Spence Burton

October 4, 2004

Questionnaire submitted by Spence Burton, candidate for Petaluma City Council.

Age: 56

Occupation: Letter carrier, automation coordinator from Sunnyvale to Eureka for the U.S. Postal Service.

How long have you lived in Petaluma? 28 years

Education: 1961-1965: Archbishop Molloy High School, Briarwood, Queens, N.Y. 1965-present: various college level courses at: Queens College, N.Y.; City College of San Francisco; Marin Community College, one-month intensive Italian study in Perugia, Italy. Most of the coursework included: labor law and foreign language studies. I have received additional training in: advocacy, arbitration, and consensus building courses as related to my employment.

Experience or background related to city government: I was a candidate for the Petaluma Planning Commission in 1997. Because of my long hours and odd work schedule and working most Saturdays, both commuting and working in San Francisco, I have been unable to get as actively involved in our community as I would have liked. I have always monitored or watched the City Council meeting on local access TV when possible, and relied on the local press to provide honest and candid reporting. Additionally, I have always tried to stay current on most issues facing our community. It is sad that some good candidates for some commissions, and indeed the council, cannot serve because of the daytime schedule of some meetings. As a result, our 'pool' of available candidates is limited. Since I will be retiring before the year is out, this will no longer be an issue for me.

Family: I was born and raised, until 1970, in Brooklyn and Queens County, N.Y. I married Catherine Balestrieri in Daly City 31 years ago in 1973. My wife has been active in AAUW along with other local activities over the years. She teaches Spanish and Italian at Tomales High School, and Italian at Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma Campus (where she has also taught Spanish). We have no children. We jointly coordinate, in conjunction with Tomales High School, a student exchange program with schools in Sicily, Italy. Each year we either escort a group of THS students to stay with families in Sicily and then tour the mainland of Italy, or we host a group of students and teachers from Sicily in our local community. Since both my wife and I have Sicilian roots, we are very proud of this program and of the cross-cultural experiences of all who have participated over the years.

What prompted you to run for City Council? Why do you feel qualified? How would you make a difference if elected?

A) I plan on retiring from my job in the Postal Service in November, and that, combined with the fact that one of the current incumbents is not running for re-election, helped me decide to enter the race. I feel that I will now have the time to fully represent the people of Petaluma. I don't like taking on a task without knowing in advance that I will be able to do the job the way it should be done. I do want to be clear: no individual or group asked me to run; it was a decision I personally made after discussions with my wife. I have 'no strings attached!' to any group on either side of the political spectrum in Petaluma. I hope to draw support from all Petalumans, not one special interest group or the other.

B) As an observer of the City Council and Planning Commission over the years, via local public access TV and the press, I now feel confident that I will be able to help the City of Petaluma grow into the 21st century. I am a careful 'listener' who likes to hear ALL of the information available, and to hear from all sides of an issue BEFORE making any decisions. I feel the more the general public is involved, the better any decision will be! My experience as a long time leader, negotiator, advocate and consensus builder will enable me to significantly and immediately contribute to the City Council in many ways. I have served as a president of a letter carrier union local of over 3,000 members with a multitude of cultural and political viewpoints, and as the Director of Education for the entire California State Assn. of approximately 30,000 members. I have received extensive training on 'working together,' 'teamwork,' and 'consensus building' through the use of the 'employee involvement' process in the USPS, and I have also served as the co-chairperson for this process, both in San Francisco and in the North Bay. My reputation as a consensus builder and a fighter for what is right recently earned me a 'Lifetime Achievement Award' from Golden Gate Branch 214 of the NALC. In addition, I have won several awards for my writing ability, and from my employer.

C) When I first moved to Petaluma with my wife in 1976, the population was around 30,000. We chose to settle in this beautiful town because of its unique character and charm, along with a strong 'slow/managed growth' formula in place. As a native of New York City, in my youth, I saw first-hand what massive and rapid growth could do to a community. New York had a way of expanding just so it could 'pay the bills' for previous development. They were always building more, just to try and 'keep up' with expenses needed to pay for services that were required because of prior construction. Growth brought more growth, until there was nowhere else to build and that brought New York City to bankruptcy. Managed and carefully planned growth in any community is a must in today's society. While I strongly feel that the Petaluma City Council needs to have an average worker representative from the community, that person should always represent ALL of the many facets of our community. One with no 'political ties,' and no allegiance to any one 'group' or 'political ideology.' While I have personally supported various candidates for the City Council in the past, I have deliberately stayed away from actively involving myself with the various 'Special Interest' groups in our city. This has not been from a lack of interest or concern, but more from a perspective of having an open mind, with an independent 'point of view,' on many of the issues.

