CVS/Chase development proposal

[eeeeeeow]

I've attended every DRB meeting on this subject for the past year. Not until the last meeting did I feel the DRB was actually basing their opinion on the General Plan. I'm still surprised they didn't go further in stating their reasons for denial. All I've heard from proponents of this issue is that "it fits the general plan" when it actually doesn't on approximately 22 different counts by my interpretation. I've read this thing over and over and cannot believe the project has gotten this far.

Pragmatically, if we are to support the locall businesses in this community; if we are to populate the new Barlow project as well as downtown commerce with patrons, as well as local wineries who make some of the best wines in the world, then we need to re-think and get something in there (a hotel where people like their bags carried, for instance) that promotes the right kind of traffic, instead of the traffic our town cannot support. Do you folks know that Wine Spectator magazine picked three Sebastopol wineries in the top 10 in its annual Best 100 Wines in the World issue for 2011?!?!?! THAT'S what would bring people here. Not drive-through drug windows. It is heartbreaking to think of this opportunity squandered. Because CVS will do irrepairable harm to the growth of Sebastopol. Where is that Business Outreach committee we're suppose to have in City Hall?

[Barton Stone]

Who wants it?

I take it there are local people who would like to see the project approved despite all the misgivings that have been expressed about it. I'd like to know just who they are and why they want it so much. Because it's "legal" doesn't seem to explain the intensity behind the charges. Does it have to do with money and personal gain? For who exactly, and in what way? Can anyone tell me?

I think the design review board, whatever their motivation, deserves our gratitude for protecting the community from what seems to me like an unnecessary and destructive expansion of corporate presence in the downtown.

I hope the city council fully supports them.

Barton

[Peacetown Jonathan]

CVS & The battle for a ‘green’ Sebastopol

Published June 27, 2012 SONOMAWEST

by Jonathan Greenberg

The ongoing struggle to rein in a downtown land grab by CVS and Chase, two highly controversial, multi-billion dollar corporations, has become the front line in the battle for a green Sebastopol.

As we celebrate July 4 in our wonderfully independent-minded community, it is a good opportunity to consider the proper role of local government when it comes to serving its citizens. Should the right to sell ones property for millions of dollars to any willing buyer trump the right of our citizens to control the planning and traffic of the most prominent crossroad in our city?

In a recent commentary in Sonoma West Times & News (“Is the sky falling?,” May 24), Kathy Austin, a candidate for City Council in November’s election, laid down the pro-big business ethos that she believes should guide local government. She argued that Sebastopol’s duly authorized Design Review Board, as well as our current City Council, did not have the authority to block the project. She warned, “Because of the trouble this applicant has encountered, our reputation in the area for being business and development unfriendly is increasing from its already bad reputation.”

As a Sebastopol citizen who, like most of my neighbors, wants to sustain a green, accessible, liveable, Go Local Sebastopol, I ask, “whose business is candidate Austin talking about?”
I agree with outgoing Mayor Guy Wilson’s assessment that in Sebastopol, “green is our brand.” Young families continue to flock here for our green lifestyle and progressive schools.

Sebastopol maintains some of the highest average home values in Sonoma County, and local business thrives because thriving, community-minded people choose to live here.

When it blocked the CVS and Chase congestion-causing drive-through window entrances, our DRB stood up for the many small businesses, including consultants, therapists, tutors, etc., who work from downtown and home offices.
Everybody knows this is the worst congestion choke point in the area. Adding 2,000 car trips a day will make a bad traffic situation worse, compelling clients and customers to bypass our city.

In addition, the wasted hours of smog-causing idling time at this traffic choke point will burden all of us for decades to come.

Our DRB found that the CVS plan, with its drive through entrances and lack of streetscape, is fundamentally a suburban mall-like design, not appropriate for this prominent location in the heart of our town. If opposing CVS means that our city develops what candidate Austin calls a “bad reputation” for the Wal-Marts of the world, this is fine with Sebastopol.

