and argue their side. I do think, if there is enough open honest communications, then the final decision will reflect the majority view of the Sebastopol residents. I just hope that, if the project gets opposed, a replacement will happen sometime soon and that the replacement will not be worse.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

cvs isn't just big box, its a corporate citizen focused solely on profit, look at the record of employee complaints and medical plan manipulations for monopolizing drug sales. of course they want to plant their store at the crossroads of west county and drive all the competition out.

not only will this increase the hours of tipping point traffic congestion in sebastopol, we will all be paying more when cvs is the only pharmacy in west county. chase is next to cvs at lucky right now, there will be no increase in tax revenue, yeah chase, look up their mo.

sebastopol is an economically vibrant community. just look at the recent city budget history compared to other sonoma county towns. this store move doesn't provide any more economy shopping then what is already available, in fact there will likely be less with a smaller cvs and rite aid out.

the arguments for cvs are emotional bs. any rational analysis, as has been done twice by qualified hardworking citizen volunteers spending many hours and listening to all sides, will find that this development proposal is a bad deal for sebastopol.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

... In fact, it would be easier more effective to protest Chase at the new location..imagine the impact of having an occupy protest on that corner as opposed to outside Safeway). I think its a pretty big weak stretch to say the Sebastopol Deli and Rite Aid would close down because of the new relocations and that CVS would somehow jack up its prices.

---

If the project gets approved, I'd love to see an ongoing demonstration in front of Chase!

CVS has a long record of corporate mis-deeds and I don't doubt that they will try to run their competitors out of business (either fairly or unfairly) and raise prices. It's the capitalist way!

Some corporations are more evil than others, and I would count CVS among them! Here's just a couple of links:

https://www.mesrianilaw.com/CVS-Pharmacy-to-settle-$2-million-for-Unfair-Competition-Lawsuit.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVS_Ca...#Controversies

With the exception of the Whole Foods Corporation (which garners the nickname "Whole Paycheck" if you have a moderate income), I am not convinced that the other major corporate entities in town (Safeway, Rite Aid etc) are significantly better than CVS but I am gonna leave it to the reader check out the plentiful links online and decide which ones have the best most accurate info. Let me put my position a different way;

I would be right there with the development opposition side if they anyone could provide a development plan that;

1. Is practical and reasonable
2. Can/Would be completed in the next 5 years
3. Brings economic vitality (both in employement and tax revenues)
4. Is asthetically and environmentally sound
5. Fits the Sebastopol character (progressive, alternative )
6. Caters to the NEEDS of a moderate income rather than the luxuries of a above moderate income
7. Makes large civic improvements to location
8. Does not have residents known to have ethically bad business practices.

The current development plans cover 1-4,6,7
Several, if not many, current businesses in town do NOT meet 3,4,6,8 even though they might cover 5.

I would LOVE a development that has yoga studios, cheap organic groceries, healthy cheap drug store items, reasonably priced work clothes etc etc all under one foot print that also has beautiful green architecture and plentiful natural landscaping and provides a lot of jobs per square foot and an equally large amount of tax and city revenue per square foot. Point me to the plans and the developer proposing them. If you can then I would encourage you to push them on the Pellinis along with me. Hell, maybe the project gets approved, the city protests the first residents and opens up the space for small businesses mentioned above !

Sal

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

If the project gets approved, I'd love to see an ongoing demonstration in front of Chase!

CVS has a long record of corporate mis-deeds and I don't doubt that they will try to run their competitors out of business (either fairly or unfairly) and raise prices. It's the capitalist way!

Some corporations are more evil than others, and I would count CVS among them! Here's just a couple of links:

https://www.mesrianilaw.com/CVS-Pharmacy-to-settle-$2-million-for-Unfair-Competition-Lawsuit.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVS_Ca...#Controversies

---

its not a stretch at all to project rite aid closing. cvs is gunning to get all the pharmacy biz in west county. why else would they relocate, with great expense and hassle, to a smaller location with a drive through at the crossroads?

the town is not responsible for creating development proposals on private property. it is the right of the council to say no. the biggest reason to say yes is threat of legal action. your weak arguments taishon provide the cover for the council to cave to corporate bullies even if most interested citizens want something a little more meaningful than a drug store in the center of town.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

I think that the comments about Chase and good ones and fully justified. I just can't see putting off good, environmental, attractive, economically boosting development just because you don't like one of the businesses there, which are just relocating from an already existing location in town. (In fact, it would be easier more effective to protest Chase at the new location..imagine the impact of having an occupy protest on that corner as opposed to outside Safeway). I think its a pretty big weak stretch to say the Sebastopol Deli and Rite Aid would close down because of the new relocations and that CVS would somehow jack up its prices.

I don't think its not really effective to say anything else. I think a few good points have been made towards opposition (in the midst of a large number of irrational ones) to the development but I think the pro-development view, after weighing everything, is the best view. Bottom line is that the citizens of Sebastopol will get what they want if a large number of them show up at the council meeting and argue their side. I do think, if there is enough open honest communications, then the final decision will reflect the majority view of the Sebastopol residents. I just hope that, if the project gets opposed, a replacement will happen sometime soon and that the replacement will not be worse.

---

If CVS is allowed to relocate, we are opening up the doors to a more significant amount of vacancies and ultimately blight. In Redwood S/C, there are vacancies which have yet to be filled. Should CVS leave, it will be even more challenging to find another business to take over a 25,000 sq. ft. space. Altogether, it's apparent to me, at least, that Redwood S/C will lose traffic and suffer a loss of business. There are many large businesses that are shutting down stores during this economy. RiteAid will lose business to CVS (in the new location) - that's inevitable. It's just a matter of time before RiteAid's management will shut down that location. CVS also sells liquor. Of course, the small deli/liquor store will suffer a loss of business.

I would dread seeing this happen but it can and most likely will happen if we allow this relocation to take place.

Hello all you thougtful citizens who have expressed your concerns about the CVS/Chase/Armstrong appeal to the City Council to overturn the DRB's decision not to approve the application:

Keep up the good work. Please do try to attend the meeting tonight.

Let the opponents continue to express to the City Council and to our community at large respect for the truth and the process.

Some -( or is it - one person?) has complained that the audience behaved immaturely at the DRB meetings. I detected a laugh or two when PD staff expressed opinions on the virtues of more traffic.

I admired this sign on the wall in a Roseland Used furniture store: "Be Nice or Go Away". They refused to sell the sign.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

its not a stretch at all to project rite aid closing. cvs is gunning to get all the pharmacy biz in west county. why else would they relocate, with great expense and hassle, to a smaller location with a drive through at the crossroads?

the town is not responsible for creating development proposals on private property. it is the right of the council to say no. the biggest reason to say yes is threat of legal action. your weak arguments taishon provide the cover for the council to cave to corporate bullies even if most interested citizens want something a little more meaningful than a drug store in the center of town.

---

Up to this point, the debate on this resurrected debate has been mostly civil and rational. This last sentence, unfortunately, represents the irrational dogmatic communications I am trying to counterbalance. There is no amount of rational debate I can give to convince this poster to even considerate an opposite view. I do hope, if the development plan is shut down, that it will be shut down with a lot more thoughtful dialogue and rationality than the above.
Sal

This isn't to address the arguably negative aspects of the CVS/Pellini proposal, but to ask a question.

A number of posts have suggested alternate uses for the Pellini property and expressed confidence that these might be forthcoming. So, for those opposing the CVS proposal, I would think it'd strengthen your argument to address the issue of the actual potential of alternate uses, sources of development initiatives and of financing. Some opponents have expressed confidence that such uses could manifest. What's the basis of that confidence, and how long should the town be willing to let this derelict property remain as is?

Thanks--
Conrad

Sal - You started this thread with civility as its foundation. Please adhere to it. We are trying hard, and, for the most part are successful in maintaining civility and to stay away from personal remarks.
Thank you. Helen Shane

How is the following statement civil and impersonal (or even rational)?;
"your weak arguments taishon provide the cover for the council to cave to corporate bullies even if most interested citizens want something a little more meaningful than a drug store in the center of town."

There is nothing here that addresses the actual real content of my posts. Is it only considered uncivil if its a view that is pro-development ? I have been pretty careful to control the immature dogma in my posts. And I hope that those reading this wil ldo the same at the council meeting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

Sal - You started this thread with civility as its foundation. Please adhere to it. We are trying hard, and, for the most part are successful in maintaining civility and to stay away from personal remarks.
Thank you. Helen Shane

---

That is a challenge to a statement. It is not, in my opinion a personal attack on any person. That's the last you'll hear from me until tonight. Do make yourself known to me, please. Thanks. Helen Shane

As I posted earlier (and I absolutely mean it) if someone could provide me with a viable, real alternative that met the criteria I outlined (small businesses, ethical, environmental, economically stimulating, caters to the needs of a moderate income, would be built in a realistic time frame etc etc) then I wouldn't even be trying to counter the opposition but, instead, would be proactively promoting the alternative.
Sal

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

This isn't to address the arguably negative aspects of the CVS/Pellini proposal, but to ask a question.

A number of posts have suggested alternate uses for the Pellini property and expressed confidence that these might be forthcoming. So, for those opposing the CVS proposal, I would think it'd strengthen your argument to address the issue of the actual potential of alternate uses, sources of development initiatives and of financing. Some opponents have expressed confidence that such uses could manifest. What's the basis of that confidence, and how long should the town be willing to let this derelict property remain as is?

Thanks--
Conrad

---

it addressed the the arguments you and others make and names their true utility. the city council is in a tough place because of potential legal costs. it might be the best decision to overturn the drb to avoid being sued by these large aggressive corporations. hey! this is where we might agree : )

it's not wise to take things personally. it is possible to be both rational and emotional at the same time. your posts have been full of dismissive comments about the concerns of fellow sebastopudlians. i hold for you; a mirror.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

How is the following statement civil and impersonal (or even rational)?;
"your weak arguments taishon provide the cover for the council to cave to corporate bullies even if most interested citizens want something a little more meaningful than a drug store in the center of town."

There is nothing here that addresses the actual real content of my posts. Is it only considered uncivil if its a view that is pro-development ? I have been pretty careful to control the immature dogma in my posts. And I hope that those reading this wil ldo the same at the council meeting.

---

i am quite capable of rational debate and most of my posts have been just that. for example the call for alternates. that is not the responsibility of citizens or their government in considering development proposals on private property. to call for this is an irrational straw man. i have addressed a lot of your points taishon, and provided rational reasons with objective criteria why that they are not true.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Up to this point, the debate on this resurrected debate has been mostly civil and rational. This last sentence, unfortunately, represents the irrational dogmatic communications I am trying to counterbalance. There is no amount of rational debate I can give to convince this poster to even considerate an opposite view. I do hope, if the development plan is shut down, that it will be shut down with a lot more thoughtful dialogue and rationality than the above.
Sal

---

There is no need to provide an alternative if Armstrong Development Corp. is willing to work within the Design Review Board Guidelines. Here are some ideas that would help the proposal come into better alignment:

- move both buildings together to create a contiguous street-front presence
- remove the mid-block entrance/exit driveway on Petaluma Avenue
- install real windows in place of the display windows

And to win the hearts of Sebastopol residents: Remove the tall palm trees that frame the intersection of Hwy 12 and Petaluma Avenue.

Even better - take architectural inspiration from the 100+ year old buildings of the downtown core and blend their influence with the new starling building across the street. Why pull the architectural motifs from the mid-century Bank of the West drive thru, the Pellini building that people keep saying is an eyesore, and the Frizelle Enos warehouse when there are other more appealing architectural elements close by?

REMEMBER:
The Design Review Board is only about how projects "fit" the architectural and design character of Sebastopol, we cannot stray from the scope of this meeting if we want to make points that will be heard and respected. Going off about how evil Chase corporation is will not do any good.

Here is the architectural rendering of the project, complete with plant palette:
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de...tober_2011.pdf

Here are the Guidelines for the Design Review Board:
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de...lines_2010.pdf

Here are the Design Review Board findings for denial:
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de...e_12.21.11.pdf

I've gotta run, but maybe someone else can post the Planning Commission's findings for denial.

Hopefully our Council has had the time to thoroughly review all of these things.

Warmly,
L

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

As I posted earlier (and I absolutely mean it) if someone could provide me with a viable, real alternative that met the criteria I outlined (small businesses, ethical, environmental, economically stimulating, caters to the needs of a moderate income, would be built in a realistic time frame etc etc) then I wouldn't even be trying to counter the opposition but, instead, would be proactively promoting the alternative.
Sal

---