Council effectiveness and functionality: Do you feel the council is doing a good job? Do you feel the council functions effectively and meetings are run well? Explain or give examples. I feel that the Council has made a great deal of progress under Mayor David Glass. As one who has chaired/ran hundreds of meetings, both large and small over the years, I have a special appreciation of what it takes to run/chair meetings. You need training, natural ability and an honest desire to really listen to everyone in order to be a good leader. I do not agree on the general current leanings of our council. I believe it generally gives the nod to developers more often than I would prefer. There needs to be a very careful balance between growth and environmental and 'quality of life' issues. Some members of the council do seem to be less willing to listen to every point of view, in my opinion. As I have watched council meetings on PCA (local access cable), I have seen clues about which members are really listening, taking notes, etc., but we never know if they all are really listening. It is sad that at times the council appears to be polarized much the way we are at the national level of politics. Less polarization is crucial for the future vitality and quality of life in our city.

Transportation: How should the city address its transportation/circulation needs and street surface problems? How should Petaluma pay for fixing its deteriorating streets? What can be done to relieve traffic congestion in Petaluma and how should it be paid for? Does Petaluma need a crosstown connector? If so, where and in what configuration? What do you think about the advisory measure on the November ballot asking voters if the city should pursue a crosstown connector at Rainier?

A) We must address our transportation/circulation needs and surface problems by long term planning. We can't fix years of neglect of infrastructure overnight. All new growth must fully pay for capital construction of necessary facilities and roads and for ongoing maintenance and related service issues. As for circulation issues, we still rely on the East Washington overpass as our primary way across town. The new development on the old Kenilworth property can only exacerbate the problem. The Caltrans improvement of the Highway 101-East Washington interchange will help when completed, but we have to think 'beyond the bubble.' Utilizing Caulfield Lane and Lakeville Street as a second major entry to the new shopping center could take a lot of strain off of East Washington. Upgrading Caulfield might be a reasonable negotiating point before approving the final Kenilworth project. A simple exit ramp off of 101 directly past the Caltrans lot into the shopping center would be a step in the right direction. I feel that alleviating congestion in our city is all about working together with those who will directly benefit from them. All new growth needs to pay its 'fair share,' it is just common sense!

B) Fixing deteriorating streets has been a relatively new phenomenon in our city. Developments historically have paid for new streets but many times not the improvement or maintenance of surrounding access corridors or streets. A portion of all income initially generated by new growth should be set aside in a regular 'maintenance' program for our entire infrastructure, especially our streets.

C) Crosstown connectors have been part of Petaluma Planning for many, many years. Caulfield, Rainier and Corona were all at one time considered desirable possible connectors. Any new connector shouldn't be built to encourage massive growth, either in our sensitive flood plain area or where existing services would be too costly to expand. Usually, when people in Petaluma talk about crosstown traffic as being too congested they are talking about East Washington. One of my opponents doesn't even think that there is a very serious traffic problem in Petaluma compared to some other sections of the Bay Area. I disagree! When it takes me up to a half hour to go from my home in the southwest section of the city to Staples in the Washington Square shopping center, something is dreadfully wrong. When it takes over 10 minutes just to get off the ramp from Highway 101 North to East Washington Street that is excessive! We should try and concentrate on ways to steer the two major types of traffic around out city's core. We have those drivers that are simply accessing the Freeway (either getting on or off) and those who are going from one side of town to the other. We need to do our best to give these two distinctly different types of local drivers different routes of travel. Additional exits from Highway 101 at Corona, Caulfield or elsewhere could have a significant impact on drivers currently having to exit on East Washington to reach their homes. Additional onramps at Corona and Caulfield could also be a way to take this kind of 'going out of town traffic' off of our crosstown and local streets. These are the types of realistic, affordable possible options that need to be fully vetted and explored. Because the costs would not be as high as building a complete new major interchange/crosstown connector, they could be built in far less time.

