Recently, and if you ask me, it's about time, the citizens of Sonoma County have been kicking up dust re: new winery and vineyard installation. For awhile now, I've been suggesting we need to place a moratorium on new vineyard development across the state just to step back and determine what damage has been done to our various habitats and acquirers that affect so many, um, voters. This would also give some of those Eco-systems to rejuvenate.
I'm posting a couple links on this subject. And there will be more to come.
Sonoma County has gone from an agriculture that at one time, benefitted all, to a monoculture that now benefits a very few. There are over 70,000 acres under vine while approximately 12,000 acres of EVERYTHING ELSE. We need to stop new vineyard from being planted.
We have enough grapes.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/3557003-181/close-to-home-new-winery?page=0
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/3467684-181/close-to-home-cant-afford.
http://www.hopedance.org/home/food-news/2803-sonoma-and-napa-county-residents-oppose-winery-over-expansion
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/02/trouble-in-wine-country/
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Saturday, February 21, 2015
PEOPLE VS. VINEYARDS...
Here's a letter (one of many, recently) that appeared in the Press Democrat re: new vineyards...
EDITOR: Patrecia Graham (“NIMBY reflex,” Letters, Feb. 11) appears to believe that Sonoma County is the absolute property of vintners and, thus, holds local residents in contempt. I’d like to remind her and Guy Fieri and Paul Hobbs and others like them that people also live in this area. We live here because we love its beauty and tranquility.
 |
| Stumps of apple trees waiting for removal to clear the way for another vineyard. |
EDITOR: Patrecia Graham (“NIMBY reflex,” Letters, Feb. 11) appears to believe that Sonoma County is the absolute property of vintners and, thus, holds local residents in contempt. I’d like to remind her and Guy Fieri and Paul Hobbs and others like them that people also live in this area. We live here because we love its beauty and tranquility.
As I am witness, in less than a decade even my neighborhood was transformed from a landscape of orchards that attracted plein air artists to vineyards surrounded by ugly wire fences. Many of us feel that we already have too many vineyards and wineries as it is. Our unique viniculture, a source of great pride for our county, has become a culture of greed for those who can only see profit.
These people have complete disregard for the communities where they wish to expand. They insist that their expansion produces more jobs, but at whose cost, the taxpayers? I would like to know if these people ever considered paying their workers a fair wage and supporting their housing and health care.
Many of us would rather see our precious farm land and groundwater utilized in the production of edible foods and not in something we cannot eat.
JACQUELINE SCHAEL
Sebastopol
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
THE LATEST ON PAUL HOBBS...
David Abbott wrote this piece about Paul Hobbs in the Sonoma West Times...
http://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_west_times_and_news/news/hobbs-conversion-headed-to-court/article_eef04830-b7b4-11e4-871e-c7d5995fe6a7.html
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
URGENT: THE HEALTH OF OUR KIDS - READ AND WRITE!!!
I have signed the petition and am in the middle of a letter that I will copy to both the president of the board and the district superintendent. I urge you to send an email voicing your opinion. Make it short if you have to. But make it count!
This must be in their email boxes sometime tomorrow, February 18th.
I wholeheartedly agree with Nell's letter below. We've also provided you with important links re: this issue.
Our kids matter.
Hello,I am writing to you because I think you have an interest in what type of field will replace the natural grass at Analy and El Molino this summer. I urge you to appeal to your school board members by emailing the district supervisor and president of the board and show up at the 6pm meeting February 18th at El Molino to voice for a greener option than synthetic crumb fields. The meeting is open to the public at 6pm.The Division State Architects have approved a synthetic turf field and I believe that we can do better for our klds and community. Let’s look to companies like GeoTurf, a natural coconut husk and cork alternative, that could give us the drought tolerant and all weather field that we need without exposing our lands and children to more fossil fuel products.The party line is that the synthetics are “safe” and yet there is a bill coming up next month in the Senate that proposes a moratorium on crumb fields till 2018 and asks California to take a second look at the logic of using ground up tires as a sports surface. Please join me at the board meeting this next Wednesday to voice your opinion on synthetic fields, especially while our senators are debating the idea of banning them for their health risks!Thank you for being aware and taking the time to consider an alternative.Sincerely,Nell Hergenrather
Link to CNN Investigation with Amy Griffin:
Link for Alternative fiber turf:
http://www.geoturfusa.com/
Link to Article regarding Bill SB47:
http://patch.com/california/ramona/ca-senator-introduces-bill-banning-tire-recycled-artificial-turf-ramona-0
Link to Bill SB47:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_47_bill_20141217_introduced.html
Thursday, February 5, 2015
RESULTS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING...
