LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 5-3-12

Failing grade
Editor: Sonoma County Conservation Action (SCCA) is an organization whose single issue is environmental protection. Each year it publishes a “report card” that rates each city council member on his/her environmental performance.
In its 2011-2012 report, SCCA gives Michael Keyes and Guy Wilson B ratings on their voting records and seems to want to justify that rating by stating that both were “misled by pro-development staff into voting in favor of the CVS/Chase project.” I feel that statement belittles both the council members and the city staff.
As a previous high school board member, I know the responsibility of an elected official is to review staff reports and then make up ones own mind about the vote. If someone votes in a way you don’t like, it doesn’t mean they haven’t done their homework.
Sebastopol’s staff members are longtime, competent, unbiased, and dedicated employees. Last year, they took a pay cut to help balance the budget. In my experience, they are not “pro-development.” They want to make responsible decisions about the use and development of our city, as should we all.
To the Sebastopol staff: Keep up the good work. To SCCA: Your grade is F minus.    
Michele Kimble
Sebastopol
The window police
Editor: The Sebastopol Design Review Board and City council have decided that the CVS proposed building cannot have any blocked windows “which do not allow visual interaction between the sidewalk areas and the interior of the buildings.” To emphasize this point, one councilmember took several minutes to describe her walk along Sebastopol Avenue and explain how wonderful it was to be able to look into the buildings. I guess she had her eyes closed when she passed the Brown Street building that was approved by the DRB without any windows along Sebastopol Avenue.
Our city council should not be telling business owners how they can use their windows. Some retail downtown businesses have window displays that prevent a view into the stores, but are designed to entice customers to visit the store. Other businesses like offices and yoga studios do not want people walking by to be able to look in, so they use blinds to obscure the view. Some, like Sonoma West Times & News, use their windows to display posters of the community events.
Requiring CVS to keep all its windows unblocked is another invented requirement that has not been imposed on any other project. If we must require CVS to unblock their windows, then lets be fair, change city policy and require all businesses in the downtown core to clear their windows.
Jim Pacatte
Sebastopol
Opt-out issues
Editor: The following letter was sent to Michael Peevey, President, California Public Utilities Commission:
Dear Mr. Peevey,
In light of the recent ruling by the CPUC in regard to Approval of Electric Preliminary Statement FW, SmartMeter Opt-Out Memorandum Account, and Gas Preliminary Statement CU, SmartMeter Opt-Out Memorandum Account, in Compliance with D.12-02-014, we wish to inform you of our support for the filing before you, titled “Protest of the Town of Fairfax, California, the Alliance for Human and Environmental Health, and County of Marin, California (A.11-03-014).”
First and foremost, the tariff that PG&E is allowed to charge those who choose to opt out has no valid financial basis and therefore are discriminatory as set forth in the aforementioned Protest. Citizens should be allowed to freely choose whether to permit the installation of SmartMeters on their homes without the coercive effect of price discrimination.
Communities as well as individual citizens must be able to choose whether SmartMeters are permitted within their jurisdictions. A citizen who opts out for their home might still be exposed involuntarily to SmartMeter technology installed on their neighbors’ homes. Local government should be able to choose to limit or exclude the technology based upon community sentiment.
It is concerning that there are currently no provisions for business customers to opt out of the SmartMeter program. In failing to include businesses in either a community-wide or individual customer opt-out program, the CPUC decision discriminates against those businesses that might choose to offer customers an environment free from exposures to SmartMeters.
Additionally, in considering a community-wide opt-out program, no tariff should be granted to PG&E for the same reasons alluded to above: there is not financial justification for such charges and they are discriminatory.
Sincerely,
Efren Carrillo
Supervisor, Fifth District
Re-Occupy
Editor: Thank you for your article about Occupy Sebastopol in the Apple Blossom Parade (“Occupy Apple Blossom,” April 26, by Shepherd Bliss). I march with my children every year in the parade and this year they begged me to walk with the “Robin Hood” people (Occupy Sebastopol). As we walked I was not surprised to encounter small but noticeable eruptions of cheer from the crowd as we came into view as well as a louder, clearer burst of cheer when the mentioned announcer that had been previously discriminating in his comments changed his tune and said “you mean I’m one of the 99 percent too?”
I am also greatful that a group exists today that is challenging the Chase/CVS developers who certainly are thinking more about money than quality of life in our town.  And am delighted that the Occupiers in all their passionate dedication have found a place in our community.
Ariel Janda
Sebastopol