Help Community Market!
ATTENTION CUSTOMERS AND STAFF!!!
Does the opening of ‘Sprouts Farmers Market’ warrant an amendment to our city’s general plan?
Update: 9-11-2011
The Sprout issue will be presented to the council on Tuesday September 27th at 4:00pm. More information to come.
Update: 7-27-2011
Finally after months of waiting, organizing, and diligent participation the Planning commission voted on the amendment to change the zoning status of the Mendocino/Bicentennial marketplace. It was a divided vote; 4-3 in favor of the amendment change. Now, we know this seems like a loss but this is only the very beginning of a long process. This is simply a vote to recommend to the City Council an amendment to the General Plan. We will have the opportunity to address our issues and concerns at that City Council meeting. The next step is to continue gathering supportive businesses and individuals to join us at that meeting, and meetings in the future. If this general Plan amendment is approved by the City Council, Sprouts will have to submit a formal design plan for approval. This will be another opportunity to share our concerns and vision for our city. Please be patient and continue to check our website for upcoming meeting dates/times and what you can do to help. Thank you for your continued support.
Update: 7-1-2011
First, we would like to thank our customers for supporting us in our efforts to fight
Sprout’s Farmers Market. Community Market exists to serve you and we are pleased
that you return that enthusiasm and commitment. We will need your continued
support in the next few months as this fight has only just begun.
At the Planning Commission meeting on June 9th the Commissioners voted to postpone the General Plan amendment until the July meeting (date yet to be announced)
when the two Commission members who were not present at the meeting will be in
attendance. (Both Commissioners are required to watch a recording of the meeting
in order to hear all arguments and public opinions presented.)
The meeting began with an overview of the amendment by the city staff. Various
involved parties gave statements regarding the plan. It became clear that the
Commissioners would be considering this issue only from a zoning perspective,
without considering the possibility of a Sprouts opening (even though the city staff
said explicitly that the catalyst for the proposed amendment was the Sprouts
Corporation’s interest in the site). Because of this, documents submitted by city
staff which contained questionable information were not disputed. When it came
time for the public hearing, Community Market was the first to express disapproval
despite the fact that the “Sprouts vs. Community Market” argument was made to
seem inappropriate in the context of the proposal.
In the end, three Commissioners voted “yes” to approve the General Plan Amendment,
while the other two voted against the plan but would reconsider with an environmental
impact report and/or design plan. Three votes were not enough to move forward, but
were enough to postpone the decision until the next meeting.
If the Commission votes to recommend the General Plan Amendment, the proposal
will then move to the City Council for the final vote. If the City Council approves the
amendment, Sprouts and the developers must submit an official design plan.
This will be the time to oppose the opening of Sprouts Farmer’s Market. We will need
as many supporters as possible to attend this meeting. In the mean time you can
contact the Planning Commission to find out their position to ensure the future of
Community Market.
Caroline Banuelos - carban3@yahoo.com
Curtis Byrd - revcurtisbyrd@sbcglobal.net
Patti Cisco - pacisco@aol.com
Vicki Duggan - vduggan2@gmail.com
Shaun Faber - shaun@farrellfaber.com
David Poulsen - davidpoulsen816@msn.com
Peter Stanley - ps@archilogix.com
We will continue to keep you updated as to when all pertinent meetings will take place and what you can do to help us. Thank you for being the most loyal and inspiring community in the county! If you have any questions or comments please contact Nica Poznanovich at nica@srcommunitymarket.com
Download Petition
The Facts:
• Sprouts Farmers Market is a natural foods store based in Phoenix, Az.
• Owned by Apollo Management, A private equity firm based in NY.
• The developer is AVB Development Partners based in Scottsdale, Az.
• The site they are hoping to secure is on the corner of Bicentennial and Mendocino but the city must first change the General Plan to allow for proper zoning of the proposed project.
• The Planning Commission will be voting on this issue on bike to work day,
THURSDAY JUNE 9TH @ 4:00 PM at the city council chambers- 100 Santa Rosa ave. Santa Rosa, Ca.
Why are we taking a stand?
There are three main arguments we believe are reasons NOT to support a change to our General Plan:
1. Multiplier effect/ importance of Local businesses:
A. For every $1 spent at a local business $.45 is reinvested locally compared to the $.15 reinvested locally from big box, chains, and other corporations.
B. These types of corporations claim the multiplier effect doesn’t matter because they hire local people and pay local taxes. These are all valid points; this store could potentially provide the city with a large chunk of sales tax and provide local people with jobs. However, an identical claim can be made for locally owned businesses. This is where the multiplier effect really comes into play. A large portion of the Sprouts profits will go to the CEOs in New York and Arizona where they will invest, bank, buy real estate, and shop; providing our city with zero benefit. The profits made by a local CEO will stay in our city and be spent or reinvested back in Santa Rosa/Sonoma County. This is the most important tool we have to revitalize our city’s financial woes.
C. The current General Plan states that the goals/policies of the Plan are to:
EV-A: “Maintain a positive business climate in the community”
EV-B- “Facilitate the retention and expansion of existing businesses.”
This development plan directly opposes those two goals/policies. See “Market Saturation” for more details.
2. Market Saturation:
A. In a document submitted by the development firm AVB, they were required to answer the question “Have detailed neighborhood plans or other studies revealed the NEED for a General Plan Amendment?” The response: “Sprouts Farmers Market has completed market research and sales projection studies that take into account population, demographics, etc. that identify the subject property as a SUCCESSFUL grocery store site.” This response fails to answer the question and provide the public or the Planning Commission with any information about the needs of our city.
B. Santa Rosa’s senior planner, Bill Rose submitted a memorandum dated May 3rd, 2011 to the Planning Commission. Under the caption “Applicant’s Statement” Sprouts was quoted as saying “The project proponents indicate that the proposed General Plan amendment will allow a specialty grocery store not currently found in surrounding market.” When if fact there are currently 7 grocery stores within 2 miles of the proposed site:
Safeway- .5 miles
Pacific Market- 1.8 miles
Community Market- .8 miles
Trader Joes- .8 miles
Whole Foods- 1.5 miles
Lucky’s- .2 miles
Traverso’s- 1.8 miles
C. Three of these grocery stores are locally owned
D. Two of these stores are technically natural food stores yet organic produce and other natural products can be purchased at six of these stores. Despite these facts the May 3rd memorandum also states that “of particular note is the high demand for fruits and vegetables in this geographic area.”
E. There is no cluster of grocery stores larger than this area in Santa Rosa, Ca. The only exception is a 2 mile area with the corner of Hearn and Stony Point as the epicenter. There are a total of 4 grocery stores with only one store being local and two carrying organic produce and natural products.
F. The 2020 vision for Sonoma County is that we “will be the healthiest county in California.” How are we to achieve that goal if we don’t prioritize the areas that need access to healthy food?
G. In that same memorandum, under the “Staff Analysis” section it states that “there is significant retail leakage in all areas of the city, which indicates that all four quadrants of Santa Rosa are in demand for retail. “ Retail is a large category with many different sectors existing under one very broad umbrella. In a Santa Rosa Retail Market Assessment Update from February of 2010 (can be found online here ) It is reported that out of all of the specific retail categories food and beverage stores have the highest amount of surplus (the opposite of leakage)! Almost $5 million worth of surplus!!! This proves quite plainly that a need to change the General Plan does not exist in the context of this particular argument.
H. This new store will merely shift market share from the existing businesses to itself. This would not be the case if they decided to open their store in an area of the city that truly needs access to healthy food options. This also negates the argument of increased sales tax. If Sprouts simply divides the market share, it doesn’t increase the tax revenue at all.
3. Environmental Impacts:
City of Santa Rosa Community Development staff submitted the Bicentennial Marketplace General Plan Amendment and Rezoning: Initial Study/Negative Declaration. All quotes in this section will be referencing that document unless otherwise noted.
An extensive and informative letter was submitted by Sonia Taylor- member of the public- who raises many questions concerning the content of said report. Please see appendix 1.
A. Aesthetics: “A remnant portion of Russell Creek runs east to west across the southern portion of the site and there is moderate tree cover throughout the property.” The city reported that there would be no impact to the aesthetics of the proposed area. We would argue that any removal of trees or destruction to any of our city’s creeks/waterways causes some impact. The term ‘significant’ is so subjective that it makes it difficult to determine where the line is drawn.
B. Housing: Under the section “Population and Housing” city staff report “the displacement of existing homes and/or people are expected to be less than significant.”
There are currently 22 existing residential apartment units and 2 detached single family dwellings on the proposed site. Dina Manis, a resident of the apartments, sent a letter to the city staff asking what the development would mean to those who live there and if their apartments are even a part of the desired lot. In addition to that she asked “Will the access to our apartments change?” Mr. Rose responded with “No, this proposal does not include a physical development project.” HOWEVER… In a Focused Traffic Analysis for a General Plan Amendment for the Bicentennial Marketplace Site submitted by W-trans, it states clearly that “to construct the Bicentennial Marketplace project it will be necessary to demolish the existing apartment complex; however it is unclear what changes, if any, will be made to the 2 existing single-family residences.” Does this sound less than significant to you? And yet again the city staff ignores the goals and policies designated by the general Plan:
H-A-3 “Promote conservation and rehabilitation of the existing house stock…”
H-C-11 “Provide opportunities for higher density and affordable housing development on regional/arterial streets and near the rail transit corridor for convenient access to bus and rail transit.”
UD-D “Avoid strip patterns of commercial development.”
C. Traffic:
The developers did get a traffic analysis report done for this project which states that the project would generate and average of 2245 new weekly trips to the site. However, the final analysis was that there would be “less” traffic if they approved this General Plan change. Why? They compared the traffic to what it may be like if they fully developed that property under the current plan. This may be the way they look at these things, but the reality and truth of the situation is that there will be a lot more traffic. Especially since the probability of this site being fully developed in the next 5 to 7 years is low. Even the Department of Transportation decrees: “ Due to the proximity of the project to US Highway 101, a more detailed traffic analysis is required when a project generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility and the affected facilities are experiencing significant delay.” This project expects to generate 162 new weekday PM peak hour trips. Suffice it to say, there is going to be a lot more cars in the neighborhood.
The question you need to ask yourself, your friends, your family is: considering all that we have presented, should the city change the General Plan? Is it worth yet another grocery store? We hope you will join us in our efforts to show the planning commission that it is not worth it!
We need to fill the seats of the city council chamber to ensure our message is heard. Our outreach manager Nica Poznanovich will be there to speak on behalf of these arguments and we are hoping to have all those who support us there to add weight to her voice. You don’t have to speak if you don’t want too; just being there will send a strong message of a community united to keep our city’s best interests at heart. We need you all there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please join us THURSDAY JUNE 9TH @ 4:00 PM.
The developers did get a traffic analysis report done for this project which states that the project would generate and average of 2245 new weekly trips to the site. However, the final analysis was that there would be “less” traffic if they approved this General Plan change. Why? They compared the traffic to what it may be like if they fully developed that property under the current plan. This may be the way they look at these things, but the reality and truth of the situation is that there will be a lot more traffic. Especially since the probability of this site being fully developed in the next 5 to 7 years is low. Even the Department of Transportation decrees: “ Due to the proximity of the project to US Highway 101, a more detailed traffic analysis is required when a project generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility and the affected facilities are experiencing significant delay.” This project expects to generate 162 new weekday PM peak hour trips. Suffice it to say, there is going to be a lot more cars in the neighborhood.
The question you need to ask yourself, your friends, your family is: considering all that we have presented, should the city change the General Plan? Is it worth yet another grocery store? We hope you will join us in our efforts to show the planning commission that it is not worth it!
We need to fill the seats of the city council chamber to ensure our message is heard. Our outreach manager Nica Poznanovich will be there to speak on behalf of these arguments and we are hoping to have all those who support us there to add weight to her voice. You don’t have to speak if you don’t want too; just being there will send a strong message of a community united to keep our city’s best interests at heart. We need you all there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please join us THURSDAY JUNE 9TH @ 4:00 PM.