In mid-July, City Council will vote on whether to overturn the DRB’s thoroughly considered decision. We know that Councilmember Kathleen Shaffer, who is also for running for re-election as a pro-big business candidate, had promised to work “under the radar” to advocate for helping the Pellini family sell its property for more than $2 million to the CVS/Chase Developer. She will be a sure vote to overturn the DRB and Councilmember Patrick Slayter will probably vote with her, as he has in the past, on anti-environmentalist issues.

Ms. Shaffer and Ms. Austin seem to believe that government exists to facilitate the profits of multi-billion dollar companies, even if it harms the livability of our unique city and viability of small business.

Sebastopol is fortunate that we currently seem to have a 3 to 2 “green” City Council that reflects the shared desire of a majority of our citizens for a green, liveable city that places our ecology over the profits of powerful private interests.
I am concerned that this narrow majority may “swing” to a “pro-business” majority, headed by Ms. Shaffer and Ms. Austin, this November. Rare is the West Coast politician who calls herself an anti-environmentalist. We can expect candidates Austin and Shaffer, leaders of the powerful pro-CVS faction in our community, to be no different.

Instead, they cloak their opposition to community empowerment over our fragile small town environment with their concern for what is “good for business.”
Come November, Sebastopol voters should ask, “whose business?”
The CVS issue has become the front line in a battle for the future of a green Sebastopol.

Jonathan Greenberg is a Sebastopol resident.

[oliviathunderkitty]

Please forgive me if this has been addressed (I've not seen it) but has anyone spoken to the need or lack thereof of yet another national bank and another pharmacy in Sebastopol? Are there long lines at our existing pharmacies? Are local banks turning away new customers because they have reached their limit? I would assume that most Sebastopol citizens, with our commitment to local business, have their accounts at the locally owned banks in town, i.e., Redwood Credit Union and the Exchange Bank. And personally, I would love to support a locally-owned pharmacy.

The proposed CVS/Chase development will simply be another corporate eyesore to ignore and another nail in the coffin of our unique rural charm.

[Hollyanna]

Oliviathunderkitty, this is not ANOTHER national bank or pharmacy. Both businesses are currently located elsewhere in Sebastopol--CVS in the former Long's location (which will become vacant if/when the new CVS is built), and Chase bank inside the Lucky store in the same strip mall. Which, to my mind, completely negates the possible sales tax benefit to the city that is continually cited by some.

[Hollyanna]

P.S. No need to apologize. It is nearly impossible to keep up with all the details. We need to help each other stay informed.

Please forgive me if this has been addressed (I've not seen it) but has anyone spoken to the need or lack thereof of yet another national bank and another pharmacy in Sebastopol? Are there long lines at our existing pharmacies? Are local banks turning away new customers because they have reached their limit? I would assume that most Sebastopol citizens, with our commitment to local business, have their accounts at the locally owned banks in town, i.e., Redwood Credit Union and the Exchange Bank. And personally, I would love to support a locally-owned pharmacy.

The proposed CVS/Chase development will simply be another corporate eyesore to ignore and another nail in the coffin of our unique rural charm.

[oliviathunderkitty]

I do understand that these businesses exist in some form now, but the bank, especially, is a major expansion--yet another free-standing national/multinational bank. We have enough. And the pharmacy is an ill-advised relocation.

Oliviathunderkitty, this is not ANOTHER national bank or pharmacy. Both businesses are currently located elsewhere in Sebastopol--CVS in the former Long's location (which will become vacant if/when the new CVS is built), and Chase bank inside the Lucky store in the same strip mall. Which, to my mind, completely negates the possible sales tax benefit to the city that is continually cited by some.

[Helen Shane]

At the risk of sounding crabby, this plan has been debated publicly so for so long and so often we would be repeating ourselves and others if we did anything but direct you to the Design Review Guidelines and the General Plan, available on the city website.

The duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Board are to study development projects as they are presented, use their skills, training and expertise in this field to ensure that the proposals comply with our General Plan and the Design Review Guidelines.

These documents outline the components that the DRB and the City Council must consult and honor in their decision making process.

The State of California requires every municipality to have a General Plan. The General Plan establishes long-range conservation and development policies. This General Plan was adopted in 1994, and has been amended several times since.