I'd like to thank Shepherd Bliss for the following article...
http://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-news-article-3581.html
Thank you City Council!
 |
| Shepherd Bliss |
http://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-news-article-3581.html
Thank you City Council!
Monday, February 2, 2015
OOPS...
 |
| Photo by BIM |
The article I based my calculations on was Mike Dunne's Sacramento Bee article linked in my previous post.
In that article, Mike claims that it takes 29 gallons of water to make 1 glass of wine. Let's say 4 glasses per bottle - that's 116 gallons per bottle.
12 bottles per case - 1,392 gallons of water.
500,000 cases - 696,000,000 gallons of water.
Oh. BTW, this does not include the 250,000 gallons of distilled spirits they are going to produce.
Sorry for the error. The winery would've thanked me.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING...
Please excuse us for not furnishing the location for the Sebastopol City Council meeting. CC meetings are held at the Youth Annex behind the Community Center on Morris St.
TONIGHT - 6:00pm
465 Morris Street. The building looks like this (from the front)...
Sunday, February 1, 2015
700,000,000 GALLONS OF WATER...
It is imperative that people show up for the city council meeting on Tuesday night. That is, if you want to prevent this uber-winery to be built in our midst.
Below is a letter I sent this morning to the Sebastopol City Council. Please read it and imagine the impact this project will have on our lives.
It seems ludicrous that just after experiencing the driest January in California history, we are discussing another brand new winery that will extract at least 16 million gallons of water per year. I say at least, because I used the conservative figure of 10 gallons of water to yield 1 gallon of wine.
Unfortunately, in my research, I have not been able to verify my numbers (my numbers came from LaCrema winery when I worked there six years ago. They have since quadrupled their production). In fact, the lowest numbers I have been able to find are 29 gallons of water to make 1 GLASS of wine.
This includes everything from irrigating the vines to washing the tarmac on the crush pad. Please read this important article by Mike Dunne for the Sacramento Bee.
http://www.sacbee.com/food-drink/wine/dunne-on-wine/article2622749.html
For this particular project, the proposed 500,000 case production would require 696,000,000 gallons of water per year pulled from the aquifer. That DOES NOT include the 250,000 gallons of distiller spirits they plan to make on top of the planned wine production. And believe me, like every other winery in the state, once established, this winery will seek to increase production.
It is my opinion that the entire state of California should place a moratorium on new vineyard and winery development, not just during the drought, but until we can determine what damage this industry (that I work in) does across the state. According to NPR, people in Paso Robles have to use paper plates to eat because they don't have the water to wash dishes OR take baths. Vineyard installation in that area has exploded, unchecked, without regard to the natural resources or the people who rely on them.
California has gone from an agriculture that has benefitted all to a monoculture that benefits a few; over 70,000 acres of wine grapes planted versus 12,000 of EVERYTHING ELSE.
This project sets a dangerous precedence and, in my opinion, would destroy the Laguna de Santa Rosa and open the door to more insensitive projects in an environment that cannot support them.
This project is wrong for Sebastopol. It is wrong for Sonoma County.
Below is a letter I sent this morning to the Sebastopol City Council. Please read it and imagine the impact this project will have on our lives.
 |
| Photo by BIM |
It seems ludicrous that just after experiencing the driest January in California history, we are discussing another brand new winery that will extract at least 16 million gallons of water per year. I say at least, because I used the conservative figure of 10 gallons of water to yield 1 gallon of wine.
Unfortunately, in my research, I have not been able to verify my numbers (my numbers came from LaCrema winery when I worked there six years ago. They have since quadrupled their production). In fact, the lowest numbers I have been able to find are 29 gallons of water to make 1 GLASS of wine.
This includes everything from irrigating the vines to washing the tarmac on the crush pad. Please read this important article by Mike Dunne for the Sacramento Bee.
http://www.sacbee.com/food-drink/wine/dunne-on-wine/article2622749.html
For this particular project, the proposed 500,000 case production would require 696,000,000 gallons of water per year pulled from the aquifer. That DOES NOT include the 250,000 gallons of distiller spirits they plan to make on top of the planned wine production. And believe me, like every other winery in the state, once established, this winery will seek to increase production.
It is my opinion that the entire state of California should place a moratorium on new vineyard and winery development, not just during the drought, but until we can determine what damage this industry (that I work in) does across the state. According to NPR, people in Paso Robles have to use paper plates to eat because they don't have the water to wash dishes OR take baths. Vineyard installation in that area has exploded, unchecked, without regard to the natural resources or the people who rely on them.
California has gone from an agriculture that has benefitted all to a monoculture that benefits a few; over 70,000 acres of wine grapes planted versus 12,000 of EVERYTHING ELSE.
This project sets a dangerous precedence and, in my opinion, would destroy the Laguna de Santa Rosa and open the door to more insensitive projects in an environment that cannot support them.
This project is wrong for Sebastopol. It is wrong for Sonoma County.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
URGENT CALL TO ACTION...
There is a plan in the works to build an over-the-top winery off of Llano Rd. that would change our town forever. This is an Uber production facility that would suck 11,000,000 gallons of water out of the aquifer, create a dangerous situation for those of us who enjoy the Joe Rodota Trail and cause even more traffic nightmares than we have now, particularly around harvest time. 58 times a year, they will have special events that would attract 600 or more people and clog Hwy 12 and make a major impact on the environment. Where are those people going to park?
This winery is submitting to produce 500,000 cases of wine and 250,000 cases of distilled spirits.
There is a City Council meeting this Tuesday, the 3rd and it would benefit the community of Sebastopol to have as many people at that meeting as possible to use their voice. Show up or...
...write to the Sebastopol Council below:
Patrick Slayer, Mayor: ps.sebcc@gmail.com, 829-9090
Sarah Glade Gurney, Vice-Mayor: sarahcouncil@yahoo.com, 823-6500
John Eder: johneder@comcast.net, 696-4309
Una Glass: glasskyes@gmail.com, 483-2595
Robert Jacob: robertjacobcc@sonic.net, 537-5800
PLEASE don't put this off. Send as brief or detailed letter to our council and county expressing your concern (or support) for this endeavor.
This is a project that would rival the Coppola Winery in Healdsburg or Kendall Jackson in Windsor and will have an enormous impact on Sebastopol.
Please write to the addresses below.
For the Sebastopol Council:
Patrick Slayer, Mayor: ps.sebcc@gmail.com, 829-9090
Sarah Glade Gurney, Vice-Mayor: sarahcouncil@yahoo.com, 823-6500
John Eder: johneder@comcast.net, 696-4309
Una Glass: glasskyes@gmail.com, 483-2595
Robert Jacob: robertjacobcc@sonic.net, 537-5800
YOU'LL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME, BUT...
It's been awhile since I have posted. There are lots of excuses, but the biggest reason?
Internet access in the Sebastopol Hills.
It takes forever to navigate around the internet. Most of my access, say 9-% is through my iPad using cellular data. But my desktop is subject to lousy access. There is no high speed access on the farm.
Does anyone know of a provider? We've tried Comcast and AT&T.
So, I am not exactly jazzed when it comes time to share from my desktop.
This is taking forever.
Internet access in the Sebastopol Hills.
It takes forever to navigate around the internet. Most of my access, say 9-% is through my iPad using cellular data. But my desktop is subject to lousy access. There is no high speed access on the farm.
Does anyone know of a provider? We've tried Comcast and AT&T.
So, I am not exactly jazzed when it comes time to share from my desktop.
 |
| This is not me. It's just how I feel. |
Monday, December 8, 2014
EVER WONDER HOW CVS HAPPENED?
HERE'S THE WHOLE STORY!
Thanks to Jane Nielson, Helen Shane, and Paul-Andre Schabracq
The CVS project, consisting of a CVS store and Chase Bank building on the abandoned Pellini Chevrolet site, is the most recent project to strain the Sebastopol Community, but we hope it will never be repeated. To learn from the experience, the undersigned have investigated the process and present the results of that investigation in the following, along with suggestions for future improvement.
According to our records, on June 14, 2011, Sebastopol's Planning Commission (PC) voted 4-2 to reject the CEQA document prepared for the proposed project. A principal concern behind that vote was the traffic study for the traffic-generating project at the intersection of two busy highways in the City's Core district. The traffic study had omitted consideration of the City's largest proposed project, only a short distance from the Pellini site. We are not informed whether Griffin or Planning Director Kenyon Webster had made the decision to omit The Barlow project from this study.
