LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

No trails for Burbank
Editor: I am aware of a movement to develop a bicyclists’ and
walkers’ path that would cross the gardens and/or pathways of the
Luther Burbank Experiment Farm (Gold Ridge Farm) and I want to say
that I am totally opposed to such an idea. That property is a
registered historic landmark area and I don’t see that it would be
“safer” for the public when walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and
people walking their dogs begin using that property for an “easy”
passageway.
I was a volunteer there for three years and lived in the senior
housing nearby. The work of the dedicated volunteers to maintain
Mr. Burbank’s legacy would be seriously hindered and irreplaceable
plant life, trees, shrubs and so forth would be in danger of being
damaged or removed.
I doubt the public that would use that area would even know of
the historic worth and value of the three acres in Gold Ridge Farm,
or, would even care to preserve and protect such an historic site.
The current pathways are carefully maintained by volunteers and the
paths are fragile due to the hilly terrain, especially in the wet
winter months when erosion is a problem.
I ask that you please rescind the idea of creating a passageway
there. Mr. Burbank’s legacy needs to be preserved for future
generations to witness and enjoy. The property is a living
laboratory in many ways and offers educational value for children
and adults and the many visitors to the gardens.
I also know that there is senior housing immediately adjacent to
the Farm and those seniors who use the current pathways would be in
jeopardy if heavy foot and bicycle traffic is allowed through the
property.
Diane Terry
Portland, OR
What’s the rush?
Editor: Sebastopol announced that its General Plan adopted in
1994 will be revised.
According to the Kenyon Webster, the City’s Planning Director,
only “a minor update” to the current General Plan is required since
he believes that the land use densities and scale of the permitted
development remain consistent with the community’s
perspectives.
To date there has been very little public consultation about how
the General Plan revision will be carried out.
Several key issues urgently need public input before the City
embarks on such a fundamental and expensive change to its General
Plan.
For starters, here are some of my concerns about how the
Planning Director has proposed this update be carried out:
• There are no crucial issues to be resolved. Really?
The City staff’s view that the GP revision would be minor is
misleading when core land use issues such as changing the traffic
levels of service (LOS); growth management; and enlarging the
Sphere of Influence boundary are on the table. The General Plan is
required by law to be internally consistent. Changing these
policies would affect the other elements of the plan, the projected
buildout of the City, and may have significant environmental
impacts.
• Groundwater. Why does the GP revision propose to rely on
outdated groundwater information done for the ill-fated North East
Specific Plan, when the USGS Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Study
will be completed later this year?
• Public Participation. Why are only five members of the public
recommended to be part of the General Plan Advisory Committee along
with representatives of the Planning Commission, Design Review
Board and Business Outreach Committee? Could not the GPAC be
expanded to allow three or four more public members, to include a
broader cross-section of opinion, without making it unwieldy?  
There should be a well-publicized General Plan revision kick-off
meeting where the public could discuss these and other issues —
before the City Council approves the work program.
• Why Now? If City funds are insufficient to carry out a
complete update or to meet unexpected expenses, why not postpone
the General Plan revision until the City’s fiscal situation
improves? The Planning Director has stated that there are no
burning issues and the community appears to be satisfied with the
current General Plan.   Postponing this project would ease the
City’s budget situation and the planning staff’s workload.
Edmée Danan, MD
Sebastopol