Eastern edge development
EDITOR: While I believe that open space is the best use of the eastern edge of Windsor, here we are again considering a development on the eastern edge. The good news is that it is residential, unlike the previous school and winery ideas. Residential is a fit for the zoning, the density improved (lowered) in the 2040 general plan.
However, since the fires, we have a renewed sense of urgency to improve traffic circulation for the existing 948 houses east of Hembree. All have just one way out, that being Hembree.
Before the town considers adding 250-262 new homes on this eastern edge, we need to figure out how to get the long-promised eastern edge road constructed.
Whether this is through a development agreement with a builder or a town public works effort, this needs to happen before new homes are considered or built.
Proper planning would allow this project site to be connected via the new road and improvements to Jensen Lane, which it faces. Residents in the area have ideas on how this might look. The town is forming a committee, which includes two residents. I am hopeful we can come to a win/win solution that does not downgrade an existing development for the benefit of the new.
The Windsor Jensen Land Co., LLC, has proposed a development agreement that talks about building the new road. It was evident in the somewhat chaotic planning meeting July 11 that this project is being rushed, stressing staff, town council and residents of this area.
Slow this train way down, or better yet, stop it. Leave this area as is, for now. Town council should prioritize the infill projects, which will provide needed affordable housing, and the North Arata annexation.
An example of rushed/poor planning is easily demonstrated by the poor access to the new Holiday Inn on Old Redwood Highway. There is woefully little parking, just one way in and only access going south on Old Redwood Highway.
Josephine Hamilton
Windsor
Love fulfills the law
EDITOR: In the July 12 edition of the Windsor Times, both Steven David Martin and former minister Bob Jones mention the attempt to justify inhumane tactics of separating refugee children from their parents at the border by quoting from Romans 13 in the New Testament.
I appreciated Jones’ history of that passage. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in citing that Biblical passage, failed to read its conclusion (I’ve excerpted): “Love Fulfills the Law: Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. And whatever other commands there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10: Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”
Marcia Singer
Santa Rosa
Thoughts on Jensen Lane meeting
EDITOR: Well, there we were again, at another Jensen development meeting. I do not live on the east side of town, but have been involved in town meetings, just like I have been in all other town-sponsored development meetings, because I believe everyone will be impacted in one way or another by each development and I want to stay informed.
Here are some things that I walked away with, unfortunately still more questions than answers.
I agreed with so many of the public speakers. 1) We have a broken system when it comes to the approving new development. 2) The public is attending these meeting because they care and have a lack of trust. 3) This development should not be a priority when we have so many other pending projects. We have been told that it is not a priority, and yet it is the first one to have a special meeting that includes the possibility of a development agreement.
There seems to be a major disconnect on the definition of urban sprawl, so I looked it up on the internet, and it said, “The spreading of urban developments (such as houses and shopping centers) on undeveloped land near a city.” This sure sounds like sprawl to me.
While I appreciate Mark Millan recusing himself from the subcommittee due to his personal proximity to the development, I have to question why Debora Fudge did not, since she lives on Jensen Lane. Some residents have asked that we open the street that is currently closed off at Hembree and Jensen so it runs straight through, so will this not even be considered now?
Another really big question that was raised was about the public notice sign that has been on that property for over a year. The number of homes indicated on the sign are less than what the developer is currently proposing. Is this a legally and accurately published notice? Shouldn’t there be a new public notice published?
The 2040 General Plan unfortunately did have a lot of input from developers, all the way until the very last meeting before it was finalized. This is why community involvement is so important.
With all of this, I strongly believe it does not matter what was planned here 20 years ago. It does not matter that at one point a winery was being proposed there. Today matters and the people that live here today are very ready to make sure they are being heard.
This community voted for five town council members to represent them and listen to them and fight for them. Voters are saying out loud at these meetings that the elections are around the corner, so fight for us or else, I think is very appropriate. It is a good sign of caring and engaged citizens.
The residents of the town are on the top of the organization chart, not the council members, they work for us, the citizens, and if someone is not doing a good job they should not be re-elected. Do you think it is time for change?
Rosa Reynoza
Windsor
Jensen deal doesn’t fit general plan
EDITOR: I want to thank all of you who came out for the Jensen Lane development workshop last Wednesday. My count was well over 100 in the audience.
After almost three hours of testimony, four council members hardly blinked when moving forward with the developers’ request that a subcommittee be appointed to move forward towards a development agreement for the approval of housing on the 60 acres, currently vineyards and currently on our eastern edge and not within the town limits.
In my last letter, I spoke to the need to know what we the people living in Windsor want. Clearly, those living in the eastern neighborhoods in proximity to this deal want the quality of life they currently have to remain.
They know, and I concur, it can’t with this deal. I use the term “deal,” because that is exactly what a development agreement is. Developer money is on the table. The stakes in terms of the developers’ profits are high. The appointed subcommittee will be looking towards the town or community benefit. Did I say benefit when I meant to say money? The neighbors will lose.
In many cases, I can stand up to neighbors opposing housing projects when after a great deal of thought and care, I believe the proposed housing meets goals established by the town and described within your general plan and vision.
This Jensen Lane deal doesn’t even come close. By it’s very nature, if it comes to fruition, it will promote and increase climate change for the worse. It is in opposition to the guiding principles as stated in your general plan.
I am confused. Why would a council member emphasize the notion that nothing is perfect as a beginning point in the considerations of this deal? I can’t help but to think it’s an excuse for mediocrity.
If the town were to do a deal, wouldn’t the deal or development agreement be better placed in the area north of Arata? There we have needs that could be helped with an agreement for annexation and development. The school district feels it is a good choice, maybe the only choice, for a new school site. The town is committed to CalTrans to construct a northbound 101 on ramp and has purchased the land for the relocation of Los Amigos Road north of Arata. That area has traffic circulation potential as opposed to the lack thereof at Jensen.
Make your feelings known, folks. In baseball terms, if I’m off base, throw me out.
Sam Salmon (Town Councilmember)
Windsor
Volunteer drivers needed
EDITOR: Every day, thousands of cancer patients often need a ride to and from their treatments. In the absence of available and affordable transportation, patients have difficulty obtaining needed medical care. That’s why volunteering for the American Cancer Society’s Road To Recovery program is so important.
Volunteer drivers that donate their time and vehicle can provide as many rides as they want. As a Road To Recovery volunteer driver and cancer survivor, I know that when cancer hits, it hits from all sides. Lacking transportation to treatments shouldn’t be one of the problems, that’s why I volunteer.
To learn more about the program visit cancer.org/drive or call the Santa Rosa society office at 545-6720.
Ken Mooney, Volunteer Driver, American Cancer Society
Sebastopol