The CVS-Chase CEQA process went into failure mode because no findings were prepared or submitted to the City Council to explain the bases for the lopsidedly negative PC vote. In a digital recording of that 6/14/11 PC meeting, the vote's aftermath sounds chaotic; no order is imposed by the PC chair (Colin Doyle). One Planning Commissioner can be heard pleading for the chair to recognize her motion to have "comments" on the vote submitted for the City Council to consider. Neither the PC chair, the vice-chair (Bob Greene, husband of then-City Councilmember Kathleen Shaffer), nor Planning Director Kenyon Webster responded to that Commissioner's motion, or her statements about the need for comments (the required findings.)
Preparing those findings was the City Planning Department's responsibility. No explanation has ever been proffered for the Planning Director's failure to prepare findings that the Commission could forward to the City Council as required by the Government Code.
At the next City Council (CC) meeting (July 5, 2011 and continuing to early the next morning) four Council members (Guy Wilson, Michael Kyes, Kathleen Shaffer, and Patrick Slayter) rejected pleas from Councilmember Sarah Glade Gurney and members of the public, to send the issue back to the PC, with a request for findings to explain the vote. The CC instead overturned the PC recommendations and approved the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration on a 3-2 vote. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was based on a perception that the project's environmental impacts would not warrant a full-blown Environmental Impact Report. During the break at that meeting, the AeCOM traffic consultant informed Helen Shane that the Planning Director had designated which street intersections were to be studied.
The Council granted the project a permit, but requested modifications to the design and retained jurisdiction over final design details.
During August, the City's Design Review Board (DRB) rejected the project's design, largely due to the inclusion of a drive-through window at both the pharmacy and bank, which raised severe questions about the safety of its parking lot entrances and exits. At that same DRB meeting, panel members brought up the subject of submitting findings to explain their vote. This time, Planning Director Webster quickly asserted that the Planning Department staff would prepare findings from their notes of the debate, and present them to the DRB for approval or modifications.
Later in 2011, during a City Council hearing on the DRB finding that the proposed CVS project does not meet its guidelines based on General Plan policies, City Councilmember Shaffer opined that the General Plan is only an aspirational document, and the City Council must follow the zoning code, which is the actual law. Ms. Shaffer appealed to Planning Director Webster, asking him to confirm her opinion. Mr. Webster responded that the Zoning Code states and implements City policies, which did appear to affirm Shaffer's statement.
Mr. Webster's assertion dodged the fact that the state of California has established General Plans as the controlling documents for development of its cities and counties, however - guidelines on State websites confirm that whatever form of zoning a community adopts, that ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan, and if the Zoning Code is inconsistent with the General Plan, it is the Zoning Code that is invalid.
2. The Legal Tangle
August, 2011, a group called Committee for Small Town Sebastopol sued CVS-Chase, charging the Mitigated Negative Declaration was invalid because it had been based on a flawed traffic study that did not consider The Barlow or traffic beyond High Street to the east, and Fanning to the south on Hwy 116. By that time, Councilmember Michael Kyes had changed his stance on the project. Having heard the recording of the June 14 PC meeting, Kyes declared that he had been misled about the lack of findings.
During May of 2012, CVS began the process of applying to CalTrans for an encroachment permit to allow access to and from the project site. The permits would have allowed left turns across oncoming traffic at the corner formed by the intersection of CA State Highways 12 and 116.
Small Town Sebsatopol (STS) urged local residents to contact CalTrans and oppose the encroachment, stating that traffic would be further exacerbated by the many left turns close to that corner. Cal Trans had to assign a Community Outreach officer to respond to everyone who sent in a complaint. STS also began to communicate its own concerns to CalTrans, which then sent a team to evaluate the situation. They queried CVS representatives and asked for more details.
Evidently, CVS did not fully satisfy CalTrans because the permits were never issued.
In the 2012 election, one pro-CVS Council member declined to run, and Shaffer was defeated. In 2013, the newly elected Council imposed a temporary moratorium on drive-thru windows for downtown businesses. On December 24, CVS filed a suit against the moratorium in California Superior Court, but subsequently withdrew that suit and filed again in Federal District Court, claiming that it discriminates against the project proponents, and so violates their civil rights.
In May, 2013, the City Council passed an ordinance requiring solar photovoltaic energy systems on new or substantially remodeled commercial projects. Notified of the ordinance and the requirement that they must comply, CVS claimed that the ordinance could not be applied retroactively.
During the year 2013, 13 different court hearing dates were scheduled for the STS lawsuit, but each was postponed at the request of CVS/Long's Drugs. Without ever having a formal hearing, the suit eventually went into settlement talks, as did the Federal CVS/Long's Drugs lawsuit. Chase Bank pulled out of the project during this interval of settlement negotiations.
Eventually the City of Sebastopol, CVS/Long's Drugs, Armstrong Development Properties Inc., and STS hammered out a legal settlement. On October 6, 2014, the Sebastopol City Council voted unanimously to accept the framework for a settlement to end the 2011 STS suit over the flawed CEQA process, along with the 2012 suit filed by CVS/Longs Drugs against Sebastopol's temporary moratorium on drive-thru windows.
3. The End Game
At the regular City Council meeting on October 7, 2014, the CC voted to approve the settlement of the lawsuit that CVS/Longs had brought against the City, due to the improvements that Mr. Webster said that project proponents had promised. The Council put off the vote on a formal resolution accepting the settlement until October 9, when the Community would have a final chance to comment.
Concessions supposedly agreed to by CVS included abandoning the drive-thru and drive-up windows, adopting more refined building designs with larger, more numerous windows and variable roof heights; extensive landscaping and site design improvements; prohibitions on left turns into and out of the project site; installation of rooftop solar panels, and provision of five electric-vehicle charging stations.
On October 9, 2014 the Council voted 3-2 for a resolution accepting the settlement. Mayor Robert Jacob voted against the settlement, acknowledging that the City could not afford to prolong the lawsuit but expressing a concern that CVS/Longs Drugs had not been negotiating in good faith. Drawings that the City had requested repeatedly from CVS arrived just minutes before the start of the October 7 meeting, the first public hearing on the settlement. The plans did not show a two-story building, but a single-story retail store with high exterior walls and false windows that only suggest the presence of a second floor. CVS representatives did not attend the October 9 meeting, and a representative from CVS's agent, Armstrong Development, did not address the council.
4. Analysis
Why has Sebastopol experienced so many struggles over proposed projects? Could it be that Sebastopol lacks a well-defined process, one that is understood by PC, Design Review Board, and CC members alike, allowing them to easily review a project and make the decisions?
If so, how can Sebastopol establish a more transparent and defined process, to avoid more failed processes?
The Best Management Practice for processing highly controversial projects is to ensure thorough, comprehensive analyses of significant environmental impacts, and identify impacts that can be mitigated. The jurisdiction starts with an Initial Study Checklist for deciding whether to require a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), subject to public review and appeal.
A City's Planning Director is responsible for Planning Department decisions and actions. S/he is the City's environmental coordinator, with the responsibility for ensuring that work products from CEQA consultants are adequate, and to fully inform the public, Planning Commission, and City Council of the significant impacts and necessary mitigations for proposed projects. But Planning Directors' decision making can have backups.
Many jurisdictions have adopted comprehensive CEQA Guidelines, which supplement State procedures and provide officials and citizens alike with an overview of the process. Marin County has created an excellent CEQA Guideline that City Agencies and Departments can use for carrying out their responsibilities, see:
http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/cd/planning/environmental-impact/erguide1994.pdf.
To assure completeness and a high standard, California counties and cities also may require peer review of all technical reports (including traffic reports) by independent consultants, with costs borne by the project proponent. Any deficiencies identified in the original draft reports are revised.
Having full disclosure of environmental documents serves all stakeholders. The public and the City's decision makers can have confidence in the process. The information provided will allow for evidence-based project review, and the opportunity to identify all significant impacts and implement feasible mitigating measures. Well-founded CEQA documents reduce the level of public controversy during the review process, and protect both lead agencies and project proponents from CEQA lawsuits.
To assure completeness and a high standard, California counties and cities also may require peer review of all technical reports (including traffic reports) by independent consultants, with costs borne by the project proponent. Any deficiencies identified in the original draft reports are revised.
Having full disclosure of environmental documents serves all stakeholders. The public and the City's decision makers can have confidence in the process. The information provided will allow for evidence-based project review, and the opportunity to identify all significant impacts and implement feasible mitigating measures. Well-founded CEQA documents reduce the level of public controversy during the review process, and protect both lead agencies and project proponents from CEQA lawsuits.
As Sebastopol's experience shows, obfuscation only exacerbates potential pitfalls, creating costly delays and legal problems.
HwBP,OhoiGmQ~~60_35.JPG)
Assembled from public and personal records of: Jane Nielson, Helen Shane, and Paul-Andre Schabracq.
Thanks to Jane Nielson, Helen Shane, and Paul-Andre Schabracq
CVS Chase Project: Anatomy of a Flawed City Process
The CVS project, consisting of a CVS store and Chase Bank building on the abandoned Pellini Chevrolet site, is the most recent project to strain the Sebastopol Community, but we hope it will never be repeated. To learn from the experience, the undersigned have investigated the process and present the results of that investigation in the following, along with suggestions for future improvement.
1. The City Process
According to the City Manager, his predecessor, Jack Griffin, was in "full control of all staff decision-making." Griffin could have decided that the CVS project's CEQA document would be a Mitigated Negative Declaration. We do not have a record to establish whether the Planning Director initially recommended an MND vs. an EIR or if this decision was revised by Griffin.
 |
| Jack Griffin |
According to the City Manager, his predecessor, Jack Griffin, was in "full control of all staff decision-making." Griffin could have decided that the CVS project's CEQA document would be a Mitigated Negative Declaration. We do not have a record to establish whether the Planning Director initially recommended an MND vs. an EIR or if this decision was revised by Griffin.
 |
| Kathleen Shaffer |
The CVS-Chase CEQA process went into failure mode because no findings were prepared or submitted to the City Council to explain the bases for the lopsidedly negative PC vote. In a digital recording of that 6/14/11 PC meeting, the vote's aftermath sounds chaotic; no order is imposed by the PC chair (Colin Doyle). One Planning Commissioner can be heard pleading for the chair to recognize her motion to have "comments" on the vote submitted for the City Council to consider. Neither the PC chair, the vice-chair (Bob Greene, husband of then-City Councilmember Kathleen Shaffer), nor Planning Director Kenyon Webster responded to that Commissioner's motion, or her statements about the need for comments (the required findings.)
 |
| Sarah Glade Gurney |
At the next City Council (CC) meeting (July 5, 2011 and continuing to early the next morning) four Council members (Guy Wilson, Michael Kyes, Kathleen Shaffer, and Patrick Slayter) rejected pleas from Councilmember Sarah Glade Gurney and members of the public, to send the issue back to the PC, with a request for findings to explain the vote. The CC instead overturned the PC recommendations and approved the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration on a 3-2 vote. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was based on a perception that the project's environmental impacts would not warrant a full-blown Environmental Impact Report. During the break at that meeting, the AeCOM traffic consultant informed Helen Shane that the Planning Director had designated which street intersections were to be studied.
The Council granted the project a permit, but requested modifications to the design and retained jurisdiction over final design details.
During August, the City's Design Review Board (DRB) rejected the project's design, largely due to the inclusion of a drive-through window at both the pharmacy and bank, which raised severe questions about the safety of its parking lot entrances and exits. At that same DRB meeting, panel members brought up the subject of submitting findings to explain their vote. This time, Planning Director Webster quickly asserted that the Planning Department staff would prepare findings from their notes of the debate, and present them to the DRB for approval or modifications.
Later in 2011, during a City Council hearing on the DRB finding that the proposed CVS project does not meet its guidelines based on General Plan policies, City Councilmember Shaffer opined that the General Plan is only an aspirational document, and the City Council must follow the zoning code, which is the actual law. Ms. Shaffer appealed to Planning Director Webster, asking him to confirm her opinion. Mr. Webster responded that the Zoning Code states and implements City policies, which did appear to affirm Shaffer's statement.
 |
| Kenyon Webster |
2. The Legal Tangle
 |
| Michael Kyes |
During May of 2012, CVS began the process of applying to CalTrans for an encroachment permit to allow access to and from the project site. The permits would have allowed left turns across oncoming traffic at the corner formed by the intersection of CA State Highways 12 and 116.
 |
| CalTrans |
Small Town Sebsatopol (STS) urged local residents to contact CalTrans and oppose the encroachment, stating that traffic would be further exacerbated by the many left turns close to that corner. Cal Trans had to assign a Community Outreach officer to respond to everyone who sent in a complaint. STS also began to communicate its own concerns to CalTrans, which then sent a team to evaluate the situation. They queried CVS representatives and asked for more details.
 |
| John Eder, Kathleen Shaffer |
Evidently, CVS did not fully satisfy CalTrans because the permits were never issued.
In the 2012 election, one pro-CVS Council member declined to run, and Shaffer was defeated. In 2013, the newly elected Council imposed a temporary moratorium on drive-thru windows for downtown businesses. On December 24, CVS filed a suit against the moratorium in California Superior Court, but subsequently withdrew that suit and filed again in Federal District Court, claiming that it discriminates against the project proponents, and so violates their civil rights.
In May, 2013, the City Council passed an ordinance requiring solar photovoltaic energy systems on new or substantially remodeled commercial projects. Notified of the ordinance and the requirement that they must comply, CVS claimed that the ordinance could not be applied retroactively.
Eventually the City of Sebastopol, CVS/Long's Drugs, Armstrong Development Properties Inc., and STS hammered out a legal settlement. On October 6, 2014, the Sebastopol City Council voted unanimously to accept the framework for a settlement to end the 2011 STS suit over the flawed CEQA process, along with the 2012 suit filed by CVS/Longs Drugs against Sebastopol's temporary moratorium on drive-thru windows.
3. The End Game
At the regular City Council meeting on October 7, 2014, the CC voted to approve the settlement of the lawsuit that CVS/Longs had brought against the City, due to the improvements that Mr. Webster said that project proponents had promised. The Council put off the vote on a formal resolution accepting the settlement until October 9, when the Community would have a final chance to comment.
On October 9, 2014 the Council voted 3-2 for a resolution accepting the settlement. Mayor Robert Jacob voted against the settlement, acknowledging that the City could not afford to prolong the lawsuit but expressing a concern that CVS/Longs Drugs had not been negotiating in good faith. Drawings that the City had requested repeatedly from CVS arrived just minutes before the start of the October 7 meeting, the first public hearing on the settlement. The plans did not show a two-story building, but a single-story retail store with high exterior walls and false windows that only suggest the presence of a second floor. CVS representatives did not attend the October 9 meeting, and a representative from CVS's agent, Armstrong Development, did not address the council.
4. Analysis
Why has Sebastopol experienced so many struggles over proposed projects? Could it be that Sebastopol lacks a well-defined process, one that is understood by PC, Design Review Board, and CC members alike, allowing them to easily review a project and make the decisions?
If so, how can Sebastopol establish a more transparent and defined process, to avoid more failed processes?
The Best Management Practice for processing highly controversial projects is to ensure thorough, comprehensive analyses of significant environmental impacts, and identify impacts that can be mitigated. The jurisdiction starts with an Initial Study Checklist for deciding whether to require a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), subject to public review and appeal.
A City's Planning Director is responsible for Planning Department decisions and actions. S/he is the City's environmental coordinator, with the responsibility for ensuring that work products from CEQA consultants are adequate, and to fully inform the public, Planning Commission, and City Council of the significant impacts and necessary mitigations for proposed projects. But Planning Directors' decision making can have backups.
Many jurisdictions have adopted comprehensive CEQA Guidelines, which supplement State procedures and provide officials and citizens alike with an overview of the process. Marin County has created an excellent CEQA Guideline that City Agencies and Departments can use for carrying out their responsibilities, see:
http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/cd/planning/environmental-impact/erguide1994.pdf.
To assure completeness and a high standard, California counties and cities also may require peer review of all technical reports (including traffic reports) by independent consultants, with costs borne by the project proponent. Any deficiencies identified in the original draft reports are revised.
Having full disclosure of environmental documents serves all stakeholders. The public and the City's decision makers can have confidence in the process. The information provided will allow for evidence-based project review, and the opportunity to identify all significant impacts and implement feasible mitigating measures. Well-founded CEQA documents reduce the level of public controversy during the review process, and protect both lead agencies and project proponents from CEQA lawsuits.
To assure completeness and a high standard, California counties and cities also may require peer review of all technical reports (including traffic reports) by independent consultants, with costs borne by the project proponent. Any deficiencies identified in the original draft reports are revised.
Having full disclosure of environmental documents serves all stakeholders. The public and the City's decision makers can have confidence in the process. The information provided will allow for evidence-based project review, and the opportunity to identify all significant impacts and implement feasible mitigating measures. Well-founded CEQA documents reduce the level of public controversy during the review process, and protect both lead agencies and project proponents from CEQA lawsuits.
As Sebastopol's experience shows, obfuscation only exacerbates potential pitfalls, creating costly delays and legal problems.
HwBP%2COhoiGmQ~~60_35.JPG)
CVS BOYCOTT & PICKET EVENT...
Join us this Wednesday, Dec. 10th. @ 7-8:30pm
Magick’s House
7602 Huntley St. @ Jesse St.
Sebastopol Blue house on corner
707 327 7940
7602 Huntley St. @ Jesse St.
Sebastopol Blue house on corner
707 327 7940
Dear Community,
We are organizing to picket, boycott and petition CVS to stop their attempt to force their way into our town at the busiest intersection of Hwy 12 and 116. If you cannot make the meeting but want to help with the picket email:
We are organizing to picket, boycott and petition CVS to stop their attempt to force their way into our town at the busiest intersection of Hwy 12 and 116. If you cannot make the meeting but want to help with the picket email:
Robin Latham laughingrobin@gmail.com
There is a new petition on Change.org and we are working on a Facebook page.
Across the nation cities and towns are fighting these corporate bullies, (Nantucket won!) that have an appalling tract record concerning the environment, selling drugs illegally, and even a case where a store employee murdered a homeless person whom he assumed was stealing a tube of toothpaste. That was five years ago and there have been no indictment. For the whole story on these travesties see:
When you can't stop greedy corporations with the current laws then take it to the streets and let the people decide! Remember you can vote with your dollars!
In October, the Sebastopol City Council refused to give up and say their hands were tied just because there were no further legal options. Instead they did something so rare in the political arena, they said we will use our voices and our platform to advocate for our town! This is the opening of an article on the issue:
Please contact: Magick magick@sonic.net
Jeremiah Garcia jeremiahpaulg@gmail.com
Jeremiah Garcia jeremiahpaulg@gmail.com
Please send responses to Robin, Magick or Jeremiah
Sunday, November 16, 2014
MULTI-USE TRAILS IN SEBASTOPOL...
City Council Meeting
6 pm, Youth Annex 425 Morris Street
Tuesday, November 18
Our City Manager states that the best way to get the proposed multiuse trails moving forward is to demonstrate to City Council strong public support for the trails. The Council's meeting on Tuesday night is the time and place to show this support! If you believe these trails will have a positive impact on our community, please come to the Council meeting. Better yet, make your support stand out in a crowd -- bring your walking stick or wear your bike gear.
It is important that Council take positive steps, and follow the procedure used by the County and most of the State — 1) Add these trails to the Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and 2) Start the Feasibility Study to work out the many details. These steps are very low cost and are required to get the projects moving.
The routes of the trails are not set in stone, and need not be in order to add these trails to the Master Plan. There is lots of time for reasonable discussion by the community.
We hope the number of people who support the trail will convince the Council to recognize the importance of these trails to the community. Hope to see you there on Tuesday, November 18!
Sincerely,
The Sebastopol TrailMakers
View the videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdFszIiUeoY&list=PL3Gs765GiOGRk8sxnTSfkJRIAXkSQjf_Q
More information about the TrailMakers (and trail maps) available at: www.SebastopolTrailMakers.org
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
BIKE & PEDESTRIAN TRAILS!!!
Multiuse Trails Across Sebastopol will be discussed at the GPAC this Wednesday (see below)...
 |
| The Joe Rodota Trail - SUCCESS! |
General Plan Advisory Committee
Wednesday, November 12 at 6:30 pm
at Sebastopol Center for the Arts
Veterans building at 282 South High Street
 |
| The proposed trail site through St. Stephen's Church |
Will discuss circulation: vehicles, transit, walking, bikes, etc. Agenda materials are posted on the City web site at: http://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/node/3197
The General Plan update web site is at: http://sebastopol.generalplan.org/
If you have any written comments on circulation issues for the Committee, feel free to email them to kwebster@cityofsebastopol.org or come to the meeting and speak to the Committee.
 |
| Proposed trails take advantage of existing back roads. |
Then the Council takes up this matter...
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, November 18th at 6:00PM
Youth Annex 425 Morris St.
 |
| The Gravenstein Trail |
Join us in urging the City Council to create cross-town multiuse trails. A strong showing of public support is essential to get the Council to adopt these trails as part of the Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan on November 18th.
With the full support of the Council, our community could have safe scenic trails connecting neighborhoods, the town core and the Joe Rodota Trail. The Apple Blossom and Gravenstein Multiuse Trails are possible only with the amazing cooperation of many private property owners.
 |
| The Apple Blossom Trail |
What we need: Most Sebastopol destinations are within walking or biking distance from home, but in our community people drive their kids and themselves everywhere. That is because we have no safe alternatives. This can change.
The Answer: The Apple Blossom and Gravenstein Trails will provide safe, scenic routes to town. These multi-use trails will make Sebastopol a better place to live. It starts with the City Council adopting these trails into the Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
View the videos here:
Feel free to contact us: sebtrailmakers@gmail.com. We would like your email address to add to our list of supporters.
Details at: www.sebastopoltrailmakers.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)