Sebastopol Trail Makers needs your support for new bike trails

[79paul]

I've been lurking here on this conversation for a while, not wanting to weather the negativity of the naysayers, but Rustie has made it too easy with this line: I can't help but wonder what kind of response our city council would get if they were to engage the larger community by way of door to door communication on issues or multiple small neighborhood informational meetings held on Saturday afternoons.

While others have been busy writing clever rebuttals to strangers in anonymity, I've spent a few hours on each of the last three Saturdays (the best time to find people at home), carrying a big map and telling my neighbors about the proposed Gravenstein Trail. I found it satisfying to catch up with old friends and meet new arrivals, collecting a few dozen email addresses to keep them informed of our progress. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but my neighbors ALL think it's a great idea, for a variety of reasons. Some saw it as a way to walk to enjoy the Laguna, others would use it to commute to work, still others to get their kids to the charter school. Many saw it as an opportunity to get out of the car, out in the neighborhood and into nature, get some exercise. The most enthusiastic were the parents of young children. These were not the spandex-wearing tourists that you all seem to despise, but real people that live and work in our community, so thankful that a few neighbors have seen this as a problem we can solve.

I don't see multi-use trails as the answer to all of Sebastopol's transportation problems, far from it, but it's a step in the right direction. Many other commenters have brought up the walking paths in Europe, especially England, and I have to agree. The sense of community and neighborliness that these paths foster is sorely lacking in our community.

I've lived here south of town for 25 years, but I had never been to Luther Burbank Goldridge Farm until this past summer, when the Slow Food "Save the Gravenstein" project hosted community apple pressings at the farm. In an effort to raise awareness of the plight of our last remaining apple farmers (surely the grape-haters can love this), anyone could bring local apples from home or a local supplier and use hand crank apple presses for free. What a great project, the presses were in use churning out juice every weekend into October. What struck me was what a great educational resource we have in our community, a city-owned historical park, staffed by volunteers, teaching about one of our founding farmers. Underutilized and inaccessible, the farm could be easily linked to downtown, a 15 minute Saturday afternoon stroll through our town. Unfortunately the Burbank residents' newsletter raised the alarm a few months ago, making it look like we were proposing to tear out the plants and replace it with a freeway full of Tour de France cyclists hell-bent on running seniors off the road. Many seniors complain that they are shut off from children and neighbors; a reasonable path can be designed that can allow locals to get to town and children to visit the farm, and the process shouldn't be used to scare residents.

So yes, I agree with you that this forum is far from representational of our community, but maybe not in the way you think.

-Paul

You are absolutely correct Cynthi, this forum is far from representational of our community. Dishearteningly I have heard that this is also the typical scenario at our city council meetings, the same small few advocating for their interests leaving the needs and desires of the greater community possibly unaddressed...

[cynctysings]

79Paul--That is GREAT news! Actual feedback from actual residents. The negativity of naysayers aside, I am really happy to hear that this kind of asking has been done and that the proposed bike trails are getting response from living, breathing residents. I spent quite a lot of my childhood south of Sebastopol on Lone Pine Road at my grandparents' house and we rode our bikes a lot there. I would love for you to come to my house with your map and talk to me about it as well.

I haven't found this thread an exercise in the positive, trail loving versus the naysayers. Instead, I have found it to be a forum where everyone's diverse opinions and views have been aired. Without it, I wouldn't have found out about your Saturday, feet on the ground, research nor would I have heard Rustie's articulate views or the views of many others. I value them all. I may not agree with them, but I value the fact that folks care enough to weigh in.

Thanks for doing that. Oh, and my name is Cynthi Stefenoni. I've called the same house 'home' for 61 years. And I am 100% in favor of change that serves Sebastopol. And I've been known to change my mind on things once I understand them.

Oh, and one other thing: because both roads that intersect our town at Main and Bodega are highways, not just streets, it is my understanding that they are under the jurisdiction of Cal Trans and that any change of direction of the traffic pattern must be approved by Cal Trans. When the two way Main Street became the one way Main Street it was a big deal and I believe that there are some time constraints on when it can be addressed again. I also remember there being a plan to have the downtown become a walking mall kind of place then, too. That's why the parking lot behind Carlson's Department Store (now Silk Moon) became a park and a plaza, to make downtown more accessible to all. I think the dream then was to have a downtown like Santa Cruz. Instead, we got something else. My point is this: our best laid plans may or may not turn out as we envision them. So having a forum like this to hear many points of view is truly useful. For oh so many reasons.

Thanks to all of you for being willing to give voice to your opinions, feelings, thoughts and factual findings.

...my neighbors ALL think it's a great idea, for a variety of reasons...

[scamperwillow]

I have to disagree that it is difficult to get involved or express your views in Sebastopol. Sebastopol is a very small town and I find it remarkably easy to be involved locally. Yes, the city council meetings begin at 6 but they go until 9:00 or later often, and many agenda items are scheduled later than 6 - you can show up or leave at any time. In addition, our council members are remarkably available in the community to be talked with. They show up everywhere at events and civic happenings. Some of them hold office hours. There are also planning commission meetings and design review board meetings that happen at different hours.

Many special workshops are scheduled to gather citizen input - a current example is the series of General Plan Update meetings being held now - one of them is tomorrow night (GPAC meeting on Circulation and TRAILS). There is email and the good old telephone for communicating with them. Also letters to the editor of the local paper. I really think it is a cop out to claim that there is no way to affect local decisions. It is our responsibility as citizens to be involved if we care what is happening in our community.

...
Take for instance the upcoming city council meeting where the bike trail issue will be addressed, Tuesday, November 18 at 6pm. How many working class folks are going to be able to get home, feed their kids and make it to a 6pm town meeting? In my opinion civic participation is reserved for the privileged. I ...

[scamperwillow]

Barry thanks for adding that link to the GP meeting tomorrow night! The subject happens to be transportation, circulation and TRAILS!

...Many special workshops are scheduled to gather citizen input - a current example is the series of General Plan Update meetings being held now - one of them is tomorrow night (GPAC meeting on Circulation)...

[nancypreb]

I too am very happy to hear that you've been out, door to door. I hope you are trying to make it to the doors of those who might potentially be "negatively" impacted as well as those who live outside of downtown and see the trail as a great access they might use. I only say this because I know that nobody has spoken to the residents on Eleanor St.. I know because a friend of mine who lives there just found out about it two days ago. Whereas she wasn't remotely interested in weighing in before (because it wouldn't affect her), she sure is interested now, and not necessarily in a good way. I've spoken to Lynn on many occasions, but thats because you want the trail to go through my property.

I don't think anyone as asked my neighbors what they think about the idea. Cynthi is up the street from me, and she hasn't been approached. The lovely lady from Burbank Heights mentioned that the residents there haven't been approached.... I'm just hoping that you're speaking to the people who might be inclined to say no as much as the people who are probably very likely to say yes. I understand not wanting to "weather the negativity of naysayers," but that is exactly what you have to do if you want to dispel any misunderstandings, delusions, unwarranted concerns people might have.... if you truly want to garner "community support." But definitely, kuddos to you for putting in the time you have.

IWhile others have been busy writing clever rebuttals to strangers in anonymity, I've spent a few hours on each of the last three Saturdays (the best time to find people at home), carrying a big map and telling my neighbors about the proposed Gravenstein Trail.

[Richard Nichols]

I've never been called or considered myself "privileged" before. If working in and with the community for over 30 years, going to meetings, co-founding an activist committee, and working to get good people elected, makes me privileged then I guess I'm that, along with a whole bunch of other ordinary people who do extraordinary things.

... In my opinion civic participation is reserved for the privileged. ...

[Rustie]

Thank you Paul, I'm delighted that I was the one that brought you out of hiding, it gives me a sense that there might be a point to all of this. Kudos to you to put your feet to the pavement to engage your neighborhood on the issue. I do hope that you were presenting a well rounded perspective of both the pros and cons if your intent was to get an accurate barometer reading. I also want to thank you to have demonstrated that my suggestion of outreach by way of door to door is well within the realm of possibility. I hope our city officials will realize that they have a responsibility to engage all members of our community not just those with the ability to attend evening council meetings.

On the subject of the Gravenstein Trail – I'm not as familiar with that area of the trail so perhaps you can help me. I don't see a connection to any of our schools on this map nor do I see how this trail provides a great resource for commuters, commuting to where? I did notice that this trail conveniently runs almost past the front door of the Marriott Hotel on Lynch Rd & Hwy 116. That will certainly be a plus for the tourist industry as would be linking an easy stroll from downtown to the Luther Burbank Goldridge Farm. As it is I question your observation that this historic resource is “underutilized and inaccessible”. Apparently not if multitudes of our local residents were out there every weekend churning out apple juice. And just for the record, as I recall, albeit from this thread, in addition to the Burbank residents the Goldridge Farm volunteers themselves have opposed these trails, at least the portion that passes through the Farm.

I'm not opposed to bike & foot paths. I'm opposed to being swept along in what appears to be a short sited vision. If we don't stand back and take the long view before we pull the trigger on a series of individual projects we risk having ultimately created a Frankenstein. Let's take the Barlow as an example. Way back in the day many were up in arms and were actively trying to stop that project. Long story short, concessions were made and voila. Now I'm not sure if many have noticed but the Barlow buildings are some of the most non-environmentally friendly structures that could have been built. In a town that touts itself as being “green” this is disturbing to say the least. Steel structures with enormously tall ceilings, lots of huge windows and quaint clerestory atop for extra light. Unfortunately the entire facility is poorly oriented for any solar gain, which would have been nice in a “green” community.

Furthermore, as I understand it, this facility was supposed to house some local and essential industry; a creamery, a meat processing facility and maybe even a cannery. But alas the rent was too high for working class residents with businesses providing essential goods and services. So instead we have more wineries and breweries &/or their affiliated tasting rooms, some art studios, and a lovely offering of more restaurants and cafes. Round all this out with eco-friendly clothes from around the world, plus organic fair trade clothing, specialty books from the 15^th to 19^th century, a store dedicated solely to organic bay leaves, Waldorf toys & gifts and hand made herbal soap. Bundle this up right outside the Hotel Barlow's doorstep and you've got the makings of a serious tourist trap.

ST has told us that these trails will be a great attraction for tourists and the Marriott Hotel at the other end of town is sitting pretty to take immediate advantage of that opportunity. Couple all this with our existing wine industry and we're taking some definitive steps toward drawing in powerful players that could care less about our goals, our ethics and our vision. So is this what you really want, to take family walks with hundreds of strangers passing through on their way to the next Disneyland?

Be careful what you are seeking, you just might find it........

I've been lurking here on this conversation for a while, not wanting to weather the negativity of the naysayers, but Rustie has made it too easy with this line: I can't help but wonder what kind of response our city council would get if they were to engage the larger community by way of door to door communication on issues or multiple small neighborhood informational meetings held on Saturday afternoons.
...

[eeeeeeow]

I've noticed that the negative comments on this subject seem to come from folks who dictate fear and rumor from their keyboard. If they really want to be heard (i wonder), then they'd get off their butts and go to a meeting, email a city official (which should be a piece of cake for them) or pay attention and go to an event where they can speak eyeball to eyeball with a city council member.

To say, "Not in my neighborhood" from the desktop is easy. To say it in front of the community at the GPAC meeting tomorrow night (Veteran's Bldg.) or the City Council meeting next Tuesday at the Youth Annex would take some effort.

These multi-use trails represent a responsible and thoughtful approach to cautious and insightful development. Sebastopol will be growing. SPEAK UP as to how you want it to progress.

[eeeeeeow]

Multiuse Trails Across Sebastopol will be discussed at the GPAC this Wednesday (see below)...

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12 AT 6:30 PM
at Sebastopol Center for the Arts
Veterans building at 282 South High Street

Will discuss circulation: vehicles, transit, walking, bikes, etc.

Agenda materials are posted on the City web site at:

https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/node/3197

The General Plan update web site is at: https://sebastopol.generalplan.org/

If you have any written comments on circulation issues for the Committee, feel free to email them to [email protected] or come to the meeting and speak to the Committee.

Then the Council takes up this matter...
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, November 18th at 6:00PM
Youth Annex 425 Morris St.

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.

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: www.sebastopoltrailmakers.org

Feel free to contact us: [email protected]. We would like your email address to add to our list of supporters.

[podfish]

I've noticed that the negative comments on this subject seem to come from folks who dictate fear and rumor from their keyboard. ....
To say, "Not in my neighborhood" from the desktop is easy.

that's a little harsh. By the standards of modern political discourse, there's been very limited fear expressed. No-one's claimed that ebola-laden waste will be left trailside where kids can find it. There's only been limited concern expressed about homeless encampments springing up in previously insulated neighborhoods. Those making the case against the paths have been remarkably focused on making rational arguments. That's not the kind of fear-mongering I've come to expect when most public issues are being "debated". This one actually seems to be getting a debate that doesn't require quotations around it.

[nancypreb]

I've noticed that the negative comments on this subject seem to come from folks who dictate fear and rumor from their keyboard. If they really want to be heard (i wonder), then they'd get off their butts and go to a meeting, email a city official (which should be a piece of cake for them) or pay attention and go to an event where they can speak eyeball to eyeball with a city council member...

Listen here, buddy! You need to back up and sit down!! I, one of the "negative naysayers" spent this very afternoon with one of the founders of the Trailmakers, in person, at a park, at her request, right here on this thread. I met her completely at her convenience as she had the needs a toddler to consider. I listened attentively to her "clarification" of "misunderstandings." We were joined by a mutual friend who was totally uninterested in the issue and just attending the meeting (also at this individual's request) as a common associate to facilitate an introduction....That is, until she learned two days ago that this proposed trail is to go up her street. She lives near the JRT. She too is now also a "naysayer," based on her experience living next to the JRT. She is also a single mom who waitresses at night, so you will forgive her if she does not choose to loose income in order to attend civic meetings to know what's going on. Nobody ever knocked on her door to tell her about this proposal or ask her opinion! Nobody ever sent a flyer to her mail box! However, she did receive a note in her school newsletter two days ago (completely supportive, without asking who it might effect and how!), and THAT was the first she learned about this. As she said to me this evening..... "If they (meaning the City Council and the Trailmakers) don't make the effort to come to me on something like this, something that will directly effect me as a resident of this street, how am I suppose to know that I need to contact anyone to voice my concerns and opinions?"

After an hour and a half of listening, and even brainstorming on how to best achieve the Trailmaker's goal while meeting the needs and concerns of the effected residents like myself and our mutual friend, I left having only one thing made clearer.... that is, this is not a mere little foot path that we're talking about, but rather an ADA approved Class 1 trail so as to be eligible for untapped grant money, as most new trails are Class 2 and highly competitive. Other than that, there was no persuasive clarification made on anything, mainly because she didn't have answers to some very basic questions. I asked the exact questions I posted earlier here, about the minimum requirements for getting the trails adopted. Composing that language is the first practical arena for compromise. However, she couldn't answer my questions in order to work together to move forward. She didn't have the information. A lovely and nice enough gal, but totally ill-prepared to persuade anything, let alone solicit a change of support. In fact, our mutual friend (knowing me quite well) was utterly confused as to why I was being so damn accommodating and cooperative.

After an hour and a half I had to leave because I had things to do. However, I later learned that this co-founder of Trailmakers, who has been working on this for at least 5 years, didn't actually know my property.... so our mutual friend walked her over. In my absence, the two played "if I lived here, I wouldn't want.... I would want...." game. And the two were on opposite sides of the fence about what they would want, their needs and desires, how they would feel...... about a property they don't even own!!

Then later this evening I stopped by another friend's home.... also a single mom of two, who, by 6:00, is finishing up dinner, getting homework done, and getting ready to get a child to S.R. by 7:00 for dance class (so excuse her too if she doesn't make staying up to date on local politics her pastime!!!). She works on Main Street. Today a fellow came in with his map and his solicitation for support. She too corrected him on how much "property owner" support they actually don't have because, while the trail will not traverse her property, it will enter and exit onto her neighbor's, making it very cumbersome and dangerous for her to get in and out of her driveway without accidentally hitting someone. And God bless her heart... (and I'd say this to her face with love!)... she is exactly the type that would accidentally hit a bicyclist entering/exiting next to her driveway. She too found that the solicitor could not answer her questions or address her concerns. Rather, just expected and anticipated a "YEAH, BIKE TRAILS!" response.

The conclusion I walked away with this evening, after spending the bulk of my day on this issue, talking to people ON BOTH SIDES, and trying to actively work towards a compromise, is: the Trailmakers are the ones who have dropped the ball here. They are the ones who have not done their homework to be able to answer the questions I have had here on this thread, questions others have asked here on this thread, questions I asked today in the park! They have NOT approached all the residents who would be directly impacted... as in, those who live on the streets of this proposed trail.

Now, neither one of these two moms have participated on this thread, but they fall into your "negative naysayer" category. You will see this single mom of two tomorrow night and next Tuesday, although she's never attended a city meeting before. You will not see the other single mom who lives near JRT because she has to work. You will most definitely see me, and I happen to know you will see others from this thread. But nobody is going to be attending because of your insulting, judgmental, back-handed attempt at a challenge. People do what they can do based on the information they are presented with, their priorities, and their availability. (Interestingly enough, upon my departure this afternoon, I inquired if the Trailmaker herself would be attending the meeting tomorrow night. Her answer was "no." She has her family to tend to.) So you go ahead and put your bully stick back in your pants!!! Like the Trailmakers, you are in a position to clarify, persuade, and compromise... not pass your third-grade level judgement on those who are directly effected and concerned, or even those who aren't directly effected, but have an opposing view. If you want to stretch your biceps by throwing out challenges like this.... you throw in my direct and my direction alone. Understood? You leave everyone else alone, because they are doing what they can, the best they can. If that means voicing their opinion here and here alone because they work nights, or have kids they can't leave alone....or whatever the reason is that this is their only outlet for participation.... I will defend the fact that THAT COUNTS!!!!

I look forward to seeing you tomorrow night, Mr. Eeeeeow.

(To everyone else here on this thread, I apologize for my confrontational tone. I, like others, am working really hard to put in the time to be supportive and find compromise. But this U.S. Marine's daughter has little tolerance for statements and challenges like Mr. Eeeeeow's. Despite what "side" we're on, we all care.... and I will gladly defend that fact, on anyone's behalf, at any level of participation.)

[Rustie]

Sorry you take such offense at that but the truth is if you're white and well educated you're privileged. Anytime you forget or question that take a walk outside of your bubble.

I've never been called or considered myself "privileged" before. If working in and with the community for over 30 years, going to meetings, co-founding an activist committee, and working to get good people elected, makes me privileged then I guess I'm that, along with a whole bunch of other ordinary people who do extraordinary things.

[scamperwillow]

So I guess that means pretty much everyone in Sebastopol is privileged, so why don't we see more of them at meetings?

Sorry you take such offense at that but the truth is if you're white and well educated you're privileged. Anytime you forget or question that take a walk outside of your bubble.

[Richard Nichols]

I'm not at all offended. You Rustie, are full of assumptions about who people are, and your atitude is very condescending. But that must be becuasre of your superior intellect. Anyway, i'm disconnecting from this thread because although the content can be informative, the attidudes and posturing are pretty atrocious.

Anyway, this white, priviledged and not very well educated boy will be at the trail meeting tonight. Hope to see you there.

Sorry you take such offense at that but the truth is if you're white and well educated you're privileged. Anytime you forget or question that take a walk outside of your bubble.

[nancypreb]

I totally don't want to derail this conversation, but this sidebar on "white privilege" totally reminds me of this epic interview and how masterfully the turn around to agreement, from seemingly opposite view/perspective/conclusions, was conducted by Jon Stewart. Check it out because I hear Rustie echoing Mr. Stewart's point to Mr. O'Reilly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-KBFuobhDk

Whether you agree or not, I thought it poignant that an elderly woman at tonight's meeting gently whispered in my ear, on the subject of bike and pedestrian focus in the GP, "It's about privilege." I'll have you know that this individual has absolutely no participation on this thread. She's only vaguely heard of Waccobb, so I know her comment was completely independent of the past few posts. That's why I found it so interesting that she too made the same connection. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but that it's interesting to note that the perception that some proposed solutions stem from a place of "privilege" is not a perception that exists in a vacuum. Food for thought.

I thought tonight's meeting was very interesting and informative....

[AllorrahBe]

You Go, Girl!
Rev. BE

Listen here, buddy! You need to back up and sit down!! I, one of the "negative naysayers" spent this very afternoon with one of the founders of the Trailmakers, in person, at a park, at her request, right here on this thread. I met her completely at her convenience as she had the needs a toddler to consider...

[Orm Embar]

Ok. It's taken many days, and you might not be interested in my answers any more, but here you are:

Following up with Rustie's questions -

Does your future vision of Sebastopol include tourism as its primary economy?
No

Do you consider the perception that we are moving toward a tourist based economy as valid ?
Yes

Does Sebastopol Trailmakers express the idea that tourism is one of the benefits of these proposed trails?
I can only speak for myself, not the whole group. Creating trails specifically for the benefit of tourism has never been a subject of any meeting I have been at. The benefit was an afterthought and I am guessing that it was included in the website content because the person writing that content has encountered people who would appreciate getting tourists out of their cars.

Do you agree that creating a tourist based economy is inconsistent with environmental sustainability?
I believe that a heavily-tourist-based economy is not a sustainable economy. Not financially; not environmentally.
I hear and share your concern about trending towards a tourist-based economy. While it might be unwise to turn our back on the potential of having tourism as a part of the economy, relying on tourist dollars for basic city services is unsustainable and foolish. I, personally, am looking forward to having a feed store right downtown again. I am very unhappy about the City actively pursuing something other than the tractor store in the heart of our town. I like it where it is and am a customer often enough to be angry if it is run out of town. A shoe repair service and an affordable and practical fabric store would be good additions to local services and a robust sustainable economy. But, you know, I am weird that way. I could also entertain the thought of a high density mixed-use car-lite development if a tractor repair store (or some other essential service like that) was included.

What does tourism have to do with these trails? There is potential for tourists to use the proposed Gravenstein trail (if it ever becomes reality) to get from the Fairfield Inn (near Cooper Rd) to downtown. There is also potential for the City to promote itself as one where tourists can come and not have to rely on a car for transportation around the heart of town. I am having trouble understanding how this will contribute to an environmentally unsustainable town. There is a whole lot we can do to avoid a tourist-based economy that is not dependent on the trails at all.

These pathways were thought of by real people with a real need. We are residents who live both in and just outside City limits. I appreciate that you are coming up with concerns and critiques. I hope that you also hear me when I say there is a need for neighborhood connectors that allow people to get downtown without getting into any vehicle and without being within feet or inches of vehicle traffic. Rustie's community shuttle idea is great too. I see this as a both/and situation not an either/or situation.

Background info: I experience Sebastopol traffic mostly as a cyclist who carries the most precious cargo I can think of (my children and myself). We have 1 family car which my husband needs in order to get to work. We are actively asking Sonoma County Transit to be more accessible for adults who need to travel within the County for work, so that our 1 car can stay parked as much as possible.

I am happy to say that we succeeded (in October 2014) in having SCT adjust their Route 26 to accommodate the needs of school children going to Rohnert Park. We now have an average of 12 students riding the bus every day. Sometimes upwards of 20. Before this change our oldest woke up early and arrived at school an hour early every day in order to ride the bus before these changes were made. I

write all this to let you know that I am not just thinking nice unrealistic thoughts or make things up about the needs of our community. I am living the needs every day. I hear them from my neighbors and parents at school and random strangers who come and talk to me while I am loading the bike at the library or grocery store. The message is consistent: we live too far out to make walking practical (1.5 -2 miles from city center) . . . we would bike if we didn't have to be elbow to elbow with car mirrors . . . our kids are too wobbly for us to feel safe cycling next to cars . . . etc. These needs have nothing to do with tourism.

My favorite question of yours: Will these trails really have an impact on car use and traffic congestion downtown?
Have you ever been out on Petaluma or Bodega Avenue on International Walk n Roll to School Day? I have. It is a blissful day to ride to school on a bike. It's pretty nice in a car too, according to my neighbors. There is space between cars. I don't have to wait 4 minutes to cross 116 at Elphick. It is quite amazing when local school families decide to get out of their cars.
Did you notice how traffic changed a few years ago when the price of gas spiked? I did. There were significantly less cars on the road during school drop-off and pick-up times. Walk-n-Roll to school tallies (once a month) confirmed my subjective experience with hard numbers: more people were walking and biking to school. According to the many many conversations I had with fellow parents during that timeframe, a lot of parents were doing so under duress. They simply needed to cut back on driving because of the expense, but felt very unsafe while walking and biking to school from certain areas of town.

The South and West sides of town were specifically mentioned over and over as being the hardest to bike or walk from. Even so, some parents created walking groups to help each other get their kids to school. Some were biking with their kids. The car traffic was less on the roads. As soon as gas prices dropped people got back in their cars in order to feel more safe.


My questions for you:
How many people do you know in town? Have you ever sat at a grocery store and watched people drive in, knowing they travelled 4 blocks? Some might be going to another town after that stop, but many go right back home. I've seen it. We do have through traffic - especially on weekends - folks driving to or from the coast or west county home. Still, a lot of cars on the road are traveling 1.5 miles or less. Getting us local folks out of our cars will mean less traffic and safer-feeling streets while still servicing those who must drive through town for work/home/errands from further away. Yes, these proposed trails make people feel safer. Yes, it will get more people out of their cars. Yes, the result will be reduced traffic congestion in town.

Just so you don't think it's just people with kids who are needing these trails: Have you observed anyone riding in an electric wheelchair, East, along Bodega to get into town? I have. They have to ride on the road because there is no sidewalk for a good chunk. Then, when there is a sidewalk, they stay on the road because the sidewalk is not safe for wheelchairs.
Or, have you seen the 3 different individuals I have seen riding their wheelchairs from somewhere South of Elphick, along 116 to get into town? I don't think increasing tourism is number 1 on their list of reasons to have an ADA-comliant trail into town.

Hope this helps to clarify my stance on tourism and maybe a little about why I am joining my friends and neighbors in asking the City Council to adopt the vision of these trails into our Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Yes, there are questions and concerns to be addressed. Let us address them in an official way, through the process of a feasibility study (which requires several public discussions) not by applying guesswork.

-Larkin

[Barrie]

I live in the county just west of Santa Rosa and do a share of my business in Sebastopol, this is in spite of the horrible traffic in Sebastopol. I ride my bike to Sebastopol on the Joe Rodota trail and also drive to town on Hwy 12. I can often get to Sebastopol faster by bike than in my car. It is especially convenient to go to the Barlow by bike. I think that this is a very crucial discussion so that bike paths can be built that truly serve the community. It is important to stick with talking points and not to hurl names at each other or to take on hostile attitudes. Barrie

[Barry]

Then the Council takes up this matter...
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, November 18th at 6:00PM
Youth Annex 425 Morris St.

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.

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: www.sebastopoltrailmakers.org

Feel free to contact us: [email protected]. We would like your email address to add to our list of supporters.

Here's the full agenda.

[Orm Embar]

Hi Everyone,

I am far behind in reading posts on this thread. I am actually still trying to erase my memory of someone suggesting that I (as part of Sebastopol TrailMakers) might suggest graves be dug up and moved in order to accommodate a pathway. Yuck! AND: yuck! yuck! yuck! yuck! That is such a horrendous concept. Is that what you think we are interested in? That is soooooo far off-base that I actually had to respond. Please tell me I didn't really read that. Please tell me it was a figment of my imagination and entirely due to the fact that I have had a total of 10 hours of sleep scattered across 4 days. (teething . . . gotta love it)

The cemetery has roads for cars and trucks. Only a small portion of the proposed pathway is outside of the existing road network, and it runs along a well-worn foot track that displays evidence that this route is useful and well-used already.

[Orm Embar]

One last novel, then I'm done with lengthy replies.

Nancy,

You are great to talk with in person, but I have to say that your on-line rants hit below the belt. There were other options if our meeting time or location was inconvenient for you. I offered a couple of days and times that were ideal toddler times, as a way of starting the conversation, and said that we could come up with even more times if needed. You said nothing about your preference, other than afternoon vs morning and readily agreed to one of the days and times I suggested. To say nothing and then use the fact that you met me at a location and time I suggested as fuel for your flaming of another poster is not cool. Our meeting was far from convenient for me.

To have you put words in my mouth (so to speak) feels pretty nasty.

I am thinking that you hadn't arrived yet when I outlined the steps for developing trails. I will repeat them at the bottom of this post.

In the meantime . . .

Nancy wrote: "I left having only one thing made clearer.... that is, this is not a mere little foot path that we're talking about, but rather an ADA approved Class 1 trail so as to be eligible for untapped grant money, as most new trails are Class 2 and highly competitive. Other than that, there was no persuasive clarification made on anything, mainly because she didn't have answers to some very basic questions. I asked the exact questions I posted earlier here, about the minimum requirements for getting the trails adopted."

Maybe you were expecting me to be a salesperson, but I am not. I was there to answer questions and listen. I respect that each person has their own relationship to these trails and I am not interested in having one run through your property. I did not say that class 2 trails are highly competitive. I said that Class 1 trail funds are often untapped and funding for these trails would not interfere with funding for other city projects. I did not tell you why. The reason why is that most Cities are not implementing class 1 trail projects. Some Cities do have class 1 trails in their master plans, but are understaffed and do not have the staff hours to devote to writing grants. Our town does not have competing class 1 projects, and going after grant funding does not interfere with other bike/pedestrian/roadway projects.

About this: "Nobody ever knocked on her door to tell her about this proposal or ask her opinion!"

First of all: It is the City's responsibility to notify its residents if there is an item that requires public input. It is not responsibility of people bringing an idea to the Council. Nonetheless, we did go knocking on many doors. We had a HUGE booth with picture and large lettered signs out on the Joe Rodota trail many many times over the years. We have been at the farmer's market, in front of local grocery stores, AND knocking on doors. Maybe not the best, but at least not a bad effort at getting the word out. Not so many doors along public streets were knocked upon, since there would be no infringement on anyone's private property. But, I totally understand that it feels like an infringement and definitely would change the experience in a neighborhood if there is significant bike/ped traffic.

In fact, I did tell her about it a long time ago. I did not bring this up when she spoke of it because you arrived just at that time. I told her about the trail idea during a conversation while I was her next door neighbor. I am not surprised that she doesn't remember because it was not such an alarming idea at the time. She expressed interest and concern. She gestured to her son's bike that had been out in the front yard for a couple days, right by the sidewalk, and said she was concerned that her neighborhood would lose the sense of protection and safety it had if it was transversed by more of the public. Yes, that is a concern. Living on a corner and being required to have a low or transparent fence sucks. People look into your yard and are judgmental. . . outside items are more vulnerable to theft. It feels great to live in a town where your kid's bike doesn't get stolen even if it is left outside for two days.

I am not interested in having folks "take one for the greater good". I would like to see these trails as a win-win (win-win-win-win-win) project. What if we came together as a community, raised funds and had a work party to build her a fence that met legal requirements for traffic visibility AND offered a more protected back yard? What if the feasibility study determines another route alignment is preferable and all this stress only takes more days off our lives and gives us more wrinkles? We are really only at the beginning of this whole process and there are too many options to warrant anyone raising their blood pressure over any one of them yet. Stay vigilant, yes. Stressed? Please, no.

And, yes, I was not interested in knowing which exact property was yours (even though I could probably guess) because I think it was too far-reaching to add a scenic route through more private property - at the last minute!! - when Jewel to Leland seems just fine to me. As I said in the beginning of this post: I am not going to even try to persuade you to allow a class 1 trail through the middle of your property. You are welcome to invite one, but I am interested in a different route.

My answers to Nancy's questions from a previous post:

In the spirit of compromise, I have a few questions for the Trailmakers.

1) You state "This act declares the trail is a vision, goal, and objective for our town according to our Master Plan. Adoption comes down to adding a line on the map in the Master Plan and identifying the start and end points of the proposed trail." So, do the proposed and/or final paths have to seamlessly connected?

If we say that we want the path to start at JRT and end at Sparks Rd. (an ending that deserves some explanation), does that mean that grant funding would not be available because residents on Eleanor Ave. say they don't want a designated bike path on their street, but you can pick up at Walker? Basically, can there be "gaps" in the trail and still be eligible for funding?

I answered this for you in person but I happy to repeat. Yes, there can be gaps. We can implement parts of the trail as they become feasible if the City Council does not put an "all or nothing" restriction on the project. Explanation for Sparks Rd ending point: It doesn't really end there. The proposed Gravenstein trail is intended to connect with the Petaluma-Sebastopl trail envisioned by the County.

2) You state "The County Parks Department can then start planning County area extensions of the trail beyond the City limits (Like the trail along the old railroad path to Petaluma.)." Do you mean to say that the county intends to build on the old railroad, like the JRT, or along side it, leaving the railroad open for possible restoration? Because, see.... here again.... I would much rather have a commuter train that meets up with SMART. If a bike path can go along side the old RR tracks, leaving the options for an electric commuter train campaign... like that which use to actually exist (which will take another 20 years to possibly realize.... but hey, why not dream?), then I can be more supportive. Are we taking a multi-faceted approach to the bigger picture, locally and county-wide.

You did not ask me this question when we met. The old railroad no longer exists in that area, as far as I know. I wish it did. An electric commuter/freight train out of Sebastopol would be very useful, but it would need to be rebuilt from scratch. The old railroad right-of-way is what the County's proposed path runs along. The former right-of-way now has been absorbed into private properties.

3) What does the path physically look like in concept? How wide? What does it look like on Eleanor Ave. and Leland St. vs. out amid the scenic Laguna and along Atascadero Creek?

I answered the part that you asked in person, regarding width, as best I could. This question really needs to be answered by a qualified engineer, not me, and not by any of the other TrailMaker volunteers. When I joined Sebastopol TrailMakers the regulations for class 1 trails required pavement. Since then things have changed to allow for a variety of all-weather surfaces. We have no consensus about what the path looks like, other than knowing it must meet all the requirements for a class 1 trail. The requirements are applied in such a variety, depending on the needs of each segment, that the physical path is best designed when/if the trails actually become a project. Public input would need to be involved. I am particularly interested in a water-permeable surface and one that is relatively sustainable and in-expensive to repair/replace/maintain.

If I remember correctly, ADA requirements for sidewalks is around 5 feet. I think it is more like 8 feet for two-way multi-use trails. Class 3 bike routes, like on Eleanor or Leland, simply utilize the existing road. Pedestrians use the sidewalk. If there is no sidewalk or existing sidewalk is not ADA compliant, the pathway funds would be used to make it compliant. At least that is what I would consider. But, again, I am not the person to ask these questions of. Especially since I am the type of person to think more creatively than most City staff would want me too. For example, I was dreaming of a decomposed granite trail that would be maintained at least once a year by a trail festival that involved bicycles and goats pulling box graters. Yeah, I can jive with engineer specs, but I also think "waaaaay outside the box".

OK. Here are the steps, as I know them and as I outlined them on Tuesday:

1) Have a great idea. Yay!

The following also happened, but is not required: Do a bunch of research to see if it has potential. Identify a possible route and knock on doors to talk with property owners and get a sense of their interest. Consult with Sonoma County Regional Parks about the proper process for developing trails. Call some engineering firms that do these sorts of projects and get a senior engineer to volunteer his time to come walk the route (with property owner permission) and tell us if he sees any red flags. (no red flags) Research funding opportunities.

2) Bring your idea to the City Council and ask that they go through the process to include proposed trails in their Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.

3) City adopts vision of trails into master plan after conducting required public meetings.

4) Obtain funding for a feasibility study.

5) Conduct feasibility study.
I asked an engineer from a company that has done a trail much like this (crossing both public and private land) if volunteer efforts can reduce the cost of a feasibility study. He said yes. Much of this work is gathering already-existing information and the gathering can be done by volunteers. The analysis and recommendations must still be done by state-recognized engineers and meet all legal requirements.

According to my knowledge, the feasibility study requires public input meetings; meetings with each private property owner; gathering information on all the technical aspects of constructing the trail; identifying costs; identifying any environmental considerations, and studying the best route alignment.

Although we are bringing our idea of a route to the city council, the actual path the route takes is determined by the feasibility study.

6) If the feasibility study offers compelling evidence that the trail is do-able the City Council can then choose to declare it as a "project" and start the process of raising funds to implement the project.

7) Project implementation has a whole other set of steps and I haven't researched all those.

-Larkin

[nancypreb]

Larkin, I wrote a very detailed response, hit submit, but it appears to have not gone through, and I don't feel like going through it all again. So I will be even more brief.

I'm sorry you felt hurt by my referencing our meeting, that was not my intention. The meeting was not remotely inconvenient for me. My point was simply to say that I was totally willing and made myself completely available to you. That's all. And I felt that an hour and a half was a sufficient amount of time to lend to learn something new. Read it again and see if you read it differently.

You're right, there was one question I wrote here on this thread that I forgot to ask in person. Other than that, you should know that you are far more articulate and concise in writing than was my experience with you in person. I'm glad your toddler has afforded you the time to catch up and respond. You are a very nice person too and it was a pleasure to spend time with you and your son, but I was not the only one who walked away feeling like I hadn't learned anything new about the subject at hand (at least not of any significant impact, other than this thing is to be ADA approved) or had any misunderstandings clarified. And yes, I was most certainly expecting you to be a salesperson. After all, you're trying to sell the idea of a bike trail to the residents of this town via the City Council! You're selling an idea, a vision, and knowing the in's and out's of it, as a salesman would, is not an unreasonable expectation. It felt more like an opportunity to meet a good person with good intentions who would benefit greatly from the trail, just like the other local folks who would benefit, and that that was what would persuade me to be more supportive.

I wrote so much more in my previous attempt but this was my conlusion: My feeling is that it is premature for this proposal to go before the City Council. My hope is that the council will postpone this agenda item to afford you the time to 1) conduct a preliminary feasibility study (With all the support you have, I'm sure you won't have any problem getting volunteers to help you acquire the already-existing information. This will also reduce the fees for the official study) and 2) to solicit the support of those who would be impacted by this trail... not just the property owners who's land might be traversed, or those who say they would use the trails, but specifically, the residents on the streets who might need volunteers to help them build higher fences to ensure a sense of privacy.

Again, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I was definitely lashing back at Mr. Eeeeeeow, but was trying to state facts and my experience when it came to referencing our meeting. And I honestly think that with a little time to process, as well as with the information that was provided at last night's meeting (it was nice to see you there, btw.... thank goodness for grandmas!), that you have presented a little more information here, and in a more articulate way, than you had on Tuesday. But the information I think both myself and our friend was looking for, is that "feasibility study" information, which yes, I did expect you to have.

I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday and I will be sure to apologize again in person. Mr. Eeeeeow.... that's another story.

[Kai Daniel]

The proposed bike trail is a good idea in my opinion. The more it can go through the countryside instead of paralleling the highway the better. Obviously in this materialistic society we can't go across private property without the express permission of the owner, so let's be polite and not get ahead of ourselves, eh? If imminent domain is claimed, that's really sad. I don't think Sebastopol should go around asserting it's authority like the king of Feudal England. That being said, I think the bike trail is in the interest of a great number of people, and private land owners should be tempted at the very least.

Rustie: I have several comments for you - the first is that you present crossing the major thoroughfares as an argument against sending kids down the bike trail. This confuses me. The bike trail is designed to keep kids from having to ride along the major streets, but having to cross them in order to get ice cream, that's just life. The second is simple, you advocate a bike v. shuttle argument as if we can't have both. Silly, I do say. One last thing: the electric shuttle idea is great, but giving my understanding of electric cars until we realize Nikola Tesla's idea of charging our vehicles en rout, for every shuttle running, there needs to be another shuttle charging in order to have seamless service. Most affordable electric cars have rather short ranges. Maybe you already factored that in, I don't know.

As for Burbank my suggestion is speed bumps. Lots of them! Speaking of respecting the elders, those reckless spandexed cardio junkies can slow it down for the old people! If being hit by careening cyclists is the actual reason for Burbank residents opposing the path, than this solution should satisfy them in my opinion.

As for the farm, I still need to explore the test garden myself. I just read "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yoganada, and there's a picture in it of Yogananda and Luther Burbank side by side. They were friends, and they both wholeheartedly approved of each other's work. Burbank farm should never be desecrated. As to whether a bike path would do that, I think not. I think a low fence to keep agriculturally challenged people away from the plants is a good idea, and farm workers need to look out for those careening cyclists, but I think Luther would approve afterall: what good is such beauty if you don't try to share it with as many people as possible?

As for the graveyard - I do not think moving graves will be necessary, and that would be sacrilegious in my opinion. I think the proposed trail goes down the middle of it, and there is a wide road there already. I think I have a healthy relationship with death, and the graveyard itself does not bother me. I am in favor.

The only sticking point as I see it is private property. If a private land owner stands his ground then we have to go pretty high in order to over rule him. Perhaps all the way to the supreme court. I don't think a bike path is worth that. I think we do have a few things to learn from Europe, and countries who have the ability to get what they want done and fast, but we shouldn't be taking too many leafs out of other books. We are highly evolved people living in a community of mostly enlightened people. We should be able to come up with a solution our selves that is perfect.

[Rustie]

Larkin, thanks to respond. I hope it's fair to say from your response that your short answer to the question: Does ST express the idea that tourism is one of the benefits of these proposed trails, would be Yes. That having been said, it was never suggested that the sole purpose or primary motivation was tourism. What was suggested is that according to Seb Trailmaikers these trails would be an encouragement to tourism. The promo also suggests that Seb Trailmakers perceive encouraging tourism as a plus to our town. If you do not want to see tourism as Sebastopol’s primary economy and you do in fact perceive that we are moving toward a tourist based economy then why would you want to implement a project that would be a boon to that very industry? It is interesting that you ask me what tourism has to do with these trails and yet you point out to me the potential for tourists to use these trails. You have also suggested that the City could use these trails to promote itself to tourists. I believe you've answered your own question.

Absolutely no insult intended Larkin but it is, in my opinion, naive to believe that countryside bike trails will represent merely an alternative mode of transport for tourists to peddle around our town. Have you not seen those big diesel buses driving through town with their signage “ Wine Country Bike Tours”?

I never suggested that bike trails will contribute to an “environmentally unsustainable town”, sorry you misunderstood. What I am saying is that these bike trails will not achieve a significant reduction in our vehicle use. If we want to walk our talk and be a “green” community, not to mention actually have an effect in attempting to improve our environment, then significantly reducing our vehicle use is necessary. I was at last Wed night's GPAC meeting and I heard numerous mention of, and great concern around bike & pedestrian paths. The committee consensus went as far as suggesting that we should not address traffic congestion in the hopes that this might encourage people to walk and bike. This is lunacy. I'm sure you can imagine the environmental hazards created by idling cars sitting in congestion and gridlock. A great deal of time was spent talking about getting us out of our cars and yet throughout this entire meeting there was no discussion of a bus/shuttle system. We have become so focused on becoming “bike friendly” that we have forgotten to use our common sense and critical thinking skills when addressing the serious issues facing our community.

You cite the International Walk n Roll to School Days and how successful that monthly program has been. You suggest that this supports your position that if the trails were built they would in fact have a significant impact on vehicle use and traffic congestion. If that is true then why all these many years later is Hwy 12 still gridlocked during rush hour while the JRT is virtually empty? Why don't all the folks that participate during the Walk n Roll to School Days continue to leave their cars and walk n roll their kids to school everyday? What the numbers tell you is that this is a community that will participate in special events but not necessarily change their daily lifestyles on a permanent basis.

You asked me how many people I know in town and if I was aware, by way of observation, that most folks travel a short distance into town. I never counted how many people I know in town nor do I sit at the store and observe their driving habits. I have no doubt that most folks do in fact jump in their cars to drive a small 4 blocks or 1.5 miles to and from the store. However that information does not substantiate your belief that those people would in fact not drive those 4 blocks if there was “safer” bike access. You have demonstrated nothing beyond that which we all know, most people drive everywhere. As I have already pointed out, the empirical data available to us through observation of the use of the JRT indicates that most people will not make the switch from driving to biking.

Again, to keep the record straight, I am not opposed to bike & walking paths I simply do not see these specific trails as the most effective way to reduce our vehicle use. In addition, as I've already stated numerous times, these trails do not go to downtown. No one has addressed that observation, yet you keep telling us how these trails are needed to connect our neighborhoods with downtown. How do you reconcile that discrepancy?

At Wed night's GPAC meeting I heard a great deal of discussion about connecting our outlying neighborhoods with downtown via existing streets. Methods for slowing down traffic, putting in standard bike lanes (5 feet wide) and directing through traffic around by way of bypasses are all some of the options expected to be included in the GPlan update. These suggestions are far more sensible & doable, in my opinion, than the idea that we cut through private properties and lay down road (ADA compliant) where none currently exists. Your proposal appears to be a duplication of the bike trail efforts already in progress. If the primary goal is to create bike & walking connectors to downtown then using our existing roads gets that goal accomplished.

In truth Larkin I see many flaws in your proposal and I do not see the support you claim to have. I don't believe we should ram this plan through the process and deal with the problems later just because you need the plan adopted by city council to be eligible for grant funding. You guys have been working on this for 5 years and the fact is that there are multiple critical landowners not interested in participating. This is a huge obstacle. I would suggest as a starting point you try collecting about 3,500 verifiable signatures from our residents. That would be about half of our population which still would not represent a majority but at least then you would have some credibility. As it stands my vote is to support the “neighborhood connectors” that are currently being considered utilizing our existing roads. I personally would rather put city funding, energy and attention into other projects that will likely have a more dramatic impact on reducing our individual vehicle use and, as I have suggested in previous posts, improve our economy via a localized working class industry that provides essential goods and services to our residents.

...

Following up with Rustie's questions -

Does your future vision of Sebastopol include tourism as its primary economy?
...

[Rustie]

Thank you for asking Kai. My point regarding crossing busy streets is in response to the continual talking points about the benefits of these proposed trails, specifically, that they will provide safe access into downtown. That's not exactly an accurate statement if the trails stop short of our core town leaving access into downtown by way of navigating dangerous crossings. In my opinion it speaks to credibility of the plan and it's designers. Am I to understand that you believe it better to get kids safely to the edge of town and if they get slammed by a truck when going that extra distance to get their ice cream “that's just life”?

