Sebastopol Trail Makers needs your support for new bike trails

[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
:heart:


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
(https://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 (https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/events-and-meetings/november_18_2014_city_council_meeting_agenda.pdf).

[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 (https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/events-and-meetings/agenda_item_number_8_proposed_bike_trails_and_funding_for_feasability_study.pdf) 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 (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?97335-Sebastopol-Farm-Market-in-the-Plaza-or-at-the-Barlow) - 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.

[eeeeeeow]

The reason people arrive at "solutions" is usually because they care enough about the place they live to spend their valuable time thinking about it. That it is "painful" for you to hear suggests you have a better idea as to how we should proceed with the economic development Sebastopol will be hard-pressed to avoid. Let's hear it. Stop ridiculing. Start sharing. There are many on this forum that take this approach. Please spend your energy in a more positive direction instead of all the naysaying.


How is it that so many don't understand.....

[nancypreb]

Au contraire!

1) Spend less time thinking, more time learning.

2) hold Barney Aldridge accountable to producing what he promised. ( if you were there, Eeeeeow, you would have heard me speak to this just last week at the Planning Commission meeting. But you weren't, were you.)

3) remember #1

Nuff said. Eeeeeow, were you there last Wednesday? Introduce yourself on Tuesday. Sometimes saying "no," is
saying "yes." But I don't expect you to understand that. Sad.



The reason people arrive at "solutions" is usually because they care enough about the place they live to spend their valuable time thinking about it. That it is "painful" for you to hear suggests you have a better idea as to how we should proceed with the economic development Sebastopol will be hard-pressed to avoid. Let's hear it. Stop ridiculing. Start sharing. There are many on this forum that take this approach. Please spend your energy in a more positive direction instead of all the naysaying.

[Rustie]

Kai, I really appreciate your participation in this discussion. Though we differ in opinions you take the time to respond directly to the different perspectives and ideas directly. Thank you!

Bypasses are something that were discussed at last Wed GPAC meeting. It appears that the concept will be included in our GPlan update. Your observations in Calistoga are a nice reminder to us that bypasses are effective.

It's interesting that you suggest a multi-story parking structure. I'm guessing you're new to this area or at least new to this forum. Anyway, I believe that the overwhelming majority of residents would be highly opposed to this idea, but maybe not, who knows. It would not be my first choice nor would it be consistent with the city's goals to keep our small town feel. Additionally a multi-story parking structure would also be inconsistent with our stated “green” policy. Parking structures are usually built from cement. Cement out-gases Co2. Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are a primary factor in global warming. There are other materials that can be used instead of cement but currently those are very expensive and would possibly push the costs of such an endeavor into the realm of prohibitive.

Regarding tourism, it's a slippery path to traverse. Tourism is a big buck industry, once you get that ball rolling you're not going to be able to stop or control it. The players involved are not likely to make the investment to keep it small.

It is clear that the world you would like to see is one where money and oil have no place however you are inconsistent in your vision. You suggest that tourism wouldn't be so bad and you have posited the idea that it would be a plus to take in “lots of their foreign money”. How do you reconcile this idea with your vision of “eschew(ing) our reliance on money”? You further suggest that we adopt a “veggie-based” economy. Is the idea that we develop bio-diesel jet planes to bring us those tourists from around the world? Think about it for a moment Kai, tourism is one of the highest carbon foot-print industries you could think of as an economy for any town. From the petrol based travel to move all those tourists back and forth to the little tiny plastic containers of shampoo, hair rinse, individually wrapped soaps and toilet paper and of course the daily regimen of laundering hundreds of pounds of linens. Let's not forget all of those slick shiny brochures that get handed out, left on tables, etc, etc, and eventually end up in our landfills. Most all of the employment opportunities created by the tourist industry are low paying service jobs. The problem is most people cannot afford to live in Sebastopol with a low paying service job. That means most of the folks coming to work in our tourist economy will be driving in from Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park or maybe even Petaluma. They will go home with their hard earned dollars and spend their money in their town where they can obtain reasonably priced essential goods and services. All the while Sebastopol will be catering to tourists from around the world and reaping in their dollars. How does all that fit with our town's often stated desire to create a localized economy and an environmentally sustainable community?


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 down town. 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 effect 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?

[Rustie]

Please stop all your empty lip service about the “naysayers” providing alternatives. You are not interested in alternatives or discussion you seem only to be inclined toward attempts at ridicule and argument. I personally have offered alternatives, specifically to you in response to another one of your empty requests for such. I still have not heard one single utterance of a response from you to those alternative. Others have engaged in intelligent discourse on these “alternatives” and this topic in general inclusive of the many twists and turns that this discussion has taken. But you Eeeeeeow, still nothing from you other than more of your disingenuous, rants. What exactly is your intent in pointing your finger and calling all with opinions contrary to yours “naysayers”? I would suggest working on your communication skills and engaging in discourse with something of substance if you have any desire to be taken seriously.


The reason people arrive at "solutions" is usually because they care enough about the place they live to spend their valuable time thinking about it. That it is "painful" for you to hear suggests you have a better idea as to how we should proceed with the economic development Sebastopol will be hard-pressed to avoid. Let's hear it. Stop ridiculing. Start sharing. There are many on this forum that take this approach. Please spend your energy in a more positive direction instead of all the naysaying.

[Barry]

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

Here's the link (https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/events-and-meetings/agenda_item_number_8_proposed_bike_trails_and_funding_for_feasability_study.pdf). It's rather involved. Doesn't sound like anything is going to happen soon, but productive work to sort out the complicated project is continuing.

Again this we discussed at the Sebastopol City Council meeting this Tuesday, Nov 18th at the Youth Annex of the Community Center. Meeting starts at 6pm, I'm guessing the trails topic will come up sometime after 6:30pm.

I'll see you there!

[nancypreb]

I've finally put the pieces together. I knew I recognized Mr. Eeeeeow's name.... Bill Shortridge, member of Sebastopol design review board and host of the Gravenstein Blogspot. https://www.thegravenstein.blogspot.com/. I am so incredibly disappointed in you, Bill, that for someone who wields some significant influence in the decision making of our community and hosts a community forum, that you are so adverse to opposing views and fail to yield to community member's real concerns. That you attack and dismiss (instead of address) the concerns of our seniors who live at Burbank Heights; challenge (instead of encourage) people to bring their concerns to public meetings- it's so very disappointing. I've met you once, in a lovely enough encounter outside my home, and that is why I am so very saddened by the realization that you would rather ram this thing through instead of hear people's concerns and feedback and address them, here or anywhere, now or later. Instead, you just want to sling a label onto the "Negative Naysayers," and be done with it. Something tells me it was you I ran into at the coffee shop the other day without you actually introducing yourself, but you didn't have the courage to introduce yourself, all I heard was "So that's you!" And I responded, "Yes, that's me," to a man I vaguely recognized. So what I know is this, Bill. You know where I live. I'm pretty darn visible to my community. You have even offered your support for what I am clearing "about." How could you possibly then be so dismissive of the concerns that I and other's like me have. Do you really not think our best interest is not the future welfare of this town? Is it because it would be personally beneficial to you out there on Pleasant Hill Rd. that you don't care what members of the community who would be directly affected have to say?