D) Rainier advisory vote. In concept I support such an initiative, but I have problems with the way it is being put to us. People need to know that even if everyone in the entire city agreed to building a full Rainier interchange and crosstown connector 'Right NOW', it would be at least 10 years before it could be built if all went perfectly! People deserve to know how the city plans on paying for the project. How much is it going to cost everyone who lives or owns a business in Petaluma? How will it impact on the floodplain, and who will have to pay those in the Payran area if it generates additional flooding in that area? Will it really alleviate traffic around town or will it increase it because of the massive growth such a project could generate in the largely bucolic and undeveloped Petaluma Boulevard North area of the city. If we build Rainier, we MUST completely rebuild Petaluma Boulevard North, and at what cost? I don't believe that a 45-foot-tall overcrossing of Highway 101(which may be required because of the railroad tracks below) is the answer. Funneling more traffic to Petaluma Boulevard North, where it already takes five minutes or more to cross East Washington at some times during the day, doesn't make sense. If this advisory vote does show some strong initial support for exploring the possibility of utilizing Rainier, of course I would listen to the voice of the people as any good representative of the people should, but I would place any 'specific plan' for the buildup of the interchange (and all of its related costs, impacts etc.) on the ballot as a separate issue once a full and detailed plan was created and vetted.

E) As far as payment for most of the above, those who benefit financially from these projects should pay for the bulk of the costs associated with the improvements. We should also continue to work closely with Caltrans and other possible sources of funding.

Budget: Do you feel the 2004-2005 city budget adequately addresses the city's needs? In addition to increasing fees and generating more retail sales tax, how would you go about closing the gap between the city's limited revenues and its need to provide necessary city services?

A) A short answer would be NO. But with the radical cuts in the city budget forced upon us by the governor and the Legislature, and a lack of sufficient foresight, we ended up only with bad options. We have a population approaching 60,000 with a service support structure for a city of 40,000 or less. This must change. The current budget reduces police staffing by 3.5 positions (currently vacant but still allocated positions that will not be filled), along with an additional 6 other service related positions. If we are to continue to grow (and we will), we MUST collect fees, etc. from virtually all 'new growth' (low cost senior housing should be excluded of course) that will really pay for the full projected impact on our city. User and building fees should fully cover any and all expenses involved, including any immediate capital improvements needed and any projected future expenses for expanded police/fire protection, parks, services and our schools. Temporary school structures should be just that, temporary! If new construction cannot pay fully for the needed expansion of services, then we must look at raising those fees OR reject the project! It just makes pure and simple common sense! We don't need to be digging ourselves into a 'bigger hole,' pun intended.

B) Another source that could be looked at is redevelopment districts. They can keep needed money from the general community, and restrict it to the district itself! As a result, all such districts should be carefully studied for fiscal impact BEFORE they are created, and reviewed regularly. The general public needs to be educated on redevelopment districts and funds. Most citizens don't realize that redevelopment districts, if abused, can be a drain on the general fund of our city. The downtown district is one that I heartily support! If we lose our downtown, we will someday end up like Rohnert Park, our northerly sister!

Parks: Do you believe Petaluma has sufficient parks and playing fields to meet the needs of its residents? If not, what should be done to identify more park sites and pay for them? What should the city do about Lafferty Ranch?

A) Another short and easy answer. NO, we do not have sufficient parks, playing fields, and recreational facilities for adults and our youth. In fact we have LESS as every day passes. With the sale of Kenilworth we are losing several ball fields that only God knows how they are going to be replaced. The private ball fields proposed by the airport seem to have been forever delayed for the last several years for one reason or the other. It may be time to form a different joint public � private partnership to develop and build out those fields. Our youth deserve better treatment and more venues to 'have fun' without having to leave town. There is an identified park site in the General Plan that calls for a large park at Windsor Drive and D Street that would connect with Helen Putnam Park; yet, a major development is being proposed by the University of the Pacific, through their representatives Davidon, on this site. There is an active and vocal group of local residents that is opposed to the change, and I believe that this group deserves to be listened to carefully. We shouldn't be changing land use or designations from park use to any other use as long as we have a serious park and open space shortage in Petaluma.

B) As for Lafferty Ranch, it is a beautiful and special place with unbelievable views of the entire Bay Area, but we cannot afford to fight homeowners in that area who seem to have an unlimited amount of funds that they are willing to expend to keep everyone out! We should reopen discussion with the state and others about transferring this valuable land to the state for a future limited use state park. Not for ball fields, or group activities but to enable future generations to see the Bay Area in a special way and to someday connect to Jack London Park on the other side of Sonoma Mountain. Enough of city funds have already been spent on trying to open Lafferty; we need to try and recover some of those funds if we can.

