Misinformation about the Northeast Area Plan!

[Jen T.]

Dear fellow Citizens,

I'm very concerned by the level of misinformation that is being spread about the Northeast Area Plan! Some people are now under the impression that major box stores like Walmart will be coming to town or that the Northeast Area Plan includes building on pristine wetlands in the Laguna de Santa Rosa.

Everyone, please just take a deep breath and read the Plan materials before getting upset about rumors and misinformation. If you haven't been to the City Council and Planning Commission meetings, then you should come and participate in our democracy.

Our City Council is very environmentally responsible and I believe that they will thoroughly read and research all of the information and opinions presented by everyone before making a decision about the Northeast Area. We have had such uncivility lately and I really want us to get back to a more open minded and respectful dialog.

Best,

Jen Thille

[Sybil de Ville]

I share your concern. The hit piece that came in the mail yesterday is a desperate attempt to scare people who may not know all the details about the plan into opposing it. The worst it contains is an implication that those who do not agree with the SPC's position on the plan do not care about our town. The truest statement is that "every voice is needed".

[Helen Shane]

I am dismayed, but not surprised to read that one person labeled "The Northeast Area Plan - Citizen Perspective" a hit piece. Members of the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition have been concerned for many months about the lack of information being made available by the city, to members of the community. We felt that only those who read the inserts in their water bill (confess now, do you read it each time?) or those who read Wacco were getting more than a smidgen of information regarding the NEAP. The newspapers simply don't have the space or people to cover this matter in the depth it requires for a real grasp of its magnitude.

We were so concerned that about 20 people walked every neighborhood in town (and some beyond) a couple of months ago and handed out and discussed factual information and yes, opinions about the Plan with many householders. We were astounded by the number of recipients who commented that they either knew "nothing about the Plan" or had no idea of the size of the Northeast Area or had no idea it would effect them.

This confirmed our belief that too many people had been left out of the process.

We felt the City's view that they had held 17 workshops over time should have sufficed to disclose all was misguided. We communicated what we felt as lack of thorough communication and suggested that the City could publish a fact sheet and mail it to every household in the City and part of the surrounding area for around $1000. This was months ago. No action was taken to do this.

So we did.

Many SPC members and several businesses, large and small, contributed the funds to accomplish it. It is an attempt to inform citizens of what is planned for our town. It is factual and yes, reflects our view that the Northeast Area Plan is too big, to obtrusive, too kitchy and is therefore inappropriate for our small country town, the vision set forth in our current General Plan. We think the Plan needs to be smaller and more sensitive to what and who we are, and to the Laguna at our doorstep.

In any case, our hope is that however you perceive the Citizens Perspective, you will read every word and that it will encourage you to attend the City Council Meeting where the EIR and the Plan will be discussed and decisions will be made as to how big Sebastopol wants to be, and what character it wishes to maintain or abandon. See you there. 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 20, at the Community Center.

[Jen T.]

Hi Sybil,

Yes, these are these same old fear mongering tactics designed to scare the z%*@ out of people who are busy just trying to get through their day. Many people simply don't have the free time to go to every meeting, and misinfornation is designed to take advantage of people who have not been closely following the whole process. And there has been quite a process with 17 public meetings over 5 years and hundreds of people attending and having input! We must all keep an open mind and not believe everything that we hear or read!

The Northeast Area Plan involves important issues that have been and will contininue to be discussed such as traffic, water, growth, perservation of open space, etc. We absolutely need to have those discussions and listen to each other's concerns, but then we have to make the best decision for the overall sustainability of Sebastopol. We have a serious budget shortfall of $400,000 and we need to begin to move in a direction that addresses that.

Do we raise taxes on our citizens or should we cut vital services such as fire, police, roads, water systems, Ives Pool or support for many non-profit groups? Personally, I would much rather find ways to increase our revenue so that we can continue to have the high quality of life that we all enjoy. We can't afford to ignore our problems in the hope that they will go away, or condone fear tactics designed to scare people into submission.

Some people are so afraid of change that they will try to keep any change from happening. I love Sebastopol and I absolutely want us to stay a small town and retain our small town character. No-one wants us to become a big city or have large box stores like Walmart, but we do need to revitilize in a sustainable way if we are going to avoid increased taxes or cuts to the services that we all use and need. Every voice is needed and not only those who are spreading fear! Please read the actual Northeast Area Plan materials and then attend the City Council meeting on May 20th at 7:30 at the Community Center!

Best,

Jen Thille

[Zeno Swijtink]

The Northeast Area Plan involves important issues that have been and will continue to be discussed such as traffic, water, growth, preservation of open space, etc. We absolutely need to have those discussions and listen to each other's concerns, but then we have to make the best decision for the overall sustainability of Sebastopol. We have a serious budget shortfall of $400,000 and we need to begin to move in a direction that addresses that.

Do we raise taxes on our citizens or should we cut vital services such as fire, police, roads, water systems, Ives Pool or support for many non-profit groups? Personally, I would much rather find ways to increase our revenue so that we can continue to have the high quality of life that we all enjoy. We can't afford to ignore our problems in the hope that they will go away, or condone fear tactics designed to scare people into submission.

Some people are so afraid of change that they will try to keep any change from happening. I love Sebastopol and I absolutely want us to stay a small town and retain our small town character. No-one wants us to become a big city or have large box stores like Walmart, but we do need to revitalize in a sustainable way if we are going to avoid increased taxes or cuts to the services that we all use and need. Every voice is needed and not only those who are spreading fear! Please read the actual Northeast Area Plan materials and then attend the City Council meeting on May 20th at 7:30 at the Community Center!

Best,

Jen Thille

I also am increasingly surprised by the tone and general gist of the arguments from the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition, given that there are some, what I thought were, serious environmentalists involved, besides the usual drone of NIMBYs.

In a way the name "Sebastopol Preservation Coalition" summarizes what is wrong with their message.

"Preservation": this was a rallying cry of the environmentalism of yesteryear. Since then we have come to understand better how nature is always in flux, and that to try to "preserve" a landscape, freeze it as it was at some moment - often a time in the past - makes a landscape vulnerable to the inevitable shock waves of variable climate, variable fire regime, variable cycles of insect infestations, variable oceanic conditions, variable everything.

Instead of preservation what we need is ecological resilience. By resilience, we mean the "capacity of linked social-ecological systems to absorb recurrent disturbances (...) so as to retain essential structures, processes, and feedbacks" (Adger et al., "Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters," Science, 12 August 2005).

Our community needs economic, environmental and social resilience. We need to look at the long term plan for development for the NE Area with the question of resilience in mind.

How does this blue print makes our community economically, environmentally and socially more resilient? Resilience is improved by diversification: a greater variety of economic activities, a greater variety of energy sources tapped into, more biodiversity, a greater variety of people, with a diversity of perspectives and creative endeavors.

"Preservation of the small town character" is such a limited point of view, only fitting a retirement home.

"Sebastopol": by taking on the city's name the Sebastopol Preservation Coalition shows another small-minded point of view.

The NE Area Plan is not just about Sebastopol, it's about the whole region. It's about a vision of dense urban centers separated by greenbelts. We need to stop sprawl away from city centers as it destroys habitat and habitat connections, and reduces biodiversity.

Nowhere shows the SPC its limited understanding as clearly as in its reference to traffic impacts of the project. Complete build-out is said to "attract 55,627 added vehicle trips each week" or "8100 new car trips per weekday."

Of course these projections, taken from the EIR, are notoriously uncertain, especially given the slow implementation of climate protection policies in the county, given increasing energy restrictions, etc.

However, that these trips are not "new" or "added" but are diverted from sprawl and the greenbelt escapes the Coalition. In fact, current EIR methodology is not assessing regional impacts of projects such as this one.

Following the Coalition's line of thinking we would reject any railway station for SMART since it "attracts added vehicle trips each week."

There is also falsity in advertising by slanting in the SPC's mailing. They are silent that the City has hired Daily Acts, the forward seeing non-profit, to direct water conservation outreach and that the water needs of the NE Area can and will be matched by conservation elsewhere in the city, if the council is encouraged and supported to do so by forward thinking people.

[cbauman]

Dear Jen,

I agree. It is true that very few people really know the whole story of the Northeast plan, including me! I have attended many meetings.

I will tell you that staying within the General Plan that allows 2 story building heights and less density per acre than what is proposed and therefore less traffic is what I would consider ideal. The Northeast Plan changes the General Plan that is supposed to guide Sebastopol's growth and development for this particular project in ways that are going to be problematic on down the line.

This larger project will rake in a lot of revenue in the beginning but I fear there are going to be significant costs on down the line to conserve water, fix problems of infrastructure in the older parts of town, add on services such as parking lots, public transit, meters, traffic mitigation measures such as round-abouts or pedestrian-friendly walkways, and widening the roads such as Fircrest, Lynch, Ragle Ranch Road and other roads used by people as a bypass to the downtown traffic problems. These added costs may make these projects not as lucrative as one would hope for.

Project 1500 parking spot deficit comment taken out until accuracy verified.

Did you know that older Sebastopol residential streets are only supposed to have 2000 car trips a day? Healdsburg Ave. is slated to become Level of Service F in every single intersection. Just to give you a picture of what Level of Service F means: think of Friday afternoons at the Main St. intersection-that is Level of Service F. Despite the growth of car trips per day on Healdsburg Ave. there have been no studies done to access how many more cars per day could be expected on side residential bypass streets such as Florence, Pitt Ave, Jewel, High School Road, etc. Why? The maximum 2000 car trips on these older streets per day CANNOT be increased because it is UNSAFE at higher numbers. How can you allow huge increases of traffic on Healdburg but expect the car tips to remain the same on the side bypasses?

Simply put, there will be safe, green, and pedestrian-friendly streets on one side of Main Street and unsafe, crowded, noisy streets on the other side if the Northeast Plan is passed as is and amends the General Plan.

The traffic studies they have done use the Level of Service A-F instrument which measure the flow of traffic and ability to get around in a reasonable amount of time. There were no other traffic instruments used. The designer actually said that this project will have no impact on the traffic! I heard him say it. Why could he say that with such confidence? Because they are not measuring traffic congestion or loss of service AFTER the traffic goes beyond the Level of Service F.

They are convinced with a sigh that the Level of Service F traffic congestion is inevitable and passing these degraded traffic levels standards can't make it worse than it will already be. The Planning Commission and members of the City Council have echoed this sentiment over and over. Even with a "well, if the traffic gets worse then people will just have to get out and walk."! Think about that statement. When over half the people who drive in Sebastopol are only passing through or stopping for one or two errands, where are they going to "get out and walk?"

There is no talk of preparing Sebastopol for the significant increase in traffic. No mitigation measures.

I am not making this stuff up. I have done a lot of research.

Also, you need to consider the potential loss of revenue if there is as much traffic as they predict. People from the northern coast who make up a significant amount of consumers that frequent Sebastopol may end up going to new businesses springing up in Graton and Forestiville because they don't want to spend an extra 20-30 minutes hunting for a parking spot or wading through the traffic. Then the city will have to put in traffic mitigation features to woo people back to Sebastopol. Not good.

Some financial factors that may deter people from moving into that area which include:
1) The occasional big flood
2) Flood insurance (wow is that expensive, especially for businesses.)
3) Earthquakes on a fill area (will melt as it did in the SF Marina fill area?)
4) More expensive units built, with reduction of affordable housing
5) Water issues in a drying environment (higher water bills and forced conservation measures?)
6) Not to mention the high density, high rising building that will change the character of the town forever.(Have you seen the live/work units on Sebastopol Rd., Rohnert Park or Petaluma? Filling very slowly. And they are mostly TWO stories high, not FOUR.) Add on some fill height when trying to envision what Morris Street will look like with four story buildings.

This may not be as lucrative in the long term as the city hopes in collecting significant ongoing housing and business revenues.

I agree with you that the city has to do something to address the shortfall. So bring on new revenue-producing development but do it logically and sensibly within the limits of the General Plan as drafted at great expense and time to guide Sebastopol's growth.

By the way, this is not the only development that they have approved. They have a approved several developments that will make up approximately the same number of living units as this project. Good for the coffers in the short term but if done in too large a scale will create a rocky road on down the line.

I hope that the Council will be known for making all of Sebastopol a pedestrian-friendly, sustainable and profitable place to live for generations to come.

Thanks. Chris Clay Bauman

Hi Sybil,

Yes, these are these same old fear mongering tactics designed to scare the z%*@ out of people who are busy just trying to get through their day. Many people simply don't have the free time to go to every meeting, and misinfornation is designed to take advantage of people who have not been closely following the whole process. And there has been quite a process with 17 public meetings over 5 years and hundreds of people attending and having input! We must all keep an open mind and not believe everything that we hear or read!

The Northeast Area Plan involves important issues that have been and will contininue to be discussed such as traffic, water, growth, perservation of open space, etc. We absolutely need to have those discussions and listen to each other's concerns, but then we have to make the best decision for the overall sustainability of Sebastopol. We have a serious budget shortfall of $400,000 and we need to begin to move in a direction that addresses that.

Do we raise taxes on our citizens or should we cut vital services such as fire, police, roads, water systems, Ives Pool or support for many non-profit groups? Personally, I would much rather find ways to increase our revenue so that we can continue to have the high quality of life that we all enjoy. We can't afford to ignore our problems in the hope that they will go away, or condone fear tactics designed to scare people into submission.

Some people are so afraid of change that they will try to keep any change from happening. I love Sebastopol and I absolutely want us to stay a small town and retain our small town character. No-one wants us to become a big city or have large box stores like Walmart, but we do need to revitilize in a sustainable way if we are going to avoid increased taxes or cuts to the services that we all use and need. Every voice is needed and not only those who are spreading fear! Please read the actual Northeast Area Plan materials and then attend the City Council meeting on May 20th at 7:30 at the Community Center!

Best,

Jen Thille

[Zeno Swijtink]

The point you are missing is that in the 20 year projections, gridlock will occur anyhow, either of cars going towards build-out former greenbelts or towards more densely build urban centers.

One needs to compare this project with alternative futures, not with the present situation. When designers say that this project will have no impact on the traffic they mean in comparison with the business as usual projection of build-out of the rural areas.

More densely build urban centers will become serviceable by public transport, sprawl in the greenbelts will still not be serviceable by public transport.

We cannot "preserve" the present situation. We have only limited control over the future. Unfortunately maybe, but some growth is very likely. The question is where do we wish to steer growth to.

It is an anti-environment position to steer that growth to the greenbelts!

Cheers, Zeno

The designer actually said that this project will have no impact on the traffic! I heard him say it. Why could he say that with such confidence? Because they are not measuring traffic congestion or loss of service AFTER the traffic goes beyond the Level of Service F.

They are convinced with a sigh that the Level of Service F traffic congestion is inevitable and passing these degraded traffic levels standards can't make it worse than it will already be. The Planning Commission and members of the City Council have echoed this sentiment over and over. Even with a "well, if the traffic gets worse then people will just have to get out and walk."! Think about that statement. When over half the people who drive in Sebastopol are only passing through or stopping for one or two errands, where are they going to "get out and walk?"

There is no talk of preparing Sebastopol for the significant increase in traffic. No mitigation measures.

I am not making this stuff up. I have done a lot of research.

[Zeno Swijtink]

At 4:12 PM -0700 5/20/08, Peter Schurch wrote on [wacco-bb] re: LAST CHANCE City Council meeting Tomorrow TUESDAY:

Hi Zeno,

I agree that resiliency is a better planning concept than preservation.
There's probably nothing here today that will be the same in 20 years.

However, I don't agree that the NE Plan will give us as much diversity as you
say. It's going to create hotels and Latte bars and high priced condos,
maybe a chain store or two. What's that going to add to the town's
resiliency in times of oil shortages and global warming? I'm not sure.

As for energy, we will all still be plugged into PGE's rather vulnerable
grid. I don't see any serious look at solar or wind power in the NE Plan.
There's no new transportation planning. Just more of the same.

(snip) Peter Schurch

The energy issues you raise are are not specified in a Plan such as this but are regulated in the City's mandatory Green Building Ordinance. The City is also "developing a comprehensive Land Use/ Energy Conservation program that may specify other sustainable building techniques as mandatory requirements."

https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/gree...gprogram.shtml

I was not praising the details of the Plan loudly. Undoubtedly things can be improved, esp. through sharpening of various City Ordinances. Rohnert Park seems to have right now the most stringent Green Building program (see below).

I am also interested in daylighting of Zimpher and Calder Creeks and builup should not preclude that possibility.

I don't think it's wise to regulate specific technologies, only minimum performance targets. The technology is always developing rapidly and one does not want to proscribe specific solar or wind technology that may be outmoded in five years from now.

More important is now zoning where building can be build and at what density since these aspects lock a city in for the next 50 years. Some other aspects such as energy and transportation can always be inserted later.

And don't underestimate the human capital attracted by Latte bars!!

Best, Zeno

********************
https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/artic...50/OPINION0304

CLOSE TO HOME
RP leads the way on green building
By VICKI VIDAK-MARTINEZ

Santa Rosa can look to Rohnert Park for green building guidance.

In a recent column, The Press Democrat's Chris Smith noted that the
Santa Rosa City Council will soon consider how to motivate
construction companies to use green building techniques. Santa Rosa
needs to look no further than its neighbor to the south for an
inspiring example of an effective, flexible green-building ordinance.

The city of Rohnert Park may soon serve as a model for sustainable
communities throughout the United States as a result of its new green
building regulations. Starting July 1, all new single-family
dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and commercial development -- as
well as city-sponsored construction projects -- are now subject to
green building standards.

City staff and elected officials hope the new ordinance will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, result in more responsible use of building
materials, create more environmentally friendly buildings and
neighborhoods, conserve water and energy and provide for a
sustainable Rohnert Park.

As a council member and mayor of Rohnert Park during the development
of the ordinance, I became aware of many California communities that
have implemented voluntary programs to encourage green building
practices. Building upon what Santa Rosa has accomplished with its
voluntary program, Rohnert Park has been able to take the next step
by mandating that all new construction meet high levels of green
building.

Because of the connection between global climate change and green
building, the city has taken the unprecedented action of integrating
environmental stewardship and the regulatory process. To date, no
other community in California has implemented such a comprehensive
ordinance. Perhaps Santa Rosa could be next.

Rohnert Park's green-building ordinance establishes three tiers for
all construction based upon the type of construction and the size or
relative environmental impact of the construction project. The tiers
are then used to determine the applicable compliance threshold for a
project.

The compliance thresholds consist of points or ratings that a project
is awarded based upon its use of green building techniques.

A critical aspect of the ordinance is its flexibility. Builders can
select which green building techniques best suit a particular job. In
addition, as green building techniques evolve over time, the tiers
and point system will evolve in tandem.

The New Home Construction Green Building Guidelines, published by the
nonprofit Build It Green, is the city's referenced standard for
residential green building while the U.S. Green Building Council's
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design guidelines apply to
commercial construction.

Aspects of construction included in the green building guidelines include:

Minimizing construction waste and preventing pollution.

Keeping pollutants from landscape maintenance out of waterways and
reducing landscaping water use.

Constructing the building for energy and resource efficiency.

Using insulation products with recycled content and low- or
no-formaldehyde emissions.

Designing the plumbing system to reduce hot-water runs, insulating
hot water pipes and installing water-efficient toilets.

Installing heating and air conditioning for energy efficiency and
better indoor environmental quality.

Incorporating solar hot water systems and photovoltaic systems that
generate electricity from sunlight.

Selecting high-efficiency appliances.

Certain types of construction are exempt from the new green building
section of the municipal code. In particular, any earthquake
retrofits do not have to comply. Residential additions are exempt
unless more than 500 square feet of new floor area is being added, in
which case the project must earn at least one point. This requirement
ensures that the homeowner will receive a basic education about green
building.

Finally, for those concerned about the additional costs of green
building, it may be useful to refer to another recent Press Democrat
article: the Sept. 17 opinion piece from the Economist notes that
green building adds only 1 to 3 percent to construction costs.

The Rohnert Park green building ordinance is available at www.rpcity.org.

Vicki Vidak-Martinez is the mayor of Rohnert Park.

--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some
material is provided without permission from the copyright owner,
only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research
under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These
materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use,"
without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go
to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Howard]

Dear Jen,

I agree. It is true that very few people really know the whole story of the Northeast plan, including me! I have attended many meetings.

Did you know that there are not enough estimated parking spots in this plan? 1500 to be exact. One of the council members mentioned it. There are personal parking for tenants and some public places but no garages or public parking for events, etc., as far as I know.

I am not making this stuff up. I have done a lot of research.

Thanks. Chris Clay Bauman

It is unfortunate that you in fact have not done a lot of research as what you have stated is replete with errors. You have repeated what someone else has said and repeated it as the truth.

Case in point is above. You state that a council person said this? Whoever you are quoting hasn’t read the plan and is indeed making it up. Because if you had read the plan you would you have seen at least 100 references to parking and parking standards.

For instance, on pages 3-9 paragraph 3, 5-2 paragraph 5.4.4 and 5-27 paragraph 5.5.4 the plan states that “unless otherwise specified in this SmartCode, parking provisions shall conform to the CD (Downtown Core) requirements as set forth in Chapter 17.220 of the Municipal Code.” And for those not up on the Municipal Code, the Downtown Core parking requirements are 1 space per 350 for all uses except residential which shall be the same as all other parts of the city less 15%.

This means that parking will need to be provided for all new development to the same standard as everywhere else. The figure you site as 1,500 parking stalls is a lie and entirely made up and repeated enough times so that it becomes truth. Yes, Obama is Muslim. It is possible that you have misread page 3-25 table 3-2 which refers to underground or garage parking only as this was required when determining maximum building area for the EIR analysis.

You would know this, if in fact, you had done a little research or had attended the public hearings in which this was discussed at length. You should be ashamed at claiming you have done a lot of research when in fact you have done little.

[cbauman]

I will try to find out from Sarah Glade Gurney if indeed what she stated was that the project is short 1500 parking spaces at the Council Meeting I attended, and if so, what she meant by it. I will correct my statement if it is different from what I understood. Thank you for pointing that out.

I have not spent much time studying the parking issue. The main issue I am concentrating on is traffic congestion. I think it is the achuilles heel of this project. At the meeting last night, I did got a chance to talk to David, the planner, about the statement he made that, "The Northeast development will have very little impact on Sebastopol traffic problems." According to Sonoma County projections, Sebastopol traffic is going to continue to degrade to LOS (Level of Service) F at most intersections on Healdsburg Ave. He explained that LOS A-F system is a grading system similar to the one used in school. An LOS F could mean that the traffic is at a 50 percent flow/congestion or it could be 90 percent congestion. You are still flunking either way. In my mind however 50 percent flow/congestion is better than 90 percent congestion but there is no distinction in the LOS system. In reality then the traffic will get significantly worse with the addition of this and other projects even though the city has done its duty in using the LOS system to access main traffic arteries and service patterns. I believe there needs to be a proactive approach to traffic mitigation and public transit innovation now rather than later.

Also a degradation in the Level of Service on Healdsburg Ave. means increased stress on the many side streets used to bypass the LOS F traffic. Since these streets can only accommodate 2000 car trips a day according to the present General Plan (this remains unchanged in the Northeast plan) this is a problem that may become an albatross around the City's neck.

Or not. Maybe the traffic will bad for small periods of time during the day but not detract from the quality of the air, sounds or pedestrian-friendly atmosphere the rest of the time. I think it will depend on whether the traffic becomes a LOS F 50 % or LOS F 90% congestion.

Chris

It is unfortunate that you in fact have not done a lot of research as what you have stated is replete with errors. You have repeated what someone else has said and repeated it as the truth.

Case in point is above. You state that a council person said this? Whoever you are quoting hasn’t read the plan and is indeed making it up. Because if you had read the plan you would you have seen at least 100 references to parking and parking standards.

For instance, on pages 3-9 paragraph 3, 5-2 paragraph 5.4.4 and 5-27 paragraph 5.5.4 the plan states that “unless otherwise specified in this SmartCode, parking provisions shall conform to the CD (Downtown Core) requirements as set forth in Chapter 17.220 of the Municipal Code.” And for those not up on the Municipal Code, the Downtown Core parking requirements are 1 space per 350 for all uses except residential which shall be the same as all other parts of the city less 15%.

This means that parking will need to be provided for all new development to the same standard as everywhere else. The figure you site as 1,500 parking stalls is a lie and entirely made up and repeated enough times so that it becomes truth. Yes, Obama is Muslim. It is possible that you have misread page 3-25 table 3-2 which refers to underground or garage parking only as this was required when determining maximum building area for the EIR analysis.

You would know this, if in fact, you had done a little research or had attended the public hearings in which this was discussed at length. You should be ashamed at claiming you have done a lot of research when in fact you have done little.

[Howard]

I will try to find out from Sarah Glade Gurney if indeed what she stated was that the project is short 1500 parking spaces at the Council Meeting I attended, and if so, what she meant by it. I will correct my statement if it is different from what I understood. Thank you for pointing that out.
Chris

I believe that if you discuss this with Ms. Gurney, you will find out that she said no such thing. There is no mention of this in the minutes of either the Council or the Community Development Agency. Councilwoman Gurney did discuss the possibility of constructing parking structures on existing public lots as a means of providing parking that would complement the NE Plan area but this has nothing to do with this myth that the NE Plan is designed to have a shortage of parking.

I have not spent much time studying the parking issue. The main issue I am concentrating on is traffic congestion. I think it is the achuilles heel of this project. At the meeting last night, I did got a chance to talk to David, the planner, about the statement he made that, "The Northeast development will have very little impact on Sebastopol traffic problems." According to Sonoma County projections, Sebastopol traffic is going to continue to degrade to LOS (Level of Service) F at most intersections on Healdsburg Ave. He explained that LOS A-F system is a grading system similar to the one used in school. An LOS F could mean that the traffic is at a 50 percent flow/congestion or it could be 90 percent congestion. You are still flunking either way. In my mind however 50 percent flow/congestion is better than 90 percent congestion but there is no distinction in the LOS system. In reality then the traffic will get significantly worse with the addition of this and other projects even though the city has done its duty in using the LOS system to access main traffic arteries and service patterns. I believe there needs to be a proactive approach to traffic mitigation and public transit innovation now rather than later.

Also a degradation in the Level of Service on Healdsburg Ave. means increased stress on the many side streets used to bypass the LOS F traffic. Since these streets can only accommodate 2000 car trips a day according to the present General Plan (this remains unchanged in the Northeast plan) this is a problem that may become an albatross around the City's neck.

Or not. Maybe the traffic will bad for small periods of time during the day but not detract from the quality of the air, sounds or pedestrian-friendly atmosphere the rest of the time. I think it will depend on whether the traffic becomes a LOS F 50 % or LOS F 90% congestion.

Chris

Frankly, I am not entirely sure what you are talking about concerning the "50%" versus "90%" LOS standards. This concept is new to me. However, I believe this is splitting hairs and immaterial to the problem. There will be a degradation in the Level of Service from redevelopment of the NE area. No one disputes that. However, as you must know from your reading of the EIR, two of our major downtown intersections are currently in violation of our General Plan maximum levels of service and many more are projected to reach these levels in the next decade without implementation of the NE Plan. This means that at current growth management levels of 25 new residences per year, we will be at unaccepatable levels at most of our major downtown interesections.

Redeveloment of this area is already permitted under current zoning and general plan land use designations. No new uses are permitted that aren't currently permitted and no uses currently permitted (except for industrial) are eliminated in the plan. Any redevelopment in the NE area (and for that matter, development anywhere in town) will have the same or worse impact on these major intersections.

So my question for those opposed: Are you suggesting that no redeveloment be permitted in this area and of course, no new development anywhere in town, since they too would have these same impacts? If we are currently violating our traffic levels at these major intersections and will be at many more soon, shouldn't we stop all new development? How can you say that current poor levels of service are acceptable if it violates the General Plan? Shouldn't we have a moratorium on all new development and redeveloment (that includes those with one new granny unit) until people carpool, ride bikes or walk more? Shouldn't we have stopped the two new affordable housing projects under construction and stop the one proposed at South Gravenstein?

I am very willing to have this honest discussion but my reading of the electorate is that they have not and do not want that at this time. I could be wrong since times have changed since I walked door to door to get people to vote for an interim moratorium in the early 1990's while we were updating our General Plan. But nothing short of no growth will slow this decline.

For me the question is how to redevelop this area, how to mitigate impacts (new interior roads and possible bypass), how to obtain environmentally superior structures (with Warrants), how to require no netfill (fill allowed now) and how to ensure the inclusion of public uses (see use plan).

[cbauman]

Well maybe that is true that she never said it. I thought she did but maybe I didn't understand what she was saying. It has taken me awhile to understand these issues and get used to the processes. I'm not purposely trying to spread rumors. I have said this about one hundred times both privately to you and publicaly by taking out statement out of the original entry I made.

The LOS F statements:

The actual on-the-ground traffic patterns and flow vary considerably depending on the density variations. Even though the traffic has reached maximum flow carrying capacity at LOS F there is a difference in the actual difficulty and density and duration

Level of Service F 50% means that the traffic is almost a D but not quite. Maybe there are certain times of the day like the morning and night when its hard to get around. The traffic is backed up so the flow of traffic is slow and it takes awhile to get around.

Level of Service F 90% means that the traffic is very impacted. It is highly difficult to drive at all because it is a dead stand still for quite awhile as the lights change. the heavy traffic occurs with more frequency and is unpredictably heavy when it does.

There is a difference in traffic problems even though the traffic system LOS doesn't measure it.

Perhaps the city has to implement traffic mitigation before or during these projects. Perhaps they have to scale down the Northeast Project.

Chris

I believe that if you discuss this with Ms. Gurney, you will find out that she said no such thing. There is no mention of this in the minutes of either the Council or the Community Development Agency. Councilwoman Gurney did discuss the possibility of constructing parking structures on existing public lots as a means of providing parking that would complement the NE Plan area but this has nothing to do with this myth that the NE Plan is designed to have a shortage of parking.



Frankly, I am not entirely sure what you are talking about concerning the "50%" versus "90%" LOS standards. This concept is new to me. However, I believe this is splitting hairs and immaterial to the problem. There will be a degradation in the Level of Service from redevelopment of the NE area. No one disputes that. However, as you must know from your reading of the EIR, two of our major downtown intersections are currently in violation of our General Plan maximum levels of service and many more are projected to reach these levels in the next decade without implementation of the NE Plan. This means that at current growth management levels of 25 new residences per year, we will be at unaccepatable levels at most of our major downtown interesections.

Redeveloment of this area is already permitted under current zoning and general plan land use designations. No new uses are permitted that aren't currently permitted and no uses currently permitted (except for industrial) are eliminated in the plan. Any redevelopment in the NE area (and for that matter, development anywhere in town) will have the same or worse impact on these major intersections.

So my question for those opposed: Are you suggesting that no redeveloment be permitted in this area and of course, no new development anywhere in town, since they too would have these same impacts? If we are currently violating our traffic levels at these major intersections and will be at many more soon, shouldn't we stop all new development? How can you say that current poor levels of service are acceptable if it violates the General Plan? Shouldn't we have a moratorium on all new development and redeveloment (that includes those with one new granny unit) until people carpool, ride bikes or walk more? Shouldn't we have stopped the two new affordable housing projects under construction and stop the one proposed at South Gravenstein?

I am very willing to have this honest discussion but my reading of the electorate is that they have not and do not want that at this time. I could be wrong since times have changed since I walked door to door to get people to vote for an interim moratorium in the early 1990's while we were updating our General Plan. But nothing short of no growth will slow this decline.

For me the question is how to redevelop this area, how to mitigate impacts (new interior roads and possible bypass), how to obtain environmentally superior structures (with Warrants), how to require no netfill (fill allowed now) and how to ensure the inclusion of public uses (see use plan).

[Zeno Swijtink]

In the interest of transparency it should be said that "Howard" and "ywv" are members of Sebastopol's Planning Commission, while "Jen T." is running for City Council and cbauman is Chris Clay Bauman, a citizen obsessed with the smoothness of car travel but really and ultimately (and not seeing the disconnection) concerned with making all of Sebastopol a "pedestrian-friendly, sustainable and profitable place to live for generations to come," whereas I am a (legal) alien, an observer send to the town by the United Nations, who is still mourning the leave-taking of "PeriodThree" who spoke for the Libertarian community, now sorely underrepresented if it were nor for Lenny, who has, however, been silent.

We can only hope that Kathleen Shaffer, who is also running for City Council, will join us to provide us with her perspective.

We can also hope that the members of the "Sebastopol Preservation Coalition," which include folks such as Helen Shane, who should be commended for using her real and full name (RAFN), Magick (??), and Clare Najarian, a former member of the Sebastopol's Planning Commission, will "respond to critics" so as not to call a liar to "ywv" when she said: "It is great to read the lively discussion here on the WACCO bulletin board"

[cbauman]

Zeno,

Perhaps you can elaborate a bit further. I think I understand what you are saying but you expressed rather general ideas so perhaps you could be more specific or give some examples of what you are talking about so I make sure i understand; i.e." One needs to compare this project with alternative futures, not just with the present situation." Part of the problem with this project I think is that there are different ideas about what the alternative futures might be. In the beginning of the public portion of the initial planning process that the city counsel set up, most of the people at my table were very much in favor of creating a densely populated area that encouraged eco-friendly living with work, shopping, recreation and schools that are close to home. Pockets of density surrounded by green belts cultivating a certain culture of local businesses, pedestrian-friendly streets and public transit that helped foster a larger goal of not spreading out all over the place. A post carbon culture. Is that what you mean?

I love the ideals of eco-friendly living. I went to Rotterdam, Nederlands and it had a lot of the features I just described above: Two streets side by side, one for cars and a smaller one for bikes. Really cool. A great bus system that circled the city so you could go anywhere with your bike or walking. Safe. The older part of the city had a lot of shops and parks. The newer had really tall buildings surrounded by lots of parks and greenbelts that were gorgeous. So even though there was pockets of population density with cafes and stores nearby I never got the feeling that it was crowded. Never. It was enjoyable. I would LOVE to have that same scenario play out here in Sebastopol!

Creating pockets of people density here in Sebastopol without creating a feeling of being crowded is going to be harder just because of the way the city is laid out and configured already. Not necessarily in the specific Northeast area but outside of it. The older part still has small, narrow streets, traffic and density that feels crowded already so adding more homes, cars and people feels like a burden and not a relief. Even with the crisis of the peaking of the oil looming it is hard to support a general formulaic plan sporting the latest sustainability theory when there is so much practical on-the-ground aspects to this plan that are worrisome. Maybe I am just being paranoid but I am directly affected by this since I live in the downtown area. So I am very sensitive about it.

"More densely build urban centers will become serviceable by public transport, sprawl in the greenbelts will still be not serviceable by public transport." Yes, that makes sense. Unfortunately I think sprawl has already occurred here, Sebastopol-style. We haven't annexed adjacent areas and are working within the no-growth boundaries mandate but there is still a lot of land surrounding Sebastopol that has been split up into smaller parcels and acquired privately. A fairly large population of people living on 1 to 5 acres of land surrounding Sebastopol come in and shop here or pass through, hence the traffic congestion already. So that is what makes it tricky. The sprawl hasn't occurred like Rohnert Park but it has happened none-the-less. Maybe putting parking garages at the edges of town with really good transportation into the heart of town might be one of the solutions to alleviate the inevitable growing traffic congestion. People would only use it however if gas were really expensive and they saw it as a necessity.

"The point you are missing is that in the 20 year projections gridlock will occur anyhow, either of cars going towards build-out former greenbelts or towards more densely build urban centers." Yes, that is true. The goal is to stop sprawl while revitalizing the economy, the family base and ideals of green, sustainable living. I can get behind that. But we need to make sure that we solve potential problems and not create worse ones, given Sebastopol's unique character and limitations. And it has definite measurable limitations.

Hence my concerns about traffic problems. In the end we want to make sure that this plan is sound and can achieve the ideals it is supposed to achieve.

Let me know what your thoughts are. Thanks. Chris

The point you are missing is that in the 20 year projections, gridlock will occur anyhow, either of cars going towards build-out former greenbelts or towards more densely build urban centers.

One needs to compare this project with alternative futures, not with the present situation. When designers say that this project will have no impact on the traffic they mean in comparison with the business as usual projection of build-out of the rural areas.

More densely build urban centers will become serviceable by public transport, sprawl in the greenbelts will still not be serviceable by public transport.

We cannot "preserve" the present situation. We have only limited control over the future. Unfortunately maybe, but some growth is very likely. The question is where do we wish to steer growth to.

It is an anti-environment position to steer that growth to the greenbelts!

Cheers, Zeno

[Jen T.]

Hi All,

It's great to see a very thoughtful and respectful discussion happening here! I've been following this thread to see where it would go and I've been very impressed by many of the insightful comments. I believe that it's important to put our emotions aside on this issue if we have any hope of coming up with a well reasoned solution that is best for the present and future of Sebastopol.

Zeno posted some excellent comments such as "We cannot "preserve" the present situation. We have only limited control over the future. Unfortunately maybe, but some growth is very likely. The question is where do we wish to steer growth to."

Yes, change is inevitable but we have the ability (right now) to choose how that change occurs. We have in place an urban growth boundary because we voted to protect our open spaces and become more dense within our City limits. But increased density doesn't have to be ugly. It can be beautiful and it can add to what makes us uniquely "Sebastopol". Cancer grows unchecked and causes harm but babies develop to fulfill their potential. I believe that we need to develop sustainably within our City and stop the cancerous like growth that is sprawling across our open spaces.

Howard also made some excellent comments such as "Redeveloment of this area is already permitted under current zoning and general plan land use designations. No new uses are permitted that aren't currently permitted and no uses currently permitted (except for industrial) are eliminated in the plan. Any redevelopment in the NE area (and for that matter, development anywhere in town) will have the same or worse impact on these major intersections."


The Northeast Area is already permitted for development with up to 3 story buildings and with net-fill allowed. I understand that some people might prefer 3 stories to 4, but at what cost to us? Is it really better to have 1 less story if the costs far outweigh any potential benefits? What if that one additional story gives us the density needed to one day have a downtown shuttle or a connection to SMART? What if that one additional story makes things like green buildings, civic spaces, and the nice things that we all want possible? If the Northeast Plan is not approved, then development will probably happen there anyway. Unfortunately, we will have less say over things like the green building standards, interconnected streets, a civic space for our use, a people friendly design and the amount of fill that is used.

But what about traffic? I'm not happy about the traffic situation either but what should we do? Traffic will continue to increase whether the Northeast Area develops or not, and many of our intersections will go to level D or F because much of our traffic comes from outside of town. It seems to me that placing parking at the edges of town and encouraging walking, biking (bike sharing), and a shuttle (when financially feasable) is the best way to reduce some traffic. We also need to encourage living, working, shopping, schools, etc. to be as close as possible to each other so that people don't have to drive as much. Population is expected to increase in California and Sonoma County is a great place to live. We can maybe get people to bypass around Sebastopol but ultimately, this is a much larger problem. We need to learn to do a great many things differently and design for denser cities is just one of them.

Helen Shane and the Preservation Coalition are proposing an alternatate Plan for the Northeast Area and here is a quote from her post. "Build an elevated, free standing Solar energy array, on the Barlow property, beneath which could be a farm market, a seasonal amphitheater, etc. on a permeable surface.

Supports for the elevated panels to be designed by structural engineers, and visually enhanced by local artists.

Energy generated by the solar facility would be used for civic needs and by the residents of Sebastopol, with surplus sent to the grid as a revenue stream for the town. The town could charge homeowners minimum fees and there would be no need for a utility tax.

Educational facet: youngsters would learn about solar and the job opportunities and educational requirements they will need for the careers arising from the 21st Century paradigm of climate change, peak oil, carrying capacity, etc. People will be prepared for meaningful jobs that can’t be outsourced.

Affordable housing could be built over city-owned parking lots, the theater parking lot, perhaps at the Vets Bldg site.

Present land owners of affected parcels could partner with the town or be bought out, perhaps using Federal/State funds for this sustainable town project.

Helen, I share many of your goals and I too would love to see us be completely energy self-sustaining in the future. I'm a strong advocate for education and many of the other things that you propose. I believe that most of here in Sebastopol are on the same page about 90% of the time and unfortunately, that last 10% is what we get all polarized and emotional about. I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate your vision, but I just don't see how this could possibly work right now.

The property that we call the Northeast Area is worth over $50 million dollars! It is owned by several different property owners and not by the City. The property owners have been willing to wait and see if the Northeast Area Plan gets approved , but they ultimately want to develop their property and the development must be financially viable. I do not see the property owners donating their valuable and buildable land for solar towers, farmers markets or a seasonal amphitheater. The City has no money to buy the land and they will not have any in the forseeable future. We already have a budget deficit of $400 thousand dollars and given the current situation, that could very well get worse. The City is now faced with raising taxes or cutting services but no-one is really talking about what to do. I don't want to see us go the way of Vallejo and bankrupt ourselves! We need to do something now! The State of California is also in crisis mode over the budget and they will probably be sending even less money our way in the near future.

I don't see the Northeast Area Plan as a panacea for all of our problems but I do believe that it's a step in the right direction. We need to learn to do things differently and that is going to involve some changes, whether we like them or not. We need to plan for the best but prepare for the worst and take both climate change and the end of cheap oil into consideration. We need to boster our existing businesses and really promote our Arts because that is a great strength in our community! We will also need to revitalize in a sustainable way so that we can capture tax money currently flowing to Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, RP, etc. We don't need "shi shi" shops but a strong, local and vibrant economy with shops that people want and need.

The Northeast Area Plan is not perfect and there is probably room for compromise so why don't we start the discussion there instead of throwing the entire thing out after 5 years and $400 thousand dollars? Some points for discussion include: How do we reduce sprawl and become denser to make living, jobs, shopping, etc. closer and reduce car trips? How do we accomodate our share of expected growth in Sebastopol and provide affordable housing to all of our residents, including our important service workers? How do we best protect our shared water resource if people keep sprawling into the Santa Rosa Plain and drawing down our aquifer? Isn't is better for all the cities to develop only within their urban growth boundaries and set strict conservation requirements? How do we get people out of their cars and reduce traffic on our City Streets given our location at the crossroads of 2 busy highways?

Everyone is needed and we need to work harder to engage (but not scare) the people who don't come to meetings. It will take our collective efforts and intelligence to find solutions to the many challenges that confront us, but I believe that we can get there if we all work together! Everyone is needed so let's please continue on with our discussion in an open and respectful way.

Best,

Jen Thille

[ywv]

Zeno,

Why would their replying not make me a lair? When I speak on the WACCO board I speak for myself and myself only. I do not speak as a member of the planning commission or any other organization. If I did that it would be inappropriate and in my mind unethical.

Yvette

In the interest of transparency it should be said that "Howard" and "ywv" are members of Sebastopol's Planning Commission, while "Jen T." is running for City Council and cbauman is Chris Clay Bauman, a citizen obsessed with the smoothness of car travel but really and ultimately (and not seeing the disconnection) concerned with making all of Sebastopol a "pedestrian-friendly, sustainable and profitable place to live for generations to come," whereas I am a (legal) alien, an observer send to the town by the United Nations, who is still mourning the leave-taking of "PeriodThree" who spoke for the Libertarian community, now sorely underrepresented if it were nor for Lenny, who has, however, been silent.

We can only hope that Kathleen Shaffer, who is also running for City Council, will join us to provide us with her perspective.

We can also hope that the members of the "Sebastopol Preservation Coalition," which include folks such as Helen Shane, who should be commended for using her real and full name (RAFN), Magick (??), and Clare Najarian, a former member of the Sebastopol's Planning Commission, will "respond to critics" so as not to call a liar to "ywv" when she said: "It is great to read the lively discussion here on the WACCO bulletin board"

[Zeno Swijtink]

Hi Yvette,

Their _not_ replying would "make you a liar" (no offense meant, it's just an expression) since at the time you wrote "It is great to read the lively discussion here on the WACCO bulletin board" I had not yet seen a lively discussion, in the sense of people responding to each other. I had just seen people posting opinions. I am glad that such a discussion is now emerging (although I wished it was all gathered in one thread).

On the other issue, my point of view is that if you are on a city committee and speak elsewhere about an issue that is, has been, and will be, in their purview, the fact you are on that committee is something people need to know. Obviously you are not speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission but your speaking gains additional significance.

Hope you are well, Zeno

Zeno,

Why would their replying not make me a liar? When I speak on the WACCO board I speak for myself and myself only. I do not speak as a member of the planning commission or any other organization. If I did that it would be inappropriate and in my mind unethical.

Yvette

[cbauman]

I like the fact that there are members of the planning commission participating in this forum because they have studied this plan in-depth and have expertise. I would like to know that I am conversing with members of the Planning Commission so I can ask questions, and also know who is the applying to the City Council position since this forum is a public place to put out their platform. It is better to identify yourself if you are in the public eye or on in an official capacity out right up front so that there is not the impression of hidden agendas.

It drives me crazy that after all the entries I have made I am still no closer to having my concerns about this project allayed. In fact I feel more alarmed than ever about it because of the fact that:
"The property that we call the Northeast Area is worth over $50 million dollars! It is owned by several different property owners and not by the City. The property owners have been willing to wait and see if the Northeast Area Plan gets approved , but they ultimately want to develop their property and the development must be financially viable."

Its a hell of a valuable piece of real estate and therefore they are going to develop the hell out of it for that reason. I really can't see that in the long run this plan is going to be a revenue income producing venture with all the limitations that exist. I have said this before and I will say it again:

THE PROJECT IS TOO BIG AND IS GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS: ENVIRONMENTAL CONGESTION AND FINANCIAL INSTABILITY ON DOWN THE LINE.

What bothers me is that my perspective hasn't changed with all the meetings, forums and studying I participated in. I have tried to examine different points of view and then see whether the information they have helps me to change my perspective. I potentially like the idea of this plan. I just haven't been presented with information in a way I can digest it and feel its going to be OK. In fact I look at some aspects of this plan and can't help but feel that it is going to ruin the character of Sebatopol instead of maintaining its heart and soul.

Even though Helen's proposal downsizes this project in ways that may not be financially viable there is a part of myself that longs to go in that direction. Because that kind of use of that valuable space would bring a gentler and more sensitive life to Sebastopol. The Northeast Plan is bound to make life here different, though not entirely unpleasant, but definitely with a 'bigger is better" theme. I fear with the advent of this plan the character of Sebastopol will become a mini big city like Berkeley. There will be a whole turn over of people, favoring those people with money who don't mind big city living. That is not what I hoped for. But its not up to me. The City Counsel will make that final determination. I trust they will take the suggestions and information of all its citizens seriously and make wise choices that will unite us once again.

I can't really make more entries because I am up to my eyeballs in work and other projects I just have to spend more time on. Good luck to all.

Chris

Hi All,

It's great to see a very thoughtful and respectful discussion happening here! I've been following this thread to see where it would go and I've been very impressed by many of the insightful comments. I believe that it's important to put our emotions aside on this issue if we have any hope of coming up with a well reasoned solution that is best for the present and future of Sebastopol.
...
Jen Thille

[Jen T.]

Hi Chris,

I'm currently a Sebastopol Planning Commissioner and I'm running for City Council in November. I have also applied for the appointment to complete the remainder of Sam Pierce's term. I've been using my real name in my postings and I have nothing to hide. I'm simply doing my best to make a positive difference in my community through public service. I understand that there is a lot of concern about the Northeast Area and I'm glad that so many of our citizens are engaged in this discussion and process. If you would like more information about me and my campaign, please visit: https://www.votethille.com/Home_Page.html

The site is still pretty basic but I will be adding more information, discussion forums, surveys and other interactive tools soon! I really want to know what our citizens think about a wide number of issues including water, housing, the local economy, traffic, etc. The results from the recent water survey that I conducted can be viewed here: https://votethille.com/News.html Note: that is a PDF document, so you'll need a Mac, or Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or comments and I will do my best to get back to you ASAP.

Best,

Jen

[ywv]

Zeno,

I do not think saying someone is a liar until proven other wise is "just an expression". If you read my post I took no position, just encourage all interested parties to make sure their voices were heard.
Since I was only advocating for people to use the democratic process to make sure their point of view was heard.
Since I was not sharing any information or taking any position I do not think the fact that I am on the Planning Commission is any more relevant than your involvement with the Climate Protection Campaign.

Yvette

Hi Yvette,

Their _not_ replying would "make you a liar" (no offense meant, it's just an expression) since at the time you wrote "It is great to read the lively discussion here on the WACCO bulletin board" I had not yet seen a lively discussion, in the sense of people responding to each other. I had just seen people posting opinions. I am glad that such a discussion is now emerging (although I wished it was all gathered in one thread).

On the other issue, my point of view is that if you are on a city committee and speak elsewhere about an issue that is, has been, and will be, in their purview, the fact you are on that committee is something people need to know. Obviously you are not speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission but your speaking gains additional significance.

Hope you are well, Zeno

[Kenyon Webster]

Link to memo to the City Council addressing various misunderstandings about the Northeast Plan: https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/pdfs...f%20issues.pdf

-Kenyon Webster, Sebastopol Planning Director