It's all so clear now.

[eeeeeeow]

Nancy, If i was worried about disappointing people, i wouldn't have volunteered for the DRB. But thanks for your input. Not adverse to opposing views, but your attempt at intimidating through revealing me in this forum is indicative of the type of approach i am opposed to. I don't know anyone on this forum who doesn't know who i am, btw. I'm not hiding and am quite proud that i am as involved as i am. And, yes, i've heard the Pleasant Hill Rd. criticism before, but we spend our lives downtown. So whether it's my opinion or that i am of opposing views... So be it. I will always speak my mind. I look forward to seeing you at the meeting tomorrow night to discuss if you like. Oh, and i haven't been in a coffee shop since the opening of the new Hard Core. I drink all my coffee at home very early in the morning. Thought i'd share that with everyone before you did. But i digress. This forum has turned its back on the main issue, hasn't it?


I've finally put the pieces together. I knew I recognized Mr. Eeeeeow's name.... Bill Shortridge, member of Sebastopol design review board and host of the Gravenstein Blogspot. https://www.thegravenstein.blogspot.com/. I am so incredibly disappointed in you, Bill, ...
It's all so clear now.

[Barry]

OK, that's enough personal squabbling folks!:duel:

Come on out tomorrow night (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?108550) and share your concerns and desires with the city council.

[Orm Embar]

It's taken me a while to type this and I am guessing that other posts have happened since I started, so please bear with me if this post seems out of place.

A point of clarification, to address concerns I have read here and elsewhere:

It seems that some people are concerned that these proposed trails will be decided upon without community input.

I am wondering if it is thought that tomorrow night is the only opportunity to stop or alter these trails?

That is not my understanding of the process, nor would I be ok bringing this proposal to the Council if I thought tomorrow is the end-all-and-be-all of this project. Sebastopol TrailMakers is bringing a proposal to City Council tomorrow (Tues) night and asking the Council to start the process of notifying and asking the people of our community to weigh in on the idea. We need public meetings at a variety of times that work for those who work during the day AND those who cannot travel from home at night.

I want our community to look at safer routes that meet the needs of those who do not have access to (or choose not to use) motorized vehicle transportation and want to walk, ride bike or wheelchair to downtown. Our current infrastructure does not meet these needs. Bike lanes on the road is a start, but do not address the needs of people who are not confident bike riders, those who are wheelchair bound, or those who want to walk away from a busy thoroughfare.

We have an idea that would meet those needs, but it needs to be considered by the larger community. Hopefully our collective participation can come up with ways to address the concerns that are brought up about these trails. The concerns cannot be addressed, though, by the small group that is proposing the trails. The concerns need to be brought out and addressed by our entire community, then they can be placed into the Master Plan with strong support by the "people".

That is the process I am asking our Council to initiate. I am not asking our Council members to swallow this proposal and approve it without due process. Please come and participate tomorrow night and I hope the Council decides to move forward in hosting public meetings so I can invite you all to participate more in the future.

Warm Regards,
Larkin

[nancypreb]

I will try this again.... Barry, please stop censoring (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?108613-Nancy-and-the-Multi-Use-Trails).....

Personal squabbling?!! This is a member of our community who has been appointed by our city council, who we voted for, to use his expertise and knowledge to do the will of the people.... and this is how he "listens" to his community?! This is not personal attacking.... this is accountability! And we are not remotely off the topic of this thread.... this thread is about the decision making process about the future of our town, and how the fix is in before ever hearing from the people. That's is why all you want to hear is the "support" and not the concerns. That's why you ridicule those who speak from another perspective on this thread instead of considering them. That's why you, Barr-Y, close the dialogue down and call it "moderating."

....Ooooh look, Barry has given me my very own thread! I guess now, you all can find me at "Nancy and the Multi-use Trail." Just like what happened when we were discussing the farmers market. I guess I'm not part of the "community."

You know what, you're right Barry, you're right Bill, and Larkin, I guess you're right too.... it's just a little bike trail. What's the big deal? You go ahead and let the rest of us know when we should think seriously about it, and how seriously. That way we won't be wasting anyone's time.

[cynctysings]

Larkin, Thank you for your clear and calm post. I, too, am ready for this to be taken into the community... and, hopefully, it will be. I am not opposed to finding alternative means to traverse the town and the neighborhoods we all cherish. I am in favor of it. I hope to learn more at the meeting tomorrow and will introduce myself to those of you that I don't know who have spent time communicating your positions and thoughts on this thread. It is important to me to know my neighbors, no matter what our opinions on any given subject are. Ultimately, we are all in this together. See you at the meeting. Cynthi


It's taken me a while to type this and I am guessing that other posts have happened since I started, so please bear with me if this post seems out of place...

[Kai Daniel]

I think it would be cool of there was a bike lane on the side of the road all the way from the Hook and Ladder to Bodega Bay. Then you wouldn't have to be a reckless speed-demon to safely bike to the coast! The proposed path from Watertrough down through Burbank... I can see how it might be impossible for a number of reasons, and I don't agree with anyone who tries to push it through without looking at and seriously addressing all the factors.

Thank you for calling me out on my inexperience, and conflicting personal viewpoints. I'm only 25, and it's hard to practice good dharma in this messed up world. On one hand, I love the green movement and everything it stands for. I think we should all reduce our carbon foot print as much as possible, and all drive electric cars. On the other hand, I'm really excited about hopefully owning a truck soon. The fact that it only gets 18mpg only bothers me a little because it's a 4x4 stick-shift toyota, and something about that really turns me on. Life is paradox. Give me an all electric solar powered truck capable of hauling a load of compost 100 miles, and I will drive it, but I'll still miss gas.

For the record, I think the model of tourism that Rustie describes is a terrible idea. I say we redefine tourism, and get to know tourists and invite them into our homes and serve them homemade stew and give them personalized tours on bikes and electric shuttles! Not usher them off to an expensive hotel and give them cheap crap in a fancy wrapper. I think you are probably right, Santa Cruz, is more of a big city and Sebastopol is more of a small town. Is not the translation of Sebastopol "small city". How about instead of a huge parking structure we invest in a bunch of really slick bike storage options? Also, how about we get the state to build a modern train between here and Oakland... like they have in Europe? You know, public transportation...? Let's build a community people will want to come to and stay for months!

Nancy, I am sorry you are in such relation to our farmers market, because I see that it is beautiful, and it is good. You have roots that go back to the founding of our town, how can anyone be more connected than you? The idea that you would be banned from coming to our main cultural event saddens me. Maybe you can come back sooner? I think people here would forgive you if you changed your tune...I have forgiven you already and I don't even know you. God bless....

[79paul]

Just a couple of items bouncing around in my head as we lurch towards Tuesday.

- Rustie, you have mentioned an electric shuttle "For less than $200,000 the city could buy 5 low speed 15 passenger electric shuttle buses fully equipped with wheelchair ramps, floor mounts and tie downs. Throw on some bike racks and now you have a small fleet of non-petrol based local transportation that can service the entire community. Increase the bus/shuttle stops throughout our neighborhoods, core town and to the Joe Rodota Trail, establish a schedule that runs in 20 minute intervals seven days a week, provide door to door service for disabled folks and stop or limit downtown traffic. Apply for some grant funding and now we can expand the proposed project and still be under the bike path's tap into city coffers."

I think you may have to add an extra zero to that figure, especially if you actually expect to have humans driving them. You can't buy any such public transport bus for under $75k each, plus maintenance, drivers (unionized with benefits, right?), bus stops, etc. You would need at least 6 to run on your proposed schedule. I too would love to see a local shuttle, but to equate the two is a red herring.

The majority of the funds to construct the trails could be covered by State and Federal funding sources. The $250-300k cost to the city over 30 years (with very low interest) will be about the same as what Sebastopol is spending on constructing a new storage space for the fire department. A small price for the amount of benefit to residents.

- Those who decry "tourists" have probably never tried to run a retail business. Being a small business owner is tough. The idea of local business owners turning away tourist customers due to their carbon footprint, be it airline miles or shampoo bottles, is ludicrous. People will travel to places they find interesting, places that welcome them, to mingle with people whose values they share. Instead of the derogatory name "tourists", maybe we should think of them as guests. We have an opportunity to create industries that cater to locals and tourists on our terms, and we shouldn't mind sharing our paths with visitors. In terms of tax structure and demographics, we need a mix of local and outside revenue. It may be hard for some who imagine we can somehow survive on legal agriculture, but we are not an island economically, so we should play to our strengths. We're hardly in danger of becoming Disneyland. If you doubt that, ask a struggling business owner, who happens to employ local real people.

- There has been no talk of imminent domain in the planning of these trails. The Trailmakers have been working tirelessly for several years to reach out to land owners to willingly allow paths to skirt or cross private property. Gentle persuasion and logic, not arm twisting.

- Tuesday's meeting is only a step in the process. No one is ramming anything anywhere. The purpose of the meeting is to 1) Add these trails to the Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and 2) Start the Feasibility Study to work out the many details. These steps are very low cost and are required to get the projects moving.

There will still be plenty of opportunity for discussion and compromise.

[nancypreb]

So you should know a few things, Kia.

1) There use to be an electric train from here to Petaluma, and from there to the ferry that could take you to Oakland.

2) Public transportation is a much more interesting topic to pursue!!! I am grateful that the bike trails issue has brought public transit to stronger light as it is far more effective and efficient.

3) The city has been promoting agri-tourism and home-stays. HOWEVER, they have made a caveat that guests can only stay in your actual home, not in a granny unit or convert detached garage; thereby, limiting the individuals like myself who would be happy to serve stew and gravy. Instead they're wanting to put in a fancy shmancy Hotel Barlow (60 rooms) and ignore the promise of the Barlow development all together, for the sake of the gross tourism Rustie refers to.They are ignoring putting dollars into the hands of those who live here and would rather it go to a hospitality franchise. The meeting on that is Thursday. Hope you're there!!

4) There's nothing to forgive in way of farmer's market.... it was part of a settlement agreement, a concession rather. I did nothing wrong. Period. It's just the price I pay for speaking out loud and speaking my truth.... no fresh fruits and veggies for me! Just know that that's how it works around here. If you speak your truth out loud, you get banned (or at least your own thread.... right,Barry?!) To ask me to change my tune is like asking a musician to play a style other than his/her own. My tune is a harmonic balance to the tune that you already hear. You just don't realize that.... but there are plenty of others who do.

5) I forgive you too, Kia. If you ever want to learn to milk a cow, castrate a goat, groom a horse, or skin a rabbit, I'm always happy to teach the way Sebastopol use to be.




...Thank you for calling me out on my inexperience, and conflicting personal viewpoints. I'm only 25, and it's hard to practice good dharma in this messed up world....

For the record, I think the model of tourism that Rustie describes is a terrible idea. I say we redefine tourism, and get to know tourists and invite them into our homes and serve them homemade stew and give them personalized tours on bikes and electric shuttles! Not usher them off to an expensive hotel and give them cheap crap in a fancy wrapper....how about we get the state to build a modern train between here and Oakland... like they have in Europe? You know, public transportation...? Let's build a community people will want to come to and stay for months!

Nancy, I am sorry you are in such relation to our farmers market, because I see that it is beautiful, and it is good. You have roots that go back to the founding of our town, how can anyone be more connected than you? The idea that you would be banned from coming to our main cultural event saddens me. Maybe you can come back sooner? I think people here would forgive you if you changed your tune...I have forgiven you already and I don't even know you. God bless....

[santoshimatajaya]

i can see the advantage in both the bike/walking trail and public transit and whole heartedly support Kai's insights into the nature of this town wanting to preserve this small intimate natural-oriented partially rural community and creating community on a real level, person to person, rather than typical mainstream consummerism, big scale=big money

we all need money at this point in the game yet we realize how much we all need something in common human-wise where communing is a spontaneous and joyful need provided through things like the Market and other ways of sharing being together

as far as this woman being ostrasized from the Market that does not sound like a unanimous decision but one that may have been made by one or two and sounds very harsh and exclusive rather than true resolution and inclusive tho i don't know the circumstance of the incident/s

seems there is room for everyone to choose their way to experience and learn whether or not these choices work different strokes for different folks, we're not going to change that tho alot of consideration is needed in the process of imagining, choosing/committing and creating/building it's great to have this WaccoBB forum to discuss and hear

Here's to the wonder ful ness of the process!

[Rustie]

I didn't forget to add any zeros Paul. There are all kinds of electric bus/shuttle vehicles available. Size, speed and range are just some of the factors dictating prices. A full size electric bus that has the ability to replace a standard petrol powered bus is in the neighborhood of $300,000 plus. The stats I provided in speed, range, capacity and amenities represent electric shuttle buses available for just under $30,000/each. I don't make this stuff up, nor do I present what I think something is unless I qualify it as such. I researched this and those were the results. I don't know where or how you have come to the conclusive information that you “can't buy any such public transport bus for under $75K”. That statement is simply not true. I would suggest that, if you have not already done so, you do a little research into this particular subject before you make such matter-of-fact sweeping bold statements. Based on my research, 5 buses at $30k each is a total of $150,000. Of course we have to add tax, license, transport, etc which is why I used an estimated cost in the vicinity of $200,000. Additionally there are state and federal grant funding sources available for projects of this nature as well. The FTA has some sources, one example is the Clean Fuels Grant Program.

In regards to maintenance, drivers etc. I have already addressed that in a previous post. Those are not capital investment considerations. Those costs are ongoing operating expenses and as such are not included in your initial cost evaluations. Operating and G&A expenses are offset by revenues. To include the consideration of these expenses in the capital investment evaluation is incorrect at best. To be further using those operating costs as part of your analysis in a comparative study of the two is disingenuous. Let us not forget that these bike paths will also incur ongoing operating expenses. We will need maintenance, clean-up, and security, as a few examples. One difference is that a transit system would of course generate revenues to help offset at the very least some, if not all of its operating costs whereas the bike paths will be a constant 100% economic burden to the city and its taxpayers. Has that factor been considered and included in the proposal?

We will always have visitors from outside of our area. Technically folks from S.F. visiting friends in Sebastopol are tourists by definition. The point is not what we call them. The point is whether or not we are engaged in actively reaching out to draw them into our community en mass, as does a tourist based economy. If in fact we choose to take the tourist path then we need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for being a part of our environmental problem rather than a solution. This is a slippery path and you cannot expect to open the can and control how many worms crawl out.

Small business owners in our community absolutely are having a difficult time. I suspect the problem is two-fold. One, commercial rents have become extremely high in our town, as have residential rentals and property values. This drives the cost of living up, drives locals out and you're left with no one to buy your overpriced goods and services. Two, an overwhelming number of small businesses in our town do not provide essential goods and services. If locals need a shoe repair, a dry cleaner, underwear, linens, fabric, diapers etc, they leave town and drive into SR, or maybe RP, Petaluma, etc. Now rumor has it that another trend is surfacing in Sebastopol. This is the sale of residential properties being bought up by out-of-town investors &/or developers. The buyers are not living in these dwellings nor are they flipping them, they are renting them out at a monthly rate greater than your average working class wage earner can afford. Certainly our struggling small businesses are not going to be able to pay wages commensurate with the income required to live in our town. Result, they will no longer be employing “local real people”. Instead, their employees will most likely be driving in from SR. I think you can see that if you get this ball rolling the potential to reach critical mass is greater than was expected, perceived or desired.

If in fact this is the vision our community is yearning for I am certainly not going to try to push another agenda. My point is simply, are we noticing where we are headed? If we look around and the majority says “yes and that's OK” then I would merely suggest we stop giving lip-service to clever little terms like “environmentally friendly”, “localized economy” and a “green community”. It is my opinion that it is this very inconsistency in our actions vs our words that drives the perception held by many of our county neighbors that Sebastopol residents can't be taken seriously. If this is not the direction we want to go in then I would suggest we get very busy taking real action instead of gathering to paint our sidewalks and committing our city's resources to consider a redundant and questionable, at best, multi-use trail.


Just a couple of items bouncing around in my head as we lurch towards Tuesday.

- Rustie, you have mentioned an electric shuttle "For less than $200,000 the city could buy 5 low speed 15 passenger electric shuttle buses fully equipped with wheelchair ramps, floor mounts and tie downs. Throw on some bike racks and now you have a small fleet of non-petrol based local transportation that can service the entire community. Increase the bus/shuttle stops throughout our neighborhoods, core town and to the Joe Rodota Trail, establish a schedule that runs in 20 minute intervals seven days a week, provide door to door service for disabled folks and stop or limit downtown traffic. Apply for some grant funding and now we can expand the proposed project and still be under the bike path's tap into city coffers."

I think you may have to add an extra zero to that figure, especially if you actually expect to have humans driving them. You can't buy any such public transport bus for under $75k each, plus maintenance, drivers (unionized with benefits, right?), bus stops, etc. You would need at least 6 to run on your proposed schedule. I too would love to see a local shuttle, but to equate the two is a red herring.

The majority of the funds to construct the trails could be covered by State and Federal funding sources. The $250-300k cost to the city over 30 years (with very low interest) will be about the same as what Sebastopol is spending on constructing a new storage space for the fire department. A small price for the amount of benefit to residents.

- Those who decry "tourists" have probably never tried to run a retail business. Being a small business owner is tough. The idea of local business owners turning away tourist customers due to their carbon footprint, be it airline miles or shampoo bottles, is ludicrous. People will travel to places they find interesting, places that welcome them, to mingle with people whose values they share. Instead of the derogatory name "tourists", maybe we should think of them as guests. We have an opportunity to create industries that cater to locals and tourists on our terms, and we shouldn't mind sharing our paths with visitors. In terms of tax structure and demographics, we need a mix of local and outside revenue. It may be hard for some who imagine we can somehow survive on legal agriculture, but we are not an island economically, so we should play to our strengths. We're hardly in danger of becoming Disneyland. If you doubt that, ask a struggling business owner, who happens to employ local real people.

- There has been no talk of imminent domain in the planning of these trails. The Trailmakers have been working tirelessly for several years to reach out to land owners to willingly allow paths to skirt or cross private property. Gentle persuasion and logic, not arm twisting.

- Tuesday's meeting is only a step in the process. No one is ramming anything anywhere. The purpose of the meeting is to 1) Add these trails to the Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and 2) Start the Feasibility Study to work out the many details. These steps are very low cost and are required to get the projects moving.

There will still be plenty of opportunity for discussion and compromise.

[Kai Daniel]

First (this will seem off-topic to some maybe) the VBC was awesome, we painted the actual street, and it brought the community together in a really cool constructive way. I hope it becomes a long-lasting tradition (and judging by the number of young people participating like myself, I bet it will).

I think it's important to draw a distinction between tourists and guests. Anyone with a connection to Sebastopol, folks with people they know who live here, or deep affinities to the area, should be considered guests and treated as such. Tourists are people who are probably just passing through and maybe have never been here before. How we treat those people will depend entirely on how they treat us.

The Hotel in the Barlow... I'm a guy who likes to see function in everything. We already have two big hotels in town, do we really need another? Do all our current rooms fill up during events? I'm cool with a new hotel, especially if it's as neat and modern as the Barlow seems to be, but only if we actually need it.

Rustie, you are clearly the champion of this tread, I dig the purple. I especially liked your last post. I think you really hit the nail on the head in regards to outsourcing of local jobs and the taking over of foreign investors. Sebastopol may be heading in the direction of loosing its autonomy, if it has any to loose.

I'm excited now to hear about how tonight's city council meeting goes... I would be there, but I things that need attending to... on that note. Cheerio!

P.S. Thanks to all for the appreciation and gratitude! I like the way this conversation has evolved.

[AllorrahBe]

I was there along with several residents of Burbank Heights & Orchards, as well as the eloquent community leader who spoke dissent on behalf of Luther Burbank's Gold Ridge Experiment Farm, a national treasure and one-of-a-kind property that must not be desecrated for any reason. Countless volunteers have given countless hours for many years to preserve the entire property, as well as the cemetery, which I understand originally belonged to Burbank as well. However, the moles and voles and gophers or whatever creatures tunnel under this entire hill... they made the soil so unworkable and they ate so much of his products that he donated the land for the cemetery; he could not make the whole thing his farm!

Just imagine trying to put a ten-foot-wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail right across the farm, endangering or causing to be moved or destroyed some of the historic plants and trees, effectively killing this treasure. The alternative suggested of going around the back of BH&O and the Farm and along the path to the cemetery seems to have been dismissed, or perhaps the mapmakers were not able to accommodate the suggested route for various other reasons. I am so grateful the Council seems inclined to take a slow approach and be really certain they look at all points of view... hopefully, most of them, before hiring the next consultant!

Thank you, Barry, for providing this much-needed sounding board; thanks to all of you who have come forth on this thread. I AM now cautiously optimistic the multi-use trail will NOT cross Burbank properties and all will be well.

Rev. BE :heart:

[Barry]

There a couple of issues that are getting intertwined with the multi-use (and multi-purpose) trails discussion that I would like to see as separate threads: shuttle service and tourism. The multi-use trails proposal only tangentially touches on these topics. These are pleasant side benefits. If these were the only benefits I don't think they would have anywhere near the support they have now, and I doubt they would even be proposed.

Yet both are very worthy topics on their own right. You are welcome to kick off a thread on one of these topics or I will, once the trails discussion settles down.

The key concern, is the route of the trails. I'd love to see somebody take a problematic section of the trail, or one of the more generalized concerns and suggest a solution. Any new concerns would also be welcome.

I'd also like to see (on this thread or the new city council trails thread (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?108644)) how you think the city council should handle this apparently contentious and important issue.

[Rustie]

City Council has pulled the trigger on how to handle the trail issue. At present it would seem that there is no room left for what we think they should do, that's what Tues meeting was about. Anyway, they unanimously voted to “direct staff to return with an outline of a public process and preliminary budget to consider the study zone areas from the Joe Rodota Trailhead to south of town and from the Joe Rodota trail to the west of town for consideration of amendments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including any need for initial professional consultant assistance and CEQA Analysis.” The preference is for a Class 1 when possible and other classes when Class 1 is not feasible. There are no specific routes related to the study zone areas. I was left with the impression that, with the exception of John, they very clearly did not want to convey inclusion &/or consideration of the Sebastopol Trailmakers proposal.

Regarding the “tangential” issues, I appreciate that you allowed them to remain on this thread. Agreed, they certainly have enough merit to occupy their own place in discourse but I think that they were important to this thread while leading up to the city council meeting. Just as an aside, both issues, tourism and transit were mentioned at the meeting (not by me by the way).


There a couple of issues that are getting intertwined with the multi-use (and multi-purpose) trails discussion that I would like to see as separate threads: shuttle service and tourism. The multi-use trails proposal only tangentially touches on these topics. These are pleasant side benefits. If these were the only benefits I don't think they would have anywhere near the support they have now, and I doubt they would even be proposed. ...

[BothSidesNow]

City Council has pulled the trigger on how to handle the trail issue. At present it would seem that there is no room left for what we think they should do, that's what Tues meeting was about. Anyway, they unanimously voted to “direct staff to return with an outline of a public process and preliminary budget to consider the study zone areas from the Joe Rodota Trailhead to south of town and from the Joe Rodota trail to the west of town for consideration of amendments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including any need for initial professional consultant assistance and CEQA Analysis.” The preference is for a Class 1 when possible and other classes when Class 1 is not feasible. There are no specific routes related to the study zone areas. I was left with the impression that, with the exception of John, they very clearly did not want to convey inclusion &/or consideration of the Sebastopol Trailmakers proposal.

Regarding the “tangential” issues, I appreciate that you allowed them to remain on this thread. Agreed, they certainly have enough merit to occupy their own place in discourse but I think that they were important to this thread while leading up to the city council meeting. Just as an aside, both issues, tourism and transit were mentioned at the meeting (not by me by the way).

You've gone down to defeat graciously, Rustie, after fighting the good fight.
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse, I do want to object, Barry, to characterizing the issue of transit as tangential to the issue of building the trails. It really isn't a tangent. Why? Because of the reality of limited resources--i.e., limited money. Unless the pool of funds in Sebatopol, unlike the rest of the world, has no limit, the money that will be allocated to improving bike trails is unavailable to improving public transit. At least for now. (And unfortunately, time is another limited resource.) Still, viva democracy.

[nancypreb]

I don't think there was defeat at all. I mean, we all say we're for bike trails, but we want to put together as viable a plan as possible before spending money on feasibility studies. And most certainly, the people spoke and I think they were heard (by every council member but John)... there needs to be more public processing before adopting it into the General Plan. That's what I understood the council did. 1. They want to see a well-laid out approach to getting more public input on a viable trail and 2. They want to know how much we'd be looking at spending with the consideration of our overall budget. I don't see it as defeat, I see it as wise compromise.

And I totally agree that transit is not a tangential topic. We should be looking at a comprehensive approach to our transportation needs. If what people want is a safe way to get to downtown AND a safe way to navigate through it, with transit you have less cars and the bicycling experience will be that much safer. It is very narrow minded to not want to look at this whole thing as a comprehensive transportation plan (inclusive of pedestrian, bicycles, and vehicles), as oppose to "transportation by the 'enlightened' versus "motorized vehicle users," especially when balancing financial resources is a major concern. That's exactly why we have always been required, and it seems that we will continue to do so according to GPAC (however, not in a regulatory fashion), to provide a LOS report for developments... and now we're asking for it to include "Level of Service" not just for motorized vehicles, but pedestrians and bicyclists too. The GPAC knows to look at the issue from all sides, Barry- you should too.


You've gone down to defeat graciously, Rustie, after fighting the good fight.
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse, I do want to object, Barry, to characterizing the issue of transit as tangential to the issue of building the trails. It really isn't a tangent. Why? Because of the reality of limited resources--i.e., limited money. Unless the pool of funds in Sebatopol, unlike the rest of the world, has no limit, the money that will be allocated to improving bike trails is unavailable to improving public transit. At least for now. (And unfortunately, time is another limited resource.) Still, viva democracy.

[AllorrahBe]

Sandy, I totally agree with every point you made in this letter, and my two neighbors in N4 and N6 feel vehemently violated by the insanity of this proposed route. Our "living room" windows overlook the path to the steps to the crosswalk to the bus stop... I have a bird's eye view of all that goes on out there, and it is A LOT!
I did feel reassured at the meeting that what we saw on the map is just a "suggested" route... I have boldly "suggested" they find a kinder way to get their way. I submitted a list of objections that were not mentioned in the meeting.
Let me know if there's anything further we can do.
Rev. BE :thumbsup:


I guess the thinking is that more folks will ride bikes and drive less. We here at Burbank Heights and Orchards are objecting heavily to the proposed part of the trail that runs through our property right past the church. Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Seb. City Council and others:

I am writing to protest the inclusion of a bicycle path through Burbank Heights and Orchards. The proposed path running next to the ‘R’ and ’S’ buildings is a particularly dangerous idea. Frequently, there are delivery trucks parked at the curb, and other vehicles double parked waiting to pick up tenants who need help walking. This narrows the available space for walking and riding. Although there’s a sidewalk there, pedestrians would have to get to and from the sidewalk, encountering bicycles.

Residents living here range in age from 62 well into their nineties. Many walk very slowly, some are recuperating from injuries or operations. Others are hearing- and vision-impaired, and a cyclist yelling out “on your right” or ringing a bell might not be heard, and might frighten a person as they quickly pass. In addition, the city bus stops right there, further impeding through traffic.

The bike paths are a necessity and I’m all for them. But, pedestrians are frequently at risk. I no longer walk on the Joe Rodata Trail or other bike trails because of the danger to myself. The speeding bikes coming up very close to me, especially in both directions, before I can get to the side of the path where it’s not paved, are unnerving. That same danger can be applied to the path at Burbank Heights. Bikes and pedestrians do not belong on the same path.

We are old. We move slowly.

Must we wait until someone is hurt?

sandy2y

[Barry]

...
And I totally agree that transit is not a tangential topic. We should be looking at a comprehensive approach to our transportation needs....

I agree, but that's not the question on table. The request was to add these trails to the "Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan" (here's a version from 2011 (https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/suekelly/seb_bike_and_ped_plan_amended_11-1-11_complete.pdf)) which is part of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Note this does not include vehicular traffic.

[Rustie]

Thank you for your support, kind words and most importantly the vision to see the bigger picture. In truth I really don't feel like we were defeated. The final motion was to formulate a budget for consideration of a study of multi-use trails in the particular study-area of south and west of town. Transit was included in Sarah's talking points and I believe that if we are interested we could certainly put an electric shuttle system on the table. That might or might not compete with available funding for multi-use trails. That having been said, Barry, you are correct, the question that was on the table was “should this particular proposal be adopted”. In addition the ST were asking for $23,500 from the city for a feasibility study and grant-writing. It appeared to me that all council-members, with the noted exception of John, viewed this particular bike trail proposal as flawed. City staff elucidated the problems and recommended not to pursue this proposal. In the end the official answer was a resounding no.

For the Wacco record, as I have already stated on multiple occasions, I am not opposed to bike/multi-use trails as a general rule. I was vehemently opposed to this particular trail proposal for a multitude of reasons starting with my first post on this thread – it runs through private property. Lynn Deedler attempted to paint a picture leading us to believe that “most” of the critical landowners were on board with his proposal. This was not true. Not only was there an overwhelming number of stakeholders opposed to this trail traversing their land and neighborhoods but many were unaware of the plan until the recent weeks preceding Tuesday night's meeting. I have no idea what Lynn and his team were thinking to put this before city council without having first gone through proper public notice and due process. In my opinion this move demonstrated a flagrant disregard for our community.

It was evident that this lack of public notice was the primary deal breaker for our city council. We all know from this thread that Burbank Heights and the Burbank Experimental Farm were not on board. As it turns out the Hollyhock Development, the Laguna Vista Development, the Laguna Foundation and an entire neighborhood on Eleanor and Walker Aves were also some of the stakeholders absolutely not endorsing this plan. Furthermore the cost analysis presented by the ST was incomplete, omitting several big ticket items (environmental clearance, permitting, design & engineering costs and land acquisitions & easement costs). The plan over-reached and in the end city council was not going to commit to a proposal of this magnitude laden with so many flaws.

What I don't understand is how so many intelligent, well-intentioned folks were unable to notice the gaping holes, misconceptions and ill-conceived elements of the plan. My point throughout this thread was to encourage folks to stop thinking from their tiny-world perspective. In that spirit I presented alternatives and long-view scenarios. There is no doubt that sooner or later we will have bike/multi-use trails in Sebastopol as well as throughout Sonoma County with many of them serving as “connectors”. However, considering that most every city has budget constraints, and that we are reaching critical mass in regard to climate change, I keep asking, is this the best we can do at present to move us as quickly as possible toward significantly reducing our carbon foot-print and localizing our economy?


You've gone down to defeat graciously, Rustie, after fighting the good fight.
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse, I do want to object, Barry, to characterizing the issue of transit as tangential to the issue of building the trails. It really isn't a tangent. Why? Because of the reality of limited resources--i.e., limited money. Unless the pool of funds in Sebastopol, unlike the rest of the world, has no limit, the money that will be allocated to improving bike trails is unavailable to improving public transit. At least for now. (And unfortunately, time is another limited resource.) Still, viva democracy.

[Barry]

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2014-11-23_21-50-58.png

Dear Multiuse Trail Supporters,

The trails proposal before the council went well. One of the most important things that happened is that the Council heard loud and clear how important these trails are to the community. They listened. They got it. They did not take the big steps that we had hoped for, yet they did take positive steps to move forward.

For those of you who came and especially if you spoke for the cause, thank you. This made a difference. The place was packed with advocates.

The meeting was also attended by many who did not want a trail on their street or Burbank Farm. They were organized and spoke with passion and wanted the trail somewhere else. However, a telling moment was when an individual speaker asked the crowd "who thinks we need these multi-use trails," every hand in the room went up. It is not if we should have the trails, but where.

A point that came across strongly by trail advocates, and was probably good for the City staff to hear was that lines painted along the edge of the highways are no substitute for an off road trail. Many accomplished riders made statements like, "I will not risk my daughters life there….” and several stated they had been hit by a car riding at the edge of busy roads.

Actually what the Council did:

1) Require Planning Department to return with a public process for determining a E-W and a N-S (Class I trail priority) trail extending from the Joe Rodota Trail near Hopmonk, and,

2) determine the cost of a professionally managed feasibility study for inclusion in the 2015-16 budget in April.

It did not put the proposed trails into the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, but this is progress.

A final take away — we need to involve all the affected community in the process and solution. People need to be informed and invited to participate in creating an alignment that works for them. Also, we need to keep multi use trails in front of the Council, for it really is public support that will make it happen.

With gratitude,
Lynn

[Serendipity]

Oh my God, people are so spoiled! We are lucky we have bikes, let alone roads to ride on. This is already freakin' paradise and to think we are without is just greedy after awhile.

I personally like the roads with the potholes and near beside car traffic. It reminds me of living in the city and it gives me perspective on how good life is.

and on the subject of the good life, if you're living it, you don't need to ever be concerned with public transit. If your situation is ever one that requires/relies upon the bus for anything more than a week, you learn quite quickly how desperately inefficient this system is.

:Yinyangv:


Just curious if you know what you're talking about, Rustie.

What are people thinking? Well, at least several are thinking of ways to make an alternative (and safer) solution to the crappy, pothole filled roads that cyclists are forced to ride on due to lack of a viable alternative. Do they claim it will be the end all/be all perfect solution to take the "bulk of our traffic off the roads"? No. I'd consider them fools tilting at windmills if they did.

If they have the support of most of the critical landowners, then they are well on their way to doing something nice for the community.

-Gregory

[AllorrahBe]

Although I am a resident of Burbank Heights & Orchards and do not want any intrusions upon Burbank properties, I get it that you-all want/need some bike trails to make your lives "better." And I applaud your "heart" for the matter! It would just make things so much easier for us (up here at the Farm) to support "the trails" if they had not been presented as though there was some deep thought, much communication and consideration of the issues that most certainly affect the people on the streets and properties traversed by those proposed trails. The fact that many citizens never knew about these proposed trails falls upon those who are advocating for change. Promoting the concept that "most" property owners or stakeholders were on board for the trails as proposed and shown on the maps was directly responsible for the huge alarm we (up here at the Farm) felt when we realized your proposed trail was going to cross our property, rather than going around it, along the property line, as our people have already suggested. It's just toooooo dangerous !!

We've successfully put a man on the moon; we've cured polio; we can find a good way for bikers to bike, kids to get to school, Moms to stay home instead of running the kids all over town in their SUVs.... we can do this!

My suggestion: Pray God will open our eyes, our ears, and our hearts, that we may find "the way" to accomplish good for all of our citizens, now and for the future.

Blessings of Peace and Harmony,
Rev. Allorrah Be, CAHt.

[AllorrahBe]

Hey! About those buses... I've been there and done that! When I first arrived in Sonoma County five years ago, I was in very bad shape. The woman who rented me an empty bedroom for $700 a month (least expensive place I could find in Marin/Sonoma County area!) told me of Doctors with a Heart. She said a member of her church, a chiropractor, would examine me free and treat me for something like $7 or thereabouts. It took about 2-1/2 hours to get from home (9th Avenue and Stony Point Road) to the DCs office in Cotati! And, after the adjustment, at least 2-1/2 hours to get home, but sometimes longer because more people were riding later in the day. I saw fights. I smelled pot. I was sometimes scared. But the doc told me I had at least 10 bones out of place when she examined me!

But, after all, I am finally healed of all my discombobulations! But I sure wouldn't want to have to make those bus trips again. But here's the thing:
That was "that" bus system. We can create our own system here in our little town to ease the traffic situation. Then we can extend it out to connect with Santa Rosa transit and Sonoma County transit and any other transit entities there may be, serving other outlying towns.

I believe Sebastopol is the heart of Sonoma County and I believe we can accomplish whatever we can agree upon. So, let's start with WHAT DO WE ALL AGREE ON? Sounds like we all agree we need some bike trails out here. Lets get smart and do it right! Lets do such a great job we get written up in the magazines and actually be able to teach others how to do it. Squabbling about the path is just a waste of time and effort and patience!

It seems to me like a good idea surfaced (we need bike trails!) and then it almost became obsessive/compulsive, to the extent that reality got "bent" a bit, and "other considerations" were not examined or honored. So what was fervently hoped for among the advocates was cause for great alarm among other stakeholders. But we can't go back and do this right from the start; we can only go forward with plenty of public input all the way through the process. It also seems to me this entire conversation is more about how we do community than how to get this one project done... we have an extremely intelligent and active population out here in West County and, given the right incentives and leadership, we will do the right thing. Let the advocates revise their plans according to the public comments, not just their own interests. I believe we can do this! Prove me right!
Rev. BE :heart:

[nancypreb]

I want to applaud Lynn for his poise in the presence of that jam-packed room full of emotion. It was not an easy room to stand in front of, but Lynn did with grace and eloquence. It was admirable. I especially liked the line, "There's only one person in this room who gets to tell me what to do!" So cute... reminded me of my parents!

I also want to echo Cynthi's comment to the effect that this proposal united this town in a way that we have not seen for a very long time. Despite what side of the debate you were on (and in this case "debate" is a good, appropriate, and healthy part of the process), gatherings were happening among neighbors in living rooms all across town. This proposal got this town energized about something besides the easy target, CVS.

There were people in that room that never go to city meetings. There were people there for their first time ever. There were teenagers. Granted, they were getting credit for their class, even extra if they spoke, but they got a real and valuable education in civics. I think we're moving in the right direction as the City evokes more community participation.

[79paul]

I would echo Nancy's sentiments of applauding Lynn's efforts to get this going, and hope that those many people who said "I support this proposal BUT.... " will step forward and help make this a reality.

I was proud of the decorum and civility of our community last Tuesday night, and especially pleased with our mayor and how he handled the proceedings. Having been to many council meetings over the past dozen years, first on Laguna Vista, and later on CVS, where the community had a clear target, I was pleased to see that we could be civil and hear each other's opinions.

Although we're far from perfect, in light of what's going on in Furgeson and other divided communities around the country, I'm glad to be living in this community. A Thanksgiving poem for us:

An Invitation


Make of your kitchen a hearth
where you warm and nourish your life.


Make of the sky over your town your temple
where you refresh yourself daily.

Make of the people in your town your Beloved
to rediscover with kindness each day.

Make of the earth of your town your own garden
where you gaze with attention each day.

Make of your life a steady flame of delight.

Look around you in this moment and see
how all of this, pierces us with pain and such happiness.


- Elizabeth Garber


I want to applaud Lynn for his poise in the presence of that jam-packed room full of emotion. It was not an easy room to stand in front of, but Lynn did with grace and eloquence. It was admirable. I especially liked the line, "There's only one person in this room who gets to tell me what to do!" So cute... reminded me of my parents!

I also want to echo Cynthi's comment to the effect that this proposal united this town in a way that we have not seen for a very long time. Despite what side of the debate you were on (and in this case "debate" is a good, appropriate, and healthy part of the process), gatherings were happening among neighbors in living rooms all across town. This proposal got this town energized about something besides the easy target, CVS.

There were people in that room that never go to city meetings. There were people there for their first time ever. There were teenagers. Granted, they were getting credit for their class, even extra if they spoke, but they got a real and valuable education in civics. I think we're moving in the right direction as the City evokes more community participation.

[Rustie]

Hey Paul, just as another perspective, to be supportive of an idea &/or proposal does not necessarily mean one feels it worthy of their attention to bring it to fruition. Perhaps it means only that they would not actively go against it, with the noted exception of whatever the "but" stands for. I personally feel that stepping forward and making multi-use trails a reality should be up to the folks who were so busy trying to convince us that Lynn's original proposal was worthy. It obviously wasn't and it's absurd to think that those of us who recognized the flaws should roll up our sleeves to fix them. The idea that no one opposes bike paths as a general rule is not that same as we all think they are important.

In Lynn's most recent post he clearly misrepresented Magic's question to the room when “every” hand was raised in agreement. Her question was not “who thinks we need these multi-use trails?" Her question to the room was “if you would like to see a healthy safe place that doesn't invade anybody’s rights already to have a bike path(s), a walking path would you want that, could you raise your hands if you would want that?” There is a significant difference in these two questions. I personally don't feel that we “need” these trails. In truth if the question posed was as Lynn is attempting to suggest I would not have raised my hand and it is likely that the hand count would not have been unanimous. My point is, when we tacitly accept the path of illusion and/or passive-aggressive manipulation we lose our critical thinking skills, our integrity and our ability to discern what it is we are actually pursuing.


I would echo Nancy's sentiments of applauding Lynn's efforts to get this going, and hope that those many people who said "I support this proposal BUT.... " will step forward and help make this a reality.

[Magick]

My name is Magick and I am the person that Lynn quotes in this post when he says, "However, a telling moment was when an individual speaker asked the crowd "who thinks we need these multi-use trails," every hand in the room went up."
This summation of what I said is inaccurate.

What I was trying to do was bring us all back to common ground by stating that I know we all want our children to have safe bike paths to school, and we want our elders to be respected, we want our neighborhoods to be safe and we want our air to be cleaner..

I appreciate all the work people have put into this so far but I was not advocating for your proposal, Lynn, I was advocating for a united community exploring how to reach these goals together in a non-confrontational way.

There was confusion at the meeting because it was not clear that this was still in the exploratory stages and what we hopefully did accomplish that night was a process for that exploration. That is what Una Glass proposed. She stated repeatedly she wanted a qualified, paid facilitator so that all our concerns and imagination could be synthesized into a cohesive plan.

People were reacting out of fear that their homes were threatened. They thought they had to stop something right then.
The tragedy of that evening was there were so many people that were new or rarely come to meetings and we could've put our imaginations together. But without the sense that there were alternatives and it was going to be this plan or none, the meeting became adversarial.

So sad that children who were there with hopeful parents thinking they were showing their young ones democracy at work instead heard people mainly speaking in a defensive mode. Sad, watching the expectant young faces look dismayed when they were hoping to hear that a dream of biking all over their town safely would be the outcome.They witnessed people who do care very deeply, forget that if they were parents or grandparents to these very children they would be offering help and hope.
I would hope in the future the council would frame such a topic in a way that would be inclusive by laying the foundation of common ground, explaining the process, so people are not defensive .

When everyone raised their hand it was as a community united around values. Now the process of exploring how to initiate those values in a respectful, considerate way, with alternatives offered, this our challenge.
In solidarity, Magick


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2014-11-23_21-50-58.png

Dear Multiuse Trail Supporters,

The trails proposal before the council went well. One of the most important things that happened is that the Council heard loud and clear how important these trails are to the community. They listened. They got it. They did not take the big steps that we had hoped for, yet they did take positive steps to move forward.

For those of you who came and especially if you spoke for the cause, thank you. This made a difference. The place was packed with advocates.

The meeting was also attended by many who did not want a trail on their street or Burbank Farm. They were organized and spoke with passion and wanted the trail somewhere else. However, a telling moment was when an individual speaker asked the crowd "who thinks we need these multi-use trails," every hand in the room went up. It is not if we should have the trails, but where.

A point that came across strongly by trail advocates, and was probably good for the City staff to hear was that lines painted along the edge of the highways are no substitute for an off road trail. Many accomplished riders made statements like, "I will not risk my daughters life there….” and several stated they had been hit by a car riding at the edge of busy roads.

Actually what the Council did:

1) Require Planning Department to return with a public process for determining a E-W and a N-S (Class I trail priority) trail extending from the Joe Rodota Trail near Hopmonk, and,

2) determine the cost of a professionally managed feasibility study for inclusion in the 2015-16 budget in April.

It did not put the proposed trails into the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, but this is progress.

A final take away — we need to involve all the affected community in the process and solution. People need to be informed and invited to participate in creating an alignment that works for them. Also, we need to keep multi use trails in front of the Council, for it really is public support that will make it happen.

With gratitude,
Lynn

[AllorrahBe]

The reason BH&O residents were so vocal in their objections was because almost every thing we read referred to "these trails" or perhaps "the trails," which would imply specific trails already named and mapped out and circulated to various people in the area (insiders?) That very same map made it impossible for even bikers who live here to approve the dangerous route proposed across our campus and Luther Burbank's historical Gold Ridge Farm.

The buzz on campus is that we achieved our purposes by attending and protesting en masse, so we can now move on to protesting the CVS intrusion upon our peaceful enjoyment of our homes... or go back to sleep, as the case may be.
Rev. BE :heart: