Printable View
Thank you Helen, for cutting to the chase. For those still wondering whether We, the People, through our duly elected and appointed representatives have the right to challenge this deal, this statement is worth repeating: (emphasis added)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane and John Kramer:
I have also heard the following from supporters:
"Anything would be better than what is there now."
There are many things that are technically permitted that most people would agree would not be better.
"The developer is making millions of dollars worth of improvements to the surrounding area (sidewalks, etc.)."
Anyone developing that property will be required to make those improvements.
"A pharmacy with a drive-through window would be beneficial to people who are ill and need medication."
This one actually seems to have some merit, but not enough to overcome the the many other negatives. The argument could also be made that someone who is that ill should probably not be driving in the first place.
"We need a pharmacy close to the hospital."
There is already a pharmacy close to the hospital--RiteAid. If CVS relocates, they will leave the north end of town without a pharmacy and with another empty storefront in the Redwood Marketplace.
"No one else has stepped up to purchase the property."
I don't know for a fact if this is the case or not, but that brings me to...
"The property owners have the right to sell their property."
Of course they do, but that does not mean that the buyer can build whatever they want there.
My understanding is that our zoning ordinances do not support many the points of the General Plan that this development clearly violates. The DRB is the last defense.
"Sebastopol has to approve this project to overcome the perception that the town is anti-development (or anti-business, or anti-everything)"
Sebastopol is clearly not anti-development. Barlow and Hollyhock are recent examples. There will always be a percentage of the population that will oppose something. It's called freedom of speech.
:attention:The Sebastopol City Council meets on Tuesday, July 17, to discuss the appeal by CVS/Chase/Armstrong of the Design Review Board's denial of their project.
A special meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, July 19, for the Council's decision in the matter.
Both meetings start at 6 pm and will be held at the Sebastopol Community and Cultural Center.
Public should plan on attending and to state your case in three or fewer minutes. :welcome:
I have heard much of this also - allow me to add some additional comments:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hollyanna:
hi barton, when i have talked one on one with the people who show up to public meetings who support this development proposal they are most concerned about preferential treatment. they want everyone, including large corporations, to follow the same set of rules. they appreciate rule of law.
cvs/chase are definitely getting the runaround by the drb. is this a problem in a very public process with lots of feedback and final review by elected representatives? the answer lies with your own opinion of this development proposal. this can swing many ways depending on your own interpretation of fairness, development desires, and comfort with democracy.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barton Stone:
[I have posted the following response by Lyn Deedler, DRB Vice Chair, on his request. -Barry]
On CVS/Chase, the overriding issue is the project is fundamentally a suburban mall like design, and is not appropriate for the prominent location in the heart of downtown.
The site is characterized by:
These elements combined to create a classic suburban mall like site, which in numerous ways is not in conformance with General Plan goals and Design Review Guidelines for the Downtown Core. Some of these goals and guidelines are:
- two isolated buildings separated by a large parking lot and entry driveway
- a parking lot dominated site with over twice the required parking
- low building density
- two drive throughs
- few entries addressing the street
I, and I suspect other on the Board, were wiling to flex on these goals if the developers would make the project more fitting with the downtown. I met with the developer and project architect to suggest revisions that would mittigate the negatives enough to gain my support for the project. The changes included slightly less parking, a larger plaza and adding a few small shops facing Petaluma Avenue, and otherwise giving them the building footprints they desired. These changes did not meet their corporate model requirements, though they have made similar accommodations in other cities.
- maintaining continuous storefront
- buildings fronting the street
- entries that open to the street
- high density
- no mid block driveways if options exist
- locating shopping centers at the edge of town
At the last DRB meeting, the developer stated that they would not make site changes and requested a vote on the proposal before the DRB. With this impass on basic site issues there was no point in pursuing agreement to detail refinement on the project.
I have to agree with some points in the article. Coming before the Design Review Board can be messy business. We do not all think alike. But, all in all we do a good job, and have made many projects in this town better. If you saw what this CVS/Chase project started out as, you would absolutely agree.
As to the DRB picking which businesses are ok for Sebastopol, I have never heard a DRB member, publicly or privately, even suggest this. I made my decision to reject the application on an evaluation of the whole project and how it complied with Sebastopol's adopted standards for this area.
Lynn Deedler, DRB Vice Chair
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I'm a bit flabbergasted by parts of this. In a town that is ALWAYS complaining of insufficient parking this project is being taken to task for having too much!
Also, how many of the Barlow businesses front the street?
I can think of at least 2 very unattractive buildings added to the downtown in recent years that garnered no such objections regarding designs inconsistent with the look of the town, one of which sits almost directly across the street from the Pellini property and the other being just north of the core and occupied by a popular restaurant.
These issues seem to support rossmen's observations.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
In response to photolite's excellent questions and observations:
"...how many of the Barlow businesses front the street?".
Barlow is zoned Industrial, not Downtown Core and is not identified in the General Plan as part of the "pedestrian friendly" downtown area. During the Northeast Plan process, they tried unsuccessfully to rezone it to be more like downtown.
"I can think of at least 2 very unattractive buildings added to the downtown in recent years".
One of those buildings is North of downtown (I assume you talking about Peter Lowell's) and, like the Barlow is not included in the General Plan "pedestrian friendly" downtown core. That said, although I don't love the look, it is actually designed to function much more like a downtown building than this CVS/Chase design. The other, across the street from Pellini is not that bad from a site planning standpoint given the challenges with the site, but suffers from a lack of craftsmanship and very poor detailing. I agree the DRB should have been more demanding of both projects.
Most of what has been built in the past 10 years has been mediocre at best in terms of design. I think we should be much more demanding across the board in terms of design.
As for parking, I think a parking problem should be the goal. That's a sign of desirability and we are not even close to having one yet. We can fix that with a well designed parking structure. The City should establish a parking district downtown ASAP and start planning for it now.
Thank you for this, Lynn. I think you should submit this or the jist of this to the editor of the Press Democrat, because those critiques of the DRB have certainly been publicly stated. I did not envy you guys one bit, but am quite impressed at the way you all handled it throughout this sticky process.
Best,
Bill Shortridge
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Lynn Deedler:
In Sebastopol's effort to hold to a vision of a pedestrian-friendly, small, but lively downtown Sebastopol, it is reassuring to know that the courts generally defer to local communities in interpreting the ordinances which they have approved. So since Sebastopol's General Plan strongly emphasizes the idea of a pedestrian-friendly downtown, the city is on strong legal ground in rejecting the CVS mall with a driveway through a supposedly pedestrian plaza. Or a big boxlike store instead of Main Street -like shops. Here are some of the recent court holdings:
Deference to City Councils' General Plan Interpretation
Regarding the City Council's role in judging the adequacy of a project's meeting the goals of the General Plan, courts defer to a local agency’s interpretation of its own planning documents:
When reviewing an agency's decision for consistency with its own general plan, an appellate court accords great deference to the agency's determination, because the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.
Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, review denied.
“Generally, ‘courts accord great deference to a local governmental agency's determination of consistency with its own general plan, recognizing that ‘the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. [Citations.] Because policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, the governmental agency must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan's policies when applying them, and it has broad discretion to construe its policies in light of the plan's purposes. [Citations.] ...’...’’ (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 677–678, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, quoting Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 142, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326.)”
Jamieson v. City Council of the City of Carpinteria (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 755, 763.
Also, a court reviewing an agency decision on a project usually applies what is known as the “substantial evidence” test to see whether the city’s decision should be upheld. This is a very deferential test. As explained by the California Court of Appeal in the Jamieson case:
Because no vested right is involved, the court reviews the City's decision to deny Jamieson a development permit applying the substantial evidence test. (LT–WR, L.L.C. v. California Coastal Com., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 780, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 417.) In such a review, the court presumes that the findings and actions of the agency are supported by substantial evidence. (Desmond v. County of Contra Costa (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 330, 335–336, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 842.) The court may not reweigh the evidence. Moreover, the court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the agency, giving it every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in its favor. (Flowers v. State Personnel Bd. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 753, 758, 220 Cal.Rptr. 139.) Thus, unless the findings “ ‘... are so lacking in evidentiary support as to render them unreasonable,...’ ” the courts must uphold the findings. (Jaramillo v. State Bd. for Geologists and Geophysicists (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 880, 889, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 170.)
Jamieson v. City Council of the City of Carpinteria (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 755, 763.
The City is on solid ground in interpreting its own land use plans and guidelines to find that the design is still lacking, so long as its interpretations and findings are fundamentally reasonable, which they have been. The key issue before the Council remains whether it thinks the design complies with the guidelines.
Rebuttal to Bill McDermott’s supplementary letter dated June 21, 2012re CVS/Chase/Armstrong application for the development of 6877 Sebastopol Ave.McDermott’s appeal generally charges that the DRB went beyond the direction of the Council. This is not true. Rather, the DRB did its job of analyzing whether the Applicant’s revised plan which attempted to respond to the Council’s directions meets the City’s Design Guidelines, a job it is uniquely qualified to perform.
McDermott:
“The Design Review Board generally ignored many of the Project’s design changes and the evidence in the record outlining how these changes are consistent with the City Council Findings when it drafted its finding for denial. For example, even with the design changes incorporating more building articulation, reduced height and the use of brick on both buildings, the Design Board continues to deny the Project’s design because of “box-like massing”, “dominant height” and a “lack of cohesive visual relationship” between the two buildings.” “However, the Design Review Board continues to deny the Project’s design because it is not consistent with the character of the downtown area.”
Rebuttal:
The Council in its the resolution dated February 21, 2012 suggested several options in an attempt to achieve compliance with the General Plan, which derives much of its ambient character and substantive elements from the Downtown Portfolio and the Downtown Plan. DRB found that the options subsequently proposed by the Applicant did not render the design substantively changed to ameliorate the box like massing and dominant height; the Applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the undesirable features of the plan regarding the architecture, and its inconsistency with the character of downtown according to the General Plan.
McDermott:
“Several of the Design Review Board findings directly contradict the City Council findings. For example, Armstrong revised the Project’s design to narrow the Petaluma (Avenue) driveway to “in-only” consistent with an option provided in City Council Findings 1.h & 3.c. However, the Design Review Board refused to acknowledge that Armstrong had satisfied the City Council Finding regarding the Petaluma (Avenue) Driveway. The Design Review Board thus erred in adopting the Design Review Board finding (f) providing that the current design for the Petaluma (Avenue) driveway is not appropriate and that the driveway should be designed to be a fire lane only and there should be no driveway.”
Rebuttal:
In the matter of “pedestrian friendly” (General Plan direction) and pedestrian safety, the Council made several suggestions. The design option selected by the Applicant did not, in the opinion of the Design Review Board result in the pedestrian oriented character as described in the Downtown Plan, Downtown Portfolio and the General Plan. In addition, the safety of pedestrians and drivers entering and exiting vehicles in what was to be a combined plaza, vehicle entrance and parking lot would be badly compromised.
Regarding the driveway and roadways into the project and the adequacy of the rebuilding of Abbott Street, the Council in its findings suggested some optional alternatives which, when selected by the Applicant, still did not, in the opinion of Design Review Board members, sufficiently change the character of the project enough to comply with the Downtown Plan, the Downtown Portfolio and the General Plan. It was up to the Applicant to revise the design pursuant to the Council’s direction in a way that complies with the Design Review Guidelines. The DRB appropriately applied the DR Guidelines to the revised design.
There is still the matter of some unresolved issues with CalTrans on traffic circulation matters. Caltrans has not approved the Petaluma Avenue in-only driveway nor the left turn to the project via Barnes Avenue by vehicles coming from the east on Highway 12, nor the drive-thru exit of the pharmacy. And the proposed New Striped Crossing on Petaluma Ave as well as the New Signalized Pedestrian Crossing on SR-12 have not been approved.
These are just a few of the issues that led to denial of the project by the Design Review Board.
It is up to the City Council and its agents to decide whether or not a project complies with its General Plan and relevant ordinances. This is a critical function that does not go away simply because the Council provided some direction as to what it would like to see in the new design.
The City has the right and responsibility to ensure that what is built on the property conforms with the General Plan.
Helen, thank you for the insight and lucidity that you have brought, and continue to bring to this important community issue! You are a great asset to sustaining and expanding a green, wonderful Sebastopol!
Stop CHASE CVS
Date*&*Time: July 13th & 17th
Location:* Sebastopol
Stop Chase Bank and CVS Pharmacy from Moving Downtown!!!
• Protest Friday July 13th 3:00 p.m.
• City Council Meeting July 17th, 19th 6:00 p.m. Sebastopol Community Center
Occupy Sebastopol and community members will be protesting the CVS/Chase project proposed on the corner of Highway 12 and 116. The majority of the community has not supported this project. The Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council have all voted against this development. It is still an issue because of the persistence of CVS, Chase, and Armstrong Development. To be successful in stopping this project, we must also be persistent.
All are welcome and encouraged to join us between 3pm and 6pm on Friday the 13th (July) to protest CVS and Chase moving downtown. After meeting in the plaza at 2:30pm we will move to the corner of hwy 12/116 where we will peacefully demonstrate against this project between 3 and 6 p.m.
Let the city council know how you feel during public comment on July 17th. July 17th is the date of the appeal hearing for CVC/Chase and Armstrong Development. If a decision is not made on the 17th, the council will meet again on the 19th. Public comments will be heard on the 17th. If you can only attend one night, please come on the 17th. (THESE ARE THE FINAL MEETINGS WHERE A DECISION WILL BE MADE; IMPORTANT TO ATTEND)
• This project is bad for traffic, local business, and Sebastopol’s character.
• CVS has paid out almost half a billion dollars to settle various lawsuits and fines, ranging from illegal labor practices and deceptive business practices, to racketeering, corruption, and the mishandling of toxic waste.
• JP Morgan Chase received $94.7 billion in bail-out funds, of which $64 billion is still on the backs of tax payers. Chase is among the leaders in home foreclosures and is under investigation by the New York State Attorney General over allegations of its fraudulent foreclosure practices. They are now under investigation by the FBI and SEC regarding their recent loss of more than 3 billion dollars.
Do these two corporations seem like the kind of businesses and neighbors we want in our community, at the heart of our town? If not, join us on Friday the 13th for the protest and on the 17th and 19th for the council meetings.
Occupy Sebastopol holds weekly General Assemblies on Sundays in the town plaza @ 3:00p.m.
Thanks for sharing that information about the wines - great news! But I only see two listed - Kosta Brown and Dehlinger. Who was the third?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:
i assume you are writing about my evaluation that the drb is giving chase/cvs the runaround. i love democracy and like to think of rules as requests. sebastopol will get a chance in the upcoming election to either confirm or change the treatment of these two corporations. there seems to be two slates for the open council seats and i guess you will vote for the incumbent-advocate and business friendly architect? i am outside the limits.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by photolite:
Big Chase/CVS Threaten Small Town’s Future & Soul
By Shepherd Bliss
A fierce struggle since early last year over a proposed Chase Bank and CVS Pharmacy development that has been debated publicly in numerous meetings in Sebastopol may reach a climax at the July 17 and 19 City Council public hearings. The Council will either confirm previous decisions made by itself, the Design Review Board (DRB), and Planning Commission to reject the proposal at a downtown commons corner or allow it to go forward.
On one hand, there are the good, loyal friends of the Pellini family, which owns the corner, and some Rotarians supporting the proposal by focusing on the past and private property, both of which are important. A recent letter to the editor of a local weekly advocated this position regarding “the Pellini project,” as if this important issue were merely a personal matter, rather than a larger issue about Sebastopol’s small town character.
The development’s opposition focuses on Sebastopol’s future, the consequences of what ends up on that key corner, and the bigger picture beyond any one family and its friends. Chase, the U.S.’s largest bank, and its frequent partner, CVS, the U.S.’s 18th largest corporation, anchoring the center of our small town would threaten local businesses, including credit unions and local banks.
The Chase/CVS development has been appropriately rejected numerous times by the DRB, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, for many valid reasons. Yet the millionaire managers of these two greedy Goliaths keep using their power to get the only thing they want—extracting more money from Sebastopudlians and our natural resources. GoLocal needs to be more than a slogan; it should be practiced.
The evening July 17th and 19th City Council meetings on Chase/CVS, starting at 6 p.m., have moved to the large Sebastopol Community Center at 390 Morris for what is expected to be a show-down. Opponents, who seem to be in the majority, will demonstrate on Friday, July 13, from 3 to 6 p.m. at the corner of Highways 12 and 116, the site of the intended development, in an action initiated by Occupy Sebastopol.
What is happening in Sebastopol with this development also is occurring elsewhere in the United States. Though the U.S. economy is faltering, Wall Street banks and corporations are making record profits and paying their CEO’s millions of dollars. The phrase “Banks got bailed out. We got sold out” is accurate. If Sebastopol residents defeat Chase/CVS in this one small town, it could be a message to such 1% corporations seeking to further concentrate their wealth that small Davids can defeat their Goliath power.
I love Sebastopol and its people, in spite of our differences. Chase/CVS do not care about us. They have plundered people around the globe for a long time and paid millions of dollars in penalties.
JP Morgan/Chase received $94.7 billion in bail-out funds, of which $64 billion is still on the backs of tax payers. Chase is among the leaders in home foreclosures and is under investigation by the New York State Attorney General over allegations of its fraudulent foreclosure practices. They are under investigation by the FBI and SEC regarding their recent loss of more than 9 billion dollars in London.
CVS has paid almost half a billion dollars to settle various lawsuits and fines, ranging from illegal labor practices and deceptive business practices, to racketeering, corruption, and the mishandling of toxic wastes.
Chase CEO Jamie Dimon reported to Congress in June that his bank lost $2 billion dollars in the kind of derivative gambling that crashed the American economy. He now admits that it was over $9 billion. Ignorance or malice? Is this the kind of boss we want anchoring our downtown?
Law-makers, including City Council members, should not do what law-breakers want, like Chase/CVS, just because they are powerful. They buy lobbyists, politicians, lawyers, and even U.S. Supreme Court justices. It is time for our small town David to bravely stand up to these mighty Goliaths and be a model for other communities and local businesses threatened by them.
Sebastopol’s next election for City Council is already being influenced by the Chase/CVS proposal. Two seats will be up for the vote on Nov. 2. Kathleen Shaffer, an incumbent, supports the development, whereas Mayor Guy Wilson opposes it. [Guy is not running for re-election - Barry]
Two of whose who have taken out papers to run seem to favor the development, Schaeffer and architect and former council member Kathy Austin. The other two would be more likely to vote against it—Planning Commissioner and businessman Robert Jacob and John Eder, a businessman who was formerly a council member in nearby Cotati.
So whatever happens in the next week is likely to linger into the City Council elections and influence what that body might decide. Opponents of the development have already submitted one law suit, saying that the development should prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Last week’s letter in a local weekly wonders “what is best for the community.” It is certainly not to ignore the damage Chase/CVS have done to people, their homes and health. These loan sharks and drug-dealers, which is what they really are, leave trails of misery.
“Rules and regulations…guidelines” concern the letter writers. Perhaps it is because I am a seminary-trained, ordained United Methodist minister that I believe that laws should be based on ethics and morality and protecting people from harm.
The multiple criminal failures of CVS to clean up its toxic wastes and Chase’s predatory banking practices reveal their lack of ethics and morality. Allowing Chase/CVS to anchor our downtown would be a bargain with the devil, which would put our small town’s soul at risk.
I favored the Northeast Area Proposal a few years ago, but through direct democracy, it was defeated. Instead, in that space we now have the Barlow Project, which is genuinely local. Waiting turned out to be best. Let us be patient and strengthen that Eastern entrance to Sebastopol, rather than weaken it with drive-throughs that would clog our downtown with more cars, thus making pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency vehicle movement more difficult.
Something nice at that busy corner would be good. But “nice” and Chase/CVS do not mix. Let’s encourage our current City representatives to be patient until a better, ethical offer comes along. Otherwise, we could be in a long-term relationship with convicted white-collar criminals. Let us not sell an important part of our downtown commons to the highest outside bidder just because they have big bucks. Who knows what other corporate criminals might follow?
We would not allow a crack house or sexual predator to anchor our downtown. Nor should we allow Chase/CVS to do so, for they would be more harmful. Consider the bigger picture and the future of our beloved small town and its soul.
Meanwhile, Chase is one of the banks too big NOT to fall. Let us not go down with it.
(Shepherd Bliss works with Occupy Sebastopol, farms, teaches college, and can be reached at [email protected].)
City Council Meetings
To Hear Appeal of
Design Review Board Denial
of CVS/Chase Plan
Tuesday, July 17 and Thursday, July 19Sebastopol City Council will hear the appeal of the Design Review Board’s denial of the CVS/Chase/Armstrong plan application for 6877 Sebastopol Road, Corner Highways 12 and 116.
6 pm. Sebastopol Cultural and Community Center390 Morris St. Sebastopol
Both meetings are public, and public participation is on the agenda. If the first meeting results in adjournment to July 19, it may be that on July 19 only “new” information from the public will be accepted on the issue before the discussion and vote by Council members takes place.
So think about the reasons you believe the Design Review Board’s denial of the plan should be upheld by the City Council and prepare to let the Council know.
P.S. At the recent hearings, proponents of the project have tried to pack meetings to give the impression that the Sebastopol community supports the proposed downtown shopping mall and its additional 2000 auto trips in the heart of downtown. It is important that we all come with our friends and neighbors to show our support for the wisdom of the Design Review Board in rejecting this shopping mall in downtown Sebastopol.
For background documents, here are a number of links:
General Plan https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/admin/gen_plan_04-01-03_with_links.pdf
Downtown Plan https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/page/planning-information
Downtown Portfolio https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/document...oapril-16-1978
Design Review Guidelines https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/de...with_links.pdf
rossmen, I am also outside Sebastopol so can't vote in these elections either. If I could, I wouldn't necessarily be voting based on business friendliness. In fact I don't support the Chase/CVS project. I just don't see an honest way to prevent it. I also don't oppose the Barlow but am convinced the negative traffic impact there will be many times worse than that of CVS/Chase. Yet few are willing to acknowledge this and many speak long and hard to justify the hypocrisy.
My concerns around this issue are more related to a sense of fairness.
I've seen very ugly and cheap looking construction get a pass because its politics are agreeable while that other project will never be accepted because of its politics.
This project will be loved because it provides extra much needed parking in the downtown while that project is unacceptable because it has too much parking.
This project will bring in needed business traffic to our community while that one will bring in too much traffic which will clog our streets.
The truth is that Sebastopol is growing and will never be the place it used to be, the place we fell in love with. But almost every other place I know that's worth living in is experiencing the same thing. We are trying to control the growth in a thoughtful way and I welcome all opinions on how to do this. But before we do anything we need to agree on a set of rules that apply equally to all. It is the inconsistent way that these rules are applied that I take exception to. I detest Chase but if the rules are disregarded for them then you and I are also at risk of being deprived of our rights should our politics rub someone the wrong way.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Shepherd, I can't thank you enough for this, and your letter in this week's Sebastopol paper was great!
Sara
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
In the 21st century, wouldn't be appropriate to press for the issues of stewardship? Individual land rights shouldn't trump the greater needs and consensus of a community. CVS and Chase management are comprised of individuals who are money junkies and have made choices to sacrifice morality in the pursuit of self-serving profit. Their thinking is "hurry up and get what you can because everything is falling apart." There is no vision, no loyalty, no integrity and no love for the land and people of this country.
you bring up many important things. i want sebastopol to grow in ways i will love. and it is frustrating to have a voice and no vote. traffic will get worse of course, as it has since the town was named for a bar fight 140 years ago. parking? right now the council is trying to sell the downtown lot which rarely fills up! without somekind of pass through/around 12 will grid up more and more, morris is the growing factor now and barlow will kick it over into new mollassas beyond the imagination of any traffic engineer. and if cvs/chase goes through (the traffic study barely passed negative declaration and did not include barlow), you all best be bicycling with me if you want to get anywhere in sebtown:...)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by photolite:
Helen,
Suppose CVS/Chase allowed you to design the buildings in which they would do business. Would that be OK with you? Could the city then approve the project.
Update on tonight's public hearing:
After a lengthy presentation by representatives for the CVS and Chase developer (over 1 hour), public comments did not begin until just before 10:00 PM. Because this meeting went so late, Mayor Wilson announced that public comments will be allowed at the carryover hearing on on July 19th at the Sebastopol Community Center, beginning at 6:00 PM. This is very likely to be the last chance to make your voice heard. If you do not want to see this every time you head into Sebastopol from Santa Rosa, please show up and support our City Council and Design Review Board's rejection of this suburban style strip-mall project in our downtown. Click here for a complete look at the current plans.
No one has talked about this yet. The first thing you'll see when you visit So much for our wine country destination.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hollyanna:Update on tonight's public hearing:
After a lengthy presentation by representatives for the CVS and Chase developer (over 1 hour), public comments did not begin until just before 10:00 PM. Because this meeting went so late, Mayor Wilson announced that public comments will be allowed at the carryover hearing on on July 19th at the Sebastopol Community Center, beginning at 6:00 PM. This is very likely to be the last chance to make your voice heard. If you do not want to see this every time you head into Sebastopol from Santa Rosa, please show up and support our City Council and Design Review Board's rejection of this suburban style strip-mall project in our downtown. Click here for a complete look at the current plans.
Well, they did say they'd be adding some planters, so I guess it will be OK.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:
The PD's report on last night's public hearing was just posted on the PD and follows. Over 100 were there. The public hearing itself did not start until 10 p.m., by which time many people had to leave, and last for only 1/2 hour, so it will continue tomorrow, starting at 6 p.m., being the only item on the agenda. Most of the time before then was taken up by the developers. Please join us at the Seb. Comm. Center to speak up.
The 2 members of the Design Review Board who spoke, Lynn and Bob, were terrific. Jonathan Greenberg and Thomas Morabito also spoke and were wonderful, as were the few other speakers for which there was time.
If you want to get a taste of what it would be like to have the U.S.'s largest bank and 18th largest corporation anchoring our downtown commons, read the following line from its wordy attorney quoted below, “The efforts to stop this project with the denial of the design needs to stop tonight,” said Michelle Moore, an attorney for the developer, Armstrong Development Inc. of Sacramento." So now she is telling us what to do and not do in our small town. This is their arrogance and an insult to the democratic process. These bossy people are not welcome in our town.
We need you at this meeting. Please join us.
Shepherd
https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png
CVS developer appeals design to Sebastopol City Council
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...p=all&tc=pgall
By BOB NORBERG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 7:17 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 8:13 a.m.
A Sacramento developer appealed to the Sebastopol City Council on Tuesday to approve the design of its controversial proposal for a CVS Pharmacy and Chase Bank branch at one of the city's busiest intersections.
“The efforts to stop this project with the denial of the design needs to stop tonight,” said Michelle Moore, an attorney for the developer, Armstrong Development Inc. of Sacramento.
Armstrong is asking the City Council to overturn the Design Review Board's rejection of the project's latest design, contending the design meets all requirements and the board erred in its denial.
The issue was being heard Tuesday in a public hearing that, after three hours, was continued until 6 p.m. on Thursday.
Armstrong is proposing to a 14,576-square-foot pharmacy and 4,327-square-foot bank branch on 2.4 acres at the site of the vacant Pellini Chevrolet dealership, at a cost of $10 million.
CVS and Chase would move to the new location, which is one of Sebastopol's most prominent and heavily traveled intersections, from locations elsewhere in the city.
Critics, however, contend that even the latest design is still out of character with Sebastopol's small town Main Street.
“The overriding, fundamental problem is site layout,” said Lynn Deedler, a member of the Design Review Board, who spoke before the council during the public testimony Tuesday night. “It is a suburban-style shopping center designed for cars and located in the center of town.”
Robert Beauchamp, another Design Review Board member, said that while Armstrong made a lot of revisions with things like color and reduced the height, it hasn't solved the problem.
“It takes more than a brick to make a building,” Beauchamp said. “The height of the building is still a massive 26 feet, it is still a big box.”
The latest design by Sebastopol architect Kevin Kellogg was rejected by the Design Review Board on May 30, the board's third rejection.
After the second rejection, Armstrong appealed to the City Council, but was sent back to the board by the City Council with a list of changes the council wanted.
In response, Kellogg redesigned the project, varying the roof heights, substituting a brick facade for of quasi-industrial metal siding, replacing parking with an larger plaza, installing clear glass windows and making the drive way on Petaluma Avenue one way into the complex.
“We believe this design is compatible with the Sebastopol neighborhood,” Kellogg said.
Supporters of the project also said it will bring additional revenue to Sebastopol and create jobs.
“The little bit of information I have about this project is it is likely to bring jobs, increase taxes and property taxes,” said Zilda McCausland of Sebastopol.
The public hearing will be continued and the City Council is expected to make a decision at a special council meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday at the Community Center.
You can reach Staff Writer Bob Norberg at 521-5206 or [email protected].
This is it guys. Tomorrow's public hearing is most likely to be your last opportunity to be heard.
Public comment on the CVS/Chase development has been carried over to a special session tomorrow night (Thursday, July 19) beginning at 6:00 PM at the Sebastopol Community Cultural Center at 390 Morris St.
The City Council is under tremendous pressure to approve this project. They desperately need community support to urge them to stay strong and uphold the DRBs rejection of the plan.
Here's how you can help if you feel that CVS and Chase do not belong in one of the most prominent locations in our town:
>>Attend the meeting and speak. If you are reading from a written copy, it's a good idea to bring one to leave with the City Council
>>Send an email to the City Council members. Copy City Planner Kenyon Webster and City Clerk Mary Gourley. Emails for all are below.
>>At the very minimum, send an email message with the following subject: "Reject CVS/Chase Appeal" and include your name and address in the body of the message.
>>Ask your friends to do the same.
Communicate your own thoughts as you wish, but please remember that this hearing is only concerned with the decision to reject the CVS/Chase appeal. I have some suggested points to share if you want to send me a private message. I do not want to show our hand in this public forum.
Send your emails to:
Guy Wilson, Mayor: [email protected]
Michael Kyes, Vice Mayor: [email protected]
Kathleen Shaffer: [email protected]
Sarah Glade Gurney: [email protected]
Patrick Slayter: [email protected]
CC to Kenyon Webster, City Planner: [email protected]
CC to Mary Gourley, City Clerk: [email protected]
Thanks for posting the mockup with the big CVS sign,eeeeeeow, which conveniently left off of the prior mock up. I sure wish new building permits and use permits would have to specify where all signage would be , including in-window temporary flyers, and include that in their renderings.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:
The architect, Kevin Kellogg, talked with us on KSRO this morning, if anyone is interested. He seems confident that this is going to happen.
Link to interview:
https://www.ksro.com/Programs/KSROAM...tryID=10405625
It will happen over our civil disobedience, boycotts and bad local & national publicity. If you would like a point of view other than that of a member of the development team, you can reach me at (707) 829-8185. Shepherd
A member of the community with a different take on the matter is scheduled to be interviewed this afternoon. Stay tuned for details.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by News Radio Tony:
John Eder will be a guest on KSRO 1350 AM's The Drive with Steve Jaxon in the 4:00 hour.
See a new article by Jonathan Greenberg that asks? Is the Sebastopol Planning Director Rigging the CVS/Chase Project?
Please post your comments about the article and that particular topic on that thread. Thanks!
We are being fiercely tested in a world which has little concept of stewardship.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
Prof. Bliss,
Okay, you're on. I have a spot at 8:15a.m. tomorrow, station number is (707) 636-1350, probably Curtiss Kim will be interviewing. I called but you did not answer, so, if you see this post, just respond and it will email me.
Maybe if one of you Waccos see Shepherd today, or know a better way to reach him, you can let him know.
Thanks!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
Recap of last night's meeting:
Public comment lasted for 3 hours and concluded at 10:30. This was followed by some comments by the CVS/Chase development team and then questions by the City Council. I left after about 15 minutes of that, so I don't know how much longer it went on.
Tally: 61 speakers, 43 urging to deny the appeal ("no to CVS"), 17 urging that it be granted ("yes to CVS"), 1 that I couldn't determine.
Mayor Wilson announced that the City Council needed additional time to review all of the emails that they received on the matter and will defer the decision until the next CC meeting on Aug. 7.
Here's a link to the article in the PD.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...9485?p=2&tc=pg
Corruption in this county is rampant, back rooms deals and pay outs will continue to dictate the policies of Sonoma county. From the planning commission, supervisors and the courts. Big business will continue to control what is to be built and where. Don't fool yourselves this project will be built, boycotts and notional publicity only last as long as peoples memories, not very long. We need to restructure our planning dept and current policies makers, and get big business out of our local government, and make Sonoma county a better place to live. .
Since the corruption, etc. is so rampant; you must have some first hand knowledge of these activities. In my mind, rampant would equate to 100's of times (please correct me if I've understated). Please provide your top three specific examples of when any of the appointed or elected officials you mentioned received a pay out or received some other remuneration. I'd think you'd want the DA to know unless you think she's in on it also.
Howard
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Beverly Schenck:
Dear Howard: I know you don't like to spread this around, but it was you who first awakened me to problems of land use in Sonoma County some 20 years ago, and got me interested in local politics.
You now must have better things to do with your time than to try to bait me. :wink2:
Fondly reminiscent :heart:
Helen Shane
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Howard:
While I love seeing the warmth exchanged between you and our esteemed former honorable Mayor, Howard, I believe he was baiting Beverly Schenck, instead. :waccosun:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:
I presume Beverly's comment was in reply to the recent article we published by Jonathan Greenberg questioning Kenyon Webster's impartiality on the CVS project. I want to point out that there was no accusation, at least in the original article (it was edited today), of anything approaching corruption. But rather it was questioning whether Mr. Webster was acting completely impartially or not, without calling his motives for that into question.
I imagine I'll, and perhaps Jonathan and many of you, will have more to say about all this, especially now that the issue remains unresolved for several more weeks!
The following is what I said at the City Council hearing on Thursday....I hope you share my sentiments and if you do let the council and the Pellinis know...in the spirit of consensus, Magick
You all know I have opposed this project, Tonight I want to offer a different perspective. So far this has divided us I believe it can unite us.
Small towns like our own are doing everything they can to stay afloat, more than anything else we need to find our common ground as a community and find ways to mend fences and build alliances.
Over and over again, we have found ourselves divided when the possibility of a purchase and development of land has arisen.
I am asking everyone here tonight to consider a way to build bridges across this divide.
We are facing two challenges, first it is important to acknowledge the contribution the Pellini’s have made to Sebastopol, coming out of a time when what was good for business was good for America it is easy to understand that private property was considered the paramount consideration. And our society’s understanding of what makes a sustainable community has changed. Our General Plan describes how we want to grow together. There’s an emphasis now on making communities sustainable and supporting local businesses
I can understand the reasoning of those who support the sale and development of this land to CVS/Chase.
The Pellinis want security and appreciation for being good citizens.
They deserve that.
What if we as a community worked together to find the right steward for this crossroad in the center of our town? What if the core project helped create an invitation to prospective buyers and public relations folks helped promote it. What if we all used our connections and put out the word. We could put up designs at the site in an artistic way that would beautify that corner now.
What if we ended the battle and found the common values we share. We all want clean air, less traffic; a town that supports small, locally-owned businesses that will help us thrive and be a place for future generations.
The second challenge is to support our council as they take on this difficult decision and recognize their dilemma about how to fulfill the mandate of our general plan and to carefully consider the wisdom and expertise of Design review board.
Everyone on the Council wants to serve this town and its people. They do not want to be glared at by either side. They would like to make a decision in which all of our concerns are honored.
With this solution in mind they could deny the project and we could all roll up our sleeves and get to work.
It is not too late, and I hope the folks from Armstrong, CVS and Chase will recognize the courage of our small town to own self-determination.
Right now with the bank disasters, foreclosures, the drought across America, the privatization of our schools, parks and post offices we need to have each other’s backs and not become bitterly divided.
A house divided cannot stand, we are in this together, we need each other.
This solution is my offering of an olive branch to bring us together.
Another world is possible and it will be created community by community as we leave a world where we are constantly pitted against each other, to a world where all members and the natural world are living in harmony once again.
May it be so!
I see no baiting here. I see a reasonable mind responding to hysterical rantings. When such outrageous allegations are made, which occurs here all too often, it begs "put up or shut up". Howard, being the gentleman that he is, was more delicate in his phrasing.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:
The attempt by Chase/CVS/Armstrong to anchor Sebastopol's downtown commons has implications far beyond this one town.
Small town Sebastopol is on the front-lines of a national battle against Chase Bank, CVS Pharmacy, and Armstrong Development. I was glad that a couple of speakers on July 19 from Petaluma mentioned the similar struggles they are engaging in against Chase and CVS.
"From one store in a small town," brags Armstrong on its California Regional Office website, "we now develop CVS pharmacies in nine states. We've constructed over 400 locations, with more than 150 sties in the development pipeline." To Armstrong, Sebastopol is simply a "development pipeline."
"In the next five years, we anticipate completing retail developments valued at over a half billion dollars," brags Armstrong. "The CVS effort is our entry point for additional development." Down the street from the current two and a half acres that CVS/Chase covet is an abandoned lumberyard--also an opportunity to lenghten the intended suburban strip mall and end Sebastopol's small town charm.
With its strong-arm tactics, Armstrong brags that It can "quickly locate and open multiple sites." So it must be a big disappointment to them that they have been unable in over two years to get permission to invade our small town. The next and perhaps final City Council meeting is scheduled for August 7, starting at 6 p.m. We welcome residents from all over Sonoma County and elsewhere to see if the CC is willing to uphold the decisions by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission to reject this development.
In my interview now scheduled for Monday morning at 7:45 on KSRO radio I plan to speak to these larger issues. Sebastopol is experiencing what farmer/author/poet Wendell Berry talks about in his writing in terms of threats to agrarian culture and local economies.
"From one store in a small town," brags Armstrong on its California Regional Office website, "we now develop CVS pharmacies in nine states. We've constructed over 400 locations, with more than 150 sties in the development pipeline."
Shepherd, I like your typo. Whether it's a sty in the eye or a pigsty in the barnyard, the plural is sties, and they ain't pretty.
And I appreciate being guided to Armstrong's development site. It makes crystal clear that, as you say, the issue extends far beyond what retail businesses have the right to acquire the Pellini property. The soulless corporate behemoth is well-expressed in the design, which reminds me of a prison with a supersized parking lot.
OK, this is a high-ticket valuable property, privately owned. So was the old redwood grove near Occidental, and it took a huge (multi-year) court battle to halt the "harvesting" of these magnificent beings. The validity of a proper EIR and CEQA won the day, and The Grove of the Old Trees is a mini-Muir Woods close at hand.
For now. The family is filing another THP, a timber harvest plan. It ain't over yet.
https://www.sfgate.com/green/article...on-2771471.php
What would it take to develop a consortium and a plan that would reward the Pellinis financially, develop something in keeping with our own local flavor, and keep the profits in the community? If we accept that in this reamed economy the only ones with the money to do anything big are the ones who reamed us in the first place -- well, what then?
Elizabeth Fuller
This isn't a matter of CVS & Chase opening up new locations, they're here already. The DRB has turned down this project because it doesn't meet the aspects for downtown design. Instead, Armstrong (pardon the pun) brought in their attorneys to drive home the point that they will do what is ever necessary to get this project approved. I can't understand why an EIR isn't required, it should be. An EIR would determine that this project will result in a lot more traffic and possible accidents. That's inevitable. Why has this project gotten so far without an EIR?
CORRECTION TO LINK: Google is fubar. I went back and checked my link to the sfgate article, which is actually from 2000, and Google not only headlines it as June 29, 2012, but all other similar articles have incorrect dates. Sorry 'bout that . . . no current threat to the grove, AFAIK. -- Elizabeth
:heart: As she often does, Magic spoke for me with these words; and she did it well.
Though several members of the public did not speak for me, when they were rude to her when her 3 minutes were up; and killed the wonderful spirit Magic had filled the air with. It was one of working together for the ideal solution.
Now; because of Thursday's meeting and the public process; new investors are willing to make other options available.
Let's see how we can put our minds around manifesting that. Chocolate, and organic produce facilities as just a start! How about a Green Garage, to kick start putting our community's patents and services focused on Sustainability further into motion; enabling healthy growth for our local economy?
:goorganic: :dcngbrocli: :gravapple: :banana:
In Peace,
Colleen Fernald
:waccosun: Candidate for PEACE!
:rainbow: Sebastopol City Council 2012
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Magick:
We don’t advance our cause when we are ill prepared or discourteous. For the most part, the people who spoke in support of rejecting Armstrong’s appeal at last week’s hearings presented themselves well and were polite to those who didn’t share their point of view, but I was embarrassed when members of our “side” insisted on going overtime. Unless there are special circumstances (audience interruption, equipment malfunctions, a disability that slows the speaker down, etc.), none of us (on either side) are entitled to extra time.
I’m sure that the speakers didn’t feel this way, but when a person insists on extra time, it’s as if they’re saying, “The rules don’t apply to me. I am more important than you are, and what I have to say is more valuable than what you have to say.” It’s really unfortunate when people who have some great points dilute them (and lose the audience) by ending their presentation with a squabble over about being allotted extra time.
Each speaker gets 3 minutes to make a case. It’s not like we don’t know this going in. If this is something that we really care about, we should be willing to put in a little extra effort to prepare, practice, and have one short, powerful closing remark ready to use in case time runs out, so at least the main points will have been made. I realize that we’re passionate about this and passion is great, but I’d like to suggest that we don’t let it get in the way of presenting reasoned, thoughtful and concise arguments. We’d be taken a lot more seriously.
Small Town Sebastopol —
Frontline Battle Against
Chase Bank/CVS Pharmacy/Armstrong Developer
By Shepherd Bliss
WaccoBB.net
Small town Sebastopol residents in Northern California have been waging a fierce David vs. Goliath struggle against the powerful Chase Bank, CVS Pharmacy, and Armstrong Development for over two years. The implications of this struggle extend beyond this one town, as big business continues to seek to expand its wealth.
Attention in Sebastopol has been on Chase, the U.S.’s largest bank, and CVS, its 18th largest mega-corporation. They propose to anchor the downtown commons with what opponents describe as “a suburban strip mall.” Armstrong has been representing the real estate needs of Chase/CVS in Sebastopol, as well as elsewhere around the country, and needs a close study.
“Efforts to stop this project with the denial of the design need to stop tonight,” said Michelle Moore, an attorney for Armstrong at a July 17 City Council meeting, according to the local daily Press Democrat. Sebastopol’s Design Review Board (DRB) had already rejected the proposal twice, most recently by a 4-1 vote.
Armstrong’s attorney threatened and bullied nearly 200 residents of the town of 7,300 to shut up and take orders from Armstrong/Chase/CVS. She was apparently trying to subvert the democratic process of one-person one-vote and replace it by the power of big business.
Residents objected to someone coming from outside to tell them how to run their agrarian town, which exemplifies what would be likely to happen if the proposal is approved. The Planning Commission and City Council (CC) had also previously rejected the proposal for not conforming to the town’s General Plan, as well as design and planning regulations.
The reason the proposal is still on the table is the threat by the deep pockets of Chase and CVS to sue the town and its people. Sebastopudlians talk about fighting for “the heart and soul” of their town and “not selling it to the highest outside bidder.” They discuss tactics such as boycotts and civil disobedience to block Chase/CVS from dominating their charming downtown and ushering in other mega-corporations.
Opponents implore the CC to wait until a better offer, which conforms to the town’s regulations, comes along. Another nearby large development, the Barlow Project, has received substantial local support because it will provide spaces for many local businesses. The money would thus circulate locally rather than leave the area. The downtown already has enough credit unions and local banks, as well as a pharmacy.
Though the July 17 meeting that started at 6 p.m. was advertised as a “public hearing,” the developers talked for two hours. It was 10 p.m. by the time the patient public was allowed to speak; most people had gone home.
The hearing convened again on July 19, where 43 people spoke against the development and 17 for it. Those supporting the development were mainly older friends of the family seeking to sell its two and a half acre abandoned car dealership. The opponents included people from their early 20s into their 70s. Among them were half a dozen activists from Occupy Sebastopol, which still maintains a tent in the town square and organizes ongoing protests against Chase/CVS as one of its main objectives.
Activists complained that the development is car-centric, mainly a large parking lot with only two isolated stores, rather than pedestrian and bike friendly. They noted that the drive-through component would create greater pollution in the downtown commons and increase greenhouse gas emissions, thus worsening chaotic climate change. A study reported that traffic would be increased by at least 2000 trips a day in the county’s most clogged intersection. This would not be good for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, or bikers.
The next and perhaps final meeting on the proposal will be August 7, when the Council has indicated it will make a decision. After that it is expected that whichever side does not prevail may sue.
“Sacramento is the newest regional office of Armstrong,” according to its California Regional Office website. “California is being targeted for a saturation of CVS stores,” writes Yvette Williams, a member of Sebastopol’s Planning Commission, which has rejected the development.
The DRB was willing to work with Armstrong. However, it has basically ignored the feedback that it gets from the majority of citizens and town officials, only making a few cosmetic changes. Armstrong appears to be trying to strong-arm its case, preferring a litigious route to get what it wants.
“In the next five years, we anticipate completing retail development values at over half a billion dollars,” Armstrong’s website brags. “From one store in a small town, we now develop CVS pharmacies in nine states. We’ve constructed over 400 locations with more than 150 sites in the development pipeline. A similar development program exists with JP Morgan Chase Bank, with many sites in development across our region.” Chase and CVS are frequent partners around the U.S., as well as in paying millions of dollars in fines for illegal business practices.
Many federal regulators currently are investigating Chase for its CEO Jamie Dimon originally announced losses of around $2 billion dollars in June and then admitted in July that they were $6 billion or more. Chase is one of the big five banks responsible for the recent fall of the American economy. CVS has also paid millions of dollars in fines for failing to clean-up toxic wastes and other deadly crimes.
Armstrong adds, “We have long standing valued relationships with some of the national’s leading retailers that include Wal-Mart, Lowe’s Home Improvement Center and Target.” So if a city wants to be dominated by long-term relationships with such mega-corporations, Armstrong would be a good developer to hire.
But most Sebastopudlians have settled in a small town with a charming downtown commons because they prefer its agrarian flavor. A larger nearby city, Rohnert Park, has selected a corporate model, which has no town center where people can gather.
Sebastopol is the center of what is called the West County, with some 50,000 residents, of the coastal Sonoma County. It used to be known more by its natural description, the “Redwood Empire,” which many locals still call it. However, the commercial designation is now “Wine Country,” since it has the most lucrative wine industry in the U.S.
Armstrong’s website boasts that it can “quickly locate and open multiple sites.” Yet they have had to spend more than two years already and still do not have an approval in tiny Sebastopol, known as a “green” community with commitments to sustainability.
This controversy has already become a major issue in the Nov. 6 election, where two seats on the City Council are available. Of the four viable candidates, two have come out against the Chase/CVS development—businessmen Robert Jacob and John Eder. They support local business, rather than big business, which drains money out of the county.
Council member Kathleen Shaffer seeks to retain her seat. “Her support for the project from the outset has limited her ability to serve our city,” writes Jonathan Greenberg on the local waccobb.net website. Greenberg has reported for “Forbes,” “New York” and other publications and is CEO of a local communications company. He suggests that Shaffer not vote on this issue.
Two activists from the nearby Occupy Petaluma testified at the July 19 meeting. They indicated problems with CVS in their city and are also mounting a campaign against Chase. “If Chase goes ahead with this development in Sebastopol,” commented Amy Hanks of Occupy Petaluma, “we could target their stores around the county and develop boycotts to hurt their businesses. If we are displeased by their behavior, we can make them feel that displeasure where it hurts -- in their cash register.”
In nearby Santa Rosa--the largest city in Sonoma County with some 150,000 residents-- Occupy Santa Rosa has had an ongoing campaign against the big banks, including Wells Fargo, which is based nearby in San Francisco.
Provincial, backwater Sonoma County, on the edges of the metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area, is responding to the phrase “Big Banks Got Bailed Out. We Got Sold Out.” Some of its residents are fighting back against big banks and mega-corporations that feel they merit personhood.
(Shepherd Bliss teaches college, has operated a farm for the last 20 years, and can be reached at [email protected].)
The citizens of the Sebastopol community didn't block CVS from doing business in our town. Quite the contrary.
The Press Democrat published an article in January 2011 stating the following:
"Sebastopol again ranks near the top in the state for fatal/injury collisions among cities of comparable size, according to the state Office of Traffic Safety.
For 2009, Sebastopol ranked second out of 70 cities of 2,500 to 10,000 people with 67 collisions involving injury or death. Sonora, near Yosemite, ranked No. 1. In 2008, Sebastopol ranked fourth, with 54 such collisions.
The high ranking came as no surprise to Sebastopol Police Lt. James Conner. He said that with Highways 12 and 116 running through Sebastopol, traffic is unusually heavy for a small city and that most of the city’s collisions occur along those two roads."
https://sebastopol.towns.pressdemocrat.com/2011/01/news/heavy-traffic-puts-sebastopol-at-risk/
Please see the following taken from CEQA site.
"A Negative Declaration is a document that states upon completion of an initial study, that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
A Negative Declaration can be prepared only when there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (PRC §21080(c)), (14 C.C.R. §15070)
https://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/...cy/EIR-ND.html
Given this information, who conducted this initial study? And how did they determine in the face of concrete evidence that no EIR would be necessary at the crossroads of two state highways with such a significant proclivity for car accidents?
The Armstrong developers should never have gotten this far in the process. An EIR should have been required, NOT a negative declaration. I've no doubt an EIR would ascertain that a significant amount of traffic would result from this move. With an increase of more traffic, comes increased propensity for collisions both pedestrian and auto. More collisions can result in increased danger to individuals traveling in the area.
I wouldn't be apposed to a parking garage if it was connected by a road from the back of that property. I am apposed to Chase. Chase is an evil entity. I am not interested in giving Chase further footing in this town.
Council Member Kathleen Shaffer
[email protected]
Please email Kathleen and let her know she will be loosing your vote if she continues to support the Chase Development.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by photolite: