Letters to the Argus-Courier Editor April 29, 2022

Scott Ranch project should be approved

EDITOR: When approved by the city, 47 acres of the Scott ranch property will be given to the Sonoma County Regional Parks by Earth Island Institute’s Kelly Creek Protection Project to become a new, accessible downtown extension of Helen Putnam Park. Some have questioned SCRP’s willingness to acquire this property, their capacity to convert it to parkland, and their ability to manage it.

Bert Whitaker, Director of SCRP, has stated that his organization is delighted with the chance to expand “Petaluma’s Park” and stands ready to accept the property, made possible by $4.1 million in donations from community members.

SCRP currently manages 60 parks across the county, responsibly stewarding various endangered species including the red legged frog. SCRP’s professional staff routinely restores and improves native habitat, resulting in more robust and resilient ecosystems. Sustainable water management and the maintenance of viable wildlife corridors are on-going features of our regional parks.

A $1 million grant from the Ag & Open Space District has been awarded to fund the conversion of the Scott Ranch land to Putnam once the city acts. In addition, Measure M funds for parks are available to support improvements to this exciting new addition.

SCRP staff are experts in vegetation and fuels management, executing fire mitigation plans and investing in fire-prevention infrastructure. SCRP works closely with Cal Fire and local fire districts. In 2017, a group of heroic firefighters used Shiloh Regional Park as a buffer to stop the Tubbs fire from engulfing Windsor. And in 2019, Foothill Regional park, once again blocked the Kincade fire from advancing across western Sonoma County.

Bringing these 47 acres into Helen Putnam Regional Park and under SCRP’s management will decrease the fire risk for the west side of Petaluma, compared to the current, un-managed vegetation and timber conditions on the ranch.

If the City Council fails to approve the Scott Ranch project, there will be no expansion of Putnam Park and neighboring residents will remain without a fire mitigation plan for the ranch property.

Carol Eber

Petaluma

Safe streets needed in Petaluma

EDITOR: Picture this: Petaluma, 2030. Nobody has died on our roadways since 2027.

More than half our students arrive at school by foot, bike, and public transit. With fewer cars on the road, traffic of all kinds flows smoothly. Chronic illnesses like diabetes, obesity, and hypertension are down significantly, along with greenhouse gas emissions. By making it safe for people who cannot legally drive or cannot afford to drive, we’ve addressed one of our most significant equity issues.

A coalition of Petaluma folks of all stripes — churches, schools, cyclists, drivers, seniors, and more — want to make this vision real. We’re hoping to make Safe Streets one of our city council’s Top 10 priorities at its May 2 meeting.

Safe Streets, great, right, who supports dangerous streets? So what exactly do we mean?

Our platform says every time a street is resurfaced, it will be done with provision for every kind of user. That street signage will direct the way to safe routes whether you’re on bike or foot. That the budget for safety improvements will be at least $2 million a year. Petaluma finally has some money and we can get busy on improvements we planned as far back as our 2008 general plan. Projects will need to be acted upon within six months.

And, my favorite, we’ll have a “tactical urbanism” department. That’s where neighborhood folks, who see the hazards for our grandmas and kids, can figure out our own safety measures and propose them to the city as demo or pilot projects and see how they actually work.

On my street, for example, Mountain View Avenue, cars speed through the curves even though it’s a route to school for families. We could try out our neighbors’ ideas for slowing traffic and making it a greener street.

Please join us in encouraging our city council to choose this vision. Sign the petition at bit.ly/SafeStreetsPetition.

Mary Davies

Safe Streets Coalition, Petaluma

Another vote for safer streets

EDITOR: It’s been 15 years since the Petaluma City Council voted unanimously to approve Petaluma’s first Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. I was there; I had all the Council members sign my old bicycle helmet. I put it on a shelf, and bought a new helmet.

A highlight of the “Bike Plan” was the creation of a bicycle boulevard. Bike boulevards are existing streets with simple measures to calm traffic and give priority to bikes. Fifth Street between McNear and Western was considered a good location, a safe alternative to Petaluma Boulevard.

My then-new helmet is now old, needing replacement. And while the Bike Plan wasn’t shelved, we still don’t have a bike boulevard. We have completed some great projects, like the Lynch Creek crosstown trail. But safe routes are a patchwork. The gaps prevent most people from using a bike for everyday tasks like shopping, or riding their kids to school. The story of the Oh family (Argus, Earth Day April 22) is a perfect example. Meanwhile, cars remain by far Petaluma’s largest source of CO2 emissions, and the collision injuries and killings continue.

We don’t need to be stuck in this bad situation. We have what it takes: a capable City Staff, a supportive City Council, and a community willing to move boldly in this direction. There’s a wealth of good examples from other locales, very affordable “quick fix” methods to make safe, equitable, and healthy mobility a reality. These methods benefit car travel as well as alternatives.

We formed the Safe Streets Petaluma Coalition to provide a critical ingredient: sustained and vigorous public support for safe streets. This starts with the City Council making Safe Streets a top priority when they set their Goals this Monday. Visit our website www.safestreetspetalulma.org to read our proposals, and sign our petition.

Bruce Hagen

Petaluma

We should spread costs of new well fees

EDITOR: Fellow Petaluma residents, there could be a substantial new fee coming to your next tax bill? The Groundwater Sustainability Agency finally released the proposed fees they want to charge well users for the next five years. Petaluma Valley users would be paying the highest rates of the three basins. A rural residential user would pay $115-$200. The same user in Santa Rosa basin would pay $18-$25 and a Sonoma user would pay $48-$80. If you use water for animals on pasture the per acre foot would cost $230-$400, as opposed to $35-$50 in Santa Rosa and $95-$160 in Sonoma.

Each of the three basins supposedly need $1.1 to 1.2 million in operating costs per year. Probably much of their work would be duplicated, so why not combine the costs?

In my opinion, the fairest way to protect the groundwater for all, is to have a parcel tax where everyone in the Petaluma Valley would pay $28-$55 per parcel to keep our basin in good standing for the future. After all, we all pay a fee on our tax bills for the Warm Springs Dam/Russian River Project and those of us using well water do not get a drop of water from that source.

Nita Miller

Petaluma