Regarding your second point addressed to me, sorry you misunderstood my intent, and I can certainly see how you would have. Again, thank you to dialog directly, It is not my opinion that we can have only one or the other, bike path vs shuttle. It is my understanding however that funds are finite. It is on that premise that I perceive this as possibly an either or situation. If in fact we do have limited funds for projects it is my opinion that priority should be based on what projects will provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. Additionally, as I have repeatedly expressed, I have not seen any evidence to support the claims that these trails have a majority consensus. That having been said I am not so eager to spend city revenues, which are generated by our entire community, on personal pet projects that benefit a small select group.

The electric shuttles that I researched, which by the way was a very quick peek into options, have a range of 50-60 miles at full capacity. That would seem sufficient, though I am no expert, to run routes within Sebastopol without the need to be alternating buses throughout the day. Good questions, all of them, thank you.

The proposed bike trail is a good idea in my opinion. The more it can go through the countryside instead of paralleling the highway the better. Obviously in this materialistic society we can't go across private property without the express permission of the owner, so let's be polite and not get ahead of ourselves, eh? If imminent domain is claimed, that's really sad. I don't think Sebastopol should go around asserting it's authority like the king of Feudal England. That being said, I think the bike trail is in the interest of a great number of people, and private land owners should be tempted at the very least.

Rustie: I have several comments for you - the first is that you present crossing the major thoroughfares as an argument against sending kids down the bike trail. This confuses me. The bike trail is designed to keep kids from having to ride along the major streets, but having to cross them in order to get ice cream, that's just life. The second is simple, you advocate a bike v. shuttle argument as if we can't have both. Silly, I do say. One last thing: the electric shuttle idea is great, but giving my understanding of electric cars until we realize Nikola Tesla's idea of charging our vehicles en rout, for every shuttle running, there needs to be another shuttle charging in order to have seamless service. Most affordable electric cars have rather short ranges. Maybe you already factored that in, I don't know.

As for Burbank my suggestion is speed bumps. Lots of them! Speaking of respecting the elders, those reckless spandexed cardio junkies can slow it down for the old people! If being hit by careening cyclists is the actual reason for Burbank residents opposing the path, than this solution should satisfy them in my opinion.

As for the farm, I still need to explore the test garden myself. I just read "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yoganada, and there's a picture in it of Yogananda and Luther Burbank side by side. They were friends, and they both wholeheartedly approved of each other's work. Burbank farm should never be desecrated. As to whether a bike path would do that, I think not. I think a low fence to keep agriculturally challenged people away from the plants is a good idea, and farm workers need to look out for those careening cyclists, but I think Luther would approve afterall: what good is such beauty if you don't try to share it with as many people as possible?

As for the graveyard - I do not think moving graves will be necessary, and that would be sacrilegious in my opinion. I think the proposed trail goes down the middle of it, and there is a wide road there already. I think I have a healthy relationship with death, and the graveyard itself does not bother me. I am in favor.

The only sticking point as I see it is private property. If a private land owner stands his ground then we have to go pretty high in order to over rule him. Perhaps all the way to the supreme court. I don't think a bike path is worth that. I think we do have a few things to learn from Europe, and countries who have the ability to get what they want done and fast, but we shouldn't be taking too many leafs out of other books. We are highly evolved people living in a community of mostly enlightened people. We should be able to come up with a solution our selves that is perfect.

[Barrie]

An important consideration is that land becomes harder and harder to acquire as time goes by. If the land for the bike path isn't bought as soon as possible, which will be years rather than months, it will become impossible to buy land for bike paths. The city or county can always buy the buses. Today a friend & I scouted out the route between Main Street and the Cemetery, very little space is available NOW. Barrie

[scamperwillow]

The very lengthy staff report on the trails is now available on the city's web site.

An important consideration is that land becomes harder and harder to acquire as time goes by. If the land for the bike path isn't bought as soon as possible, which will be years rather than months, it will become impossible to buy land for bike paths. The city or county can always buy the buses. Today a friend & I scouted out the route between Main Street and the Cemetery, very little space is available NOW. Barrie

[Kai Daniel]

I agree that land is better left unpenetrated by new road structures. I think citing budgetary obstacles is a silly notion, if it's expensive we'll just have to save up for it. We can talk about money management, but I'd rather the city just shut up and started managing our money better.

Tourism is an interesting issue. I'm all for attracting people from all over the world to come. It is a testament to our awesomeness that people want to visit our town. We have one of the best farmers markets on the west coast, let's flaunt it! However, we don't want the city to turn into a teaming mass of gawking tourists. I thought the idea that Sebastopol at one time intended to become more like Santa Cruz was interesting. SC has a large multi-story parking structure just a short walk from downtown. What about that abandoned cement processing lot over on Morris? That would make a nice parking structure, not too far from the proposed Barlow Hotel... We could easily accommodate a larger influx of people. Especially if all they want to do is visit for a week, give us lots of their foreign money, and then be on their way. I think Sebastopol would be more attractive with another scenic bike trail.

Here's another thought, and I don't think it would affect tourism that much. A bypass. Calistoga has Tubbs lain, I've driven past Calistoga 50 times, and through it only once. The trucks, the diesels, the commuters, oh how they would prefer to skirt around this traffic cluster that is Sebastopol. The people who want Sebastopol can still drive here, but there will be an option if all you want is to go through. I don't have any idea how this might be possible, but I just conceived of it, so I know it is. In fact, I just created a parallel universe where it exists already.

How about we all just eschew our reliance on money and oil and adopt a veggie-based economy?

[nancypreb]

Just for this very second, I'm only going to reply to this,

... We have one of the best farmers markets on the west coast, let's flaunt it! ...

Oooooh Kai, you have sooooo very much to learn!!!!! [See Farmers Market thread here - Barry] Please feel free to contact me and I will fill you in. There is a reason why our local farmers market was part of a $30,000 settlement to me, and why I was banned from attending for five years. ( Because it's a huge unauthentic scam!!! And I speak truth!!!!!!!) It's not what you think it is, and it is certainly nothing to "flaunt." Who are you and how long have you been here, to make such claims?! You're "parallel universe" is a fraud, my friend. I appreciate your passion, but your knowledge of history is clearly insufficient to promote the shape of our future.

God bless.....

[nancypreb]

How is it that so many don't understand..... the town of Sebastopol, once called "Annally Township, " (named by my great grandfather's [David P. Gleason] sister's [Catherine Gleason] father-in-law [Jasper O'Farrell], only exists because of the two major highways we now deem so cumbersome, and the agricultural community that surrounds us. Stop referring to it as "the problem" just because you want to be less inconvenienced, while at the same time wanting to attract tourist $$$$$. It hurts people like me. It's painful to hear your "solutions." Sebastopol has never wanted to "be like Santa Cruz." That's a newbie's idea, my friend! We are who and what we are....and that's agriculture, NOT tourism! It's not that we can't or shouldn't accommodate tourism, but not at the expense of being our authentic selves!!!! And I truly question those who think they know what that is, exactly.