This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sn/ for current information. |
Sonoma County, CA | November 6, 2012 Election |
West County Times & News Letter to the EditorBy Kathy AustinCandidate for Council Member; City of Sebastopol | |
This information is provided by the candidate |
Is the sky falling because of CVS/Chase?Is the sky falling because CVS and Chase want to redevelop the Pellini site? Doubtful. I don't condone the business practices of either CVS or Chase. Everyone can vote with their feet and avoid these businesses. Should the now deserted corner be redeveloped? Yes. It is highly visible and it's abandoned look gives the town a depressed feel. The owners have the right to sell the property. Anyone buying it has the right to develop it as long as they meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and comply with the General Plan. A pharmacy and bank are allowable uses under the Zoning Ordinance. All the setbacks, heights, sizes etc. are met by their design. Legally the City Council had no choice but approve it's mitigated negative declaration. The Council is legally required to abide by the city's laws and regulations. To not do so would threaten the city with legal action that could result in significant financial loss to the city. The suit against the city is doomed to fail as it has no real teeth. The General Plan is just that, general. The same is true with the Design Guidelines, they are guidelines, and not specific as the Zoning Ordinance is. Just because the applicants are not what someone wants doesn't' mean that the City Council can ignore the law and refuse them. The current proposal has responded to all of the City Council findings. The Design Review Board's purview is very specific. They must look at the design that is before them. It is not their right to deny the project because of who the applicants are. They need to review the findings of the City Council and decide if the applicant has met them or not. It is not the role of the DRB to design the project for the applicant, nor it is the role of the citizens who address the DRB. Our current laws do not prohibit CVS or Chase from being in that location. What has been proposed meets the rules that govern development in this city. All the wishing and hoping that something else would be there won't bring another applicant to the table; especially after seeing what the current applicant has gone through. Keep in mind that uses change over time and that these buildings will likely change owners and tenants over time as well. Yes they are proposing more parking than required. The applicants have offered the parking, which is behind the buildings, to others while shopping down town. Some call this a suburban design because of the amount of parking and lack of access along the street. These comments are not without merit. However, for security reasons, there cannot be multiple entrances and exits all along both streets. It is not ideal. However, the building will be built in such a way as to allow for those kinds of access at some future date when the owner or tenant changes. How the building can be used over time is important too. It will likely be here for many years to come. The world is not a perfect place. If this applicant were to go away, the only other use might be additional parking for the Post Office Annex. Again there would be a sea of cars. Is that better? Because of the trouble this applicant has encountered, our reputation in the area for being business and development unfriendly is increasing from it's already bad reputation. In order to remain vital, we need to encourage business in town or financially we might find that the sky is indeed falling. |
Next Page:
Calendar of Events
Candidate Page
|| Feedback to Candidate
|| This Contest
November 2012 Home (Ballot Lookup)
|| About Smart Voter
ca/sn
Created from information supplied by the candidate: September 22, 2012 12:29
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright ©
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor
opposes candidates for public office or political parties.