Its purpose is to provide a basis for judging whether specific private development proposals and public projects are in harmony with these policies and to inform citizens, developers, decision makers and other jurisdictions of the ground rules that will guide development and conservation with the Sebastopol Planning Area.

The General Plan’s policies for the Downtown were built on two previous documents: The Downtown Portfolio, 1978, and The Downtown Plan, 1990. These documents are also available on the city website. They really are worth reading. They contain illustrations of what development in the Downtown Core should look like, and what it shouldn’t.

All these plans were formulated through long hours of public meetings and discussions, where citizens, public boards and commissions discussed in open forums their vision and expectations for the future of our town.

These documents do not state that current economic conditions allow for ignoring the guidelines. And evidently it must be said at least once more that property owners have the right to sell their property, and the City has every right to circumscribe what is built on it.

Helen Shane and John Kramer

[scamperwillow]

Does everyone know that the appeal is coming to the City Council on July 17 and July 19 - where they will make their decision?

[scamperwillow]

The people that want it think it will bring jobs and money into the community, ignoring the huge environmental cost and community identity that we all love. I think it will hurt local business - especially the bookstores, liquor stores, local banks - all the things that will now have new competition in the center of town if this goes through.

Who wants it?

I take it there are local people who would like to see the project approved despite all the misgivings that have been expressed about it. I'd like to know just who they are and why they want it so much. Because it's "legal" doesn't seem to explain the intensity behind the charges. Does it have to do with money and personal gain? For who exactly, and in what way? Can anyone tell me?

I think the design review board, whatever their motivation, deserves our gratitude for protecting the community from what seems to me like an unnecessary and destructive expansion of corporate presence in the downtown.

I hope the city council fully supports them.

Barton

[Peacetown Jonathan]

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)

These documents do not state that current economic conditions allow for ignoring the guidelines. And evidently it must be said at least once more that property owners have the right to sell their property, and the City has every right to circumscribe what is built on it.

[Hollyanna]

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.

[Helen Shane]

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.

[scamperwillow]

I have heard much of this also - allow me to add some additional comments:

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.
They could put a drive through at their current location and make tons of improvements for much less than they are spending on this thing.

"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.
There is also a pharmacy at Safeway - two downtown seems like enough.....and agreed about the north end of town with convenient parking that will no longer be there.

"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.

[rossmen]

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.

Who wants it?

I take it there are local people who would like to see the project approved despite all the misgivings that have been expressed about it. I'd like to know just who they are and why they want it so much. Because it's "legal" doesn't seem to explain the intensity behind the charges. Does it have to do with money and personal gain? For who exactly, and in what way? Can anyone tell me?

I think the design review board, whatever their motivation, deserves our gratitude for protecting the community from what seems to me like an unnecessary and destructive expansion of corporate presence in the downtown.

I hope the city council fully supports them.

Barton

[Barry]

[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:

• 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

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:

• 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

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.

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

Anybody have any comments about these "charges"? - Barry



https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_we...9bb2963f4.html

Is our Design Review process broken or is the Design Review Board (DRB) just not willing to follow the rules?

• Complete disregard of City Council instructions.

The City Council’s review of the CVS/Chase design on February 21 produced a list of findings to justify their decision to send the review process back to the DRB and to provide direction to the developer and the DRB. Some of these findings were specific and offered design revisions that the Council indicated would be acceptable. City staff gave the DRB specific instructions that if the developer included these proposed revisions in their new design, then this would satisfy the City’s requirements and the DRB would not have to reconsider that item. The DRB ignored this direction and instead continued to cite all the things they considered bad, including the ones that the Council agreed would be acceptable. For example, the DRB members indicated they could not approve the site plan with an in-only driveway entrance from Petaluma Avenue, even though the Council indicated it would be an acceptable alternative. The Council also had indicated that an Abbott Avenue design would be acceptable if the city engineer so approved. The developer complied by revising the design to meet city standards and received approval from the city engineer, but the DRB chairman tried to get the DRB to review the City Council findings, one DRB member asked if anyone had a copy of the findings that he could use, an indication of the lack of importance he placed on the council’s desires.

• Individual DRB members’ desires vs. board consensus:

The DRB’s recent review of the CVS/Chase project followed the format used in past meetings. Each DRB member was asked for his/her comments, but a clear consensus was never asked for or achieved in past meetings. Over 50 items were discussed without reaching a majority agreement on any item. Most of the comments/concerns were general in nature rather than specific directions on which the developer could act. Sometimes two board members contradicted each other. For example, one board member wants the Chase building to face the pedestrian plaza, and another says he thinks it should face Petaluma Avenue. Without discussion and vote on a consensus view, what is the developer to do? Most comments were general comments without specifics. For example: “the pedestrian plaza is too small,” leaving the developer to wonder will increasing its size 3-feet be enough or should it be doubled? “The project needs to be great,” was another comment. What exactly does that mean? “The street is too narrow.” Again, should it be increased 5-feet or 10-feet? It was left up to city staff to guess which comments represented the DRB’s requests and produce a list of findings. One member was bold enough to say he wasn’t prepared to discuss specifics but could provide some at another meeting. What the heck has he been doing all these weeks?

Instead of treating this project like other projects that have recently come before the DRB, it seems the DRB has decided to deny this project simply because it doesn’t want CVS/Chase to build on that property. I am sure this is OK with some members of our community, but it is not legal. Using the design review process to pick and choose the businesses that are appropriate for Sebastopol by simply saying the design doesn’t fit is a power the DRB should not have. Both the people and the process need to change.

Nancy Aita is a Sebastopol resident.

[photolite]

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.

[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:

• 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

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:

• 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

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.

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

[1104GT]

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.

[eeeeeeow]

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

On CVS/Chase, the overriding issue is the project is fundamentally a suburban mall like design,...

[Helen Shane]

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.

[Peacetown Jonathan]

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!

[occupied95472]

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.

[scamperwillow]

Thanks for sharing that information about the wines - great news! But I only see two listed - Kosta Brown and Dehlinger. Who was the third?

I've attended every DRB meeting on this subject for the past year. Not until the last meeting did I feel the DRB was actually basing their opinion on the General Plan. I'm still surprised they didn't go further in stating their reasons for denial. All I've heard from proponents of this issue is that "it fits the general plan" when it actually doesn't on approximately 22 different counts by my interpretation. I've read this thing over and over and cannot believe the project has gotten this far.

Pragmatically, if we are to support the locall businesses in this community; if we are to populate the new Barlow project as well as downtown commerce with patrons, as well as local wineries who make some of the best wines in the world, then we need to re-think and get something in there (a hotel where people like their bags carried, for instance) that promotes the right kind of traffic, instead of the traffic our town cannot support. Do you folks know that Wine Spectator magazine picked three Sebastopol wineries in the top 10 in its annual Best 100 Wines in the World issue for 2011?!?!?! THAT'S what would bring people here. Not drive-through drug windows. It is heartbreaking to think of this opportunity squandered. Because CVS will do irrepairable harm to the growth of Sebastopol. Where is that Business Outreach committee we're suppose to have in City Hall?

[rossmen]

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.

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.

[Shepherd]

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 18^th 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.

Kathleen
Shaffer

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

Guy Wilson

development, whereas Mayor Guy Wilson opposes it. [Guy is not running for re-election - Barry]

Robert Jacob

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—

Kathy Austin

Planning Commissioner and businessman Robert Jacob and John Eder, a businessman who was formerly a council member in nearby Cotati.

John Eder

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].)

[Helen Shane]

City Council Meetings

To Hear Appeal of

Design Review Board Denial

of CVS/Chase Plan

Tuesday, July 17 and Thursday, July 19

6 pm. Sebastopol Cultural and Community Center390 Morris St. Sebastopol

Sebastopol 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.


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

[photolite]

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.

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.

[Sara S]

Shepherd, I can't thank you enough for this, and your letter in this week's Sebastopol paper was great!

Sara

Big Chase/CVS Threaten Small Town’s Future & Soul
By Shepherd Bliss

[dominus]

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.

[rossmen]

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:...)

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.