Campaign finance reform: Do you support the campaign finance reform measure on the November ballot? Yes, I support campaign finance reform. To my knowledge, I am the ONLY declared candidate in this election that has taken the pledge to adhere to the measure for this election. I have a hard time understanding how somebody who says they are in favor of it won't pledge to adhere to it. It should be a matter of principle and credibility for every candidate. Some of these same City Council Candidates are raising $20,000 ... $30,000 ... $40,000 dollars and much more in amounts up to $500 per person. I personally don't think candidates should be raising and spending such large sums of money on a local non-partisan City Council election! That could lead to a lot of 'you owe me' requests once they are in office. I refuse to accuse any of my opponents of doing so on a 'quid pro quo' basis as I firmly believe they are honest and dedicated members of our community, but the appearance of impropriety sometimes can be worse. Also, do we really need all those huge 4-foot-by-8-foot billboards all over town and along Highway 101 that big money pays for? To me this kind of large 'visual pollution' is just another form of 'environmental pollution,' that we should fix! In my opinion, responsible candidates shouldn't sanction this kind of 'environmental pollution' in our community; I have confidence that people will vote for candidates because of their positions on the issues, not on who has the largest signs plastered all over town! Reasonably sized 'lawn signs' make sense as our neighbors express who they feel are the best-qualified candidates, but somehow we need to return to common sense when campaigning for the City Council.

General plan: Are you satisfied with the progress on updating the city's General Plan?

A) I am reasonably satisfied with the progress. I have confidence that any last minute maneuvering by anyone can't fool the community at large. The General Plan is our 'rock.' We shouldn't play politics with it.

B) Once adopted, I would feel morally bound by the policy and goals of the plan. I strongly feel that we should adhere to the plan as best as humanly possible. I have a history of adhering to written rules and regulations, while at the same time realizing the need for change. I believe that any change or modification to the plan should be studied extensively with citizen and community input being crucial to any decision. If I believe that any proposal is a major or significant change in the plan's policies or goals, I would recommend a vote of the entire city before the change should be made. Of course, any costs for such a vote should be fully borne by whatever entity is requesting the change!

Water: How can the city provide adequate water supplies to its residents and businesses in coming years? Recycling and reuse of our wastewater from our new plant is a giant step in the right direction. In addition, we need to continue to encourage the conversion to low flow devices in the city. Publicity and the ease of replacement need to be improved. We need to encourage our southern neighbors, North Marin Water District, to also conserve. I believe that Petaluma can continue to expand, but not at the current rate of approximately 1,000 new residents every year. That is the rate we have been growing at since I moved to Petaluma in 1976. 'Slow growth' is like 'slow food' ... better quality and ambiance. There is a time and place for Fast Food, but NEVER a time for fast uncontrolled growth!

Downtown and economic development: Now that the Central Petaluma Specific Plan is being implemented and Basin Street Properties' downtown project is under way, what else can be done to enhance and revitalize the downtown area? What should the city do to address downtown parking? Encouraging more foot traffic would be a step in the right direction. Local public transit should also be available on weekends to feed the downtown area. A joint effort to coordinate usage of the Golden Eagle Shopping center and downtown, with parking etc. might help alleviate some of the congestion that may now be generated by the additional growth. Most people can't carry large heavy packages or other purchases all the way back to their homes located throughout the city. After shopping they want to return to their vehicles, load them up with their many purchases and return home! Utilizing the Balshaw Bridge to access possible additional parking behind or adjacent to Golden Eagle could be explored as an option.

Retail development: Now that the retail leakage survey has been completed, what can the city do to attract the kinds of retail businesses that residents want? When I applied for the Planning Commission in 1997, one of the items that I suggested was bringing the types of stores to Petaluma that would generate high sales tax revenue locally. I stated, at that time, that CompUSA would be a great business to solicit because there was none north of the Golden Gate. Since then, we now have one in San Rafael and one in Santa Rosa. We missed an excellent opportunity. I would work together closely with Regency or any other reasonable party to bring a Fry's Electronics store to town! It is vital in 'Telecom Valley' to have quick easy access to computer and electronic equipment. Fry's would serve our video, audio and computer needs for years to come! If elected, I will personally try to contact them and urge them to consider opening a store in Petaluma! Target, Staples and Kohl's are good and positive steps in the right direction, but we still need to do more!

Fairgrounds: How should the city proceed with negotiations on relocating the fairgrounds? I don't think that the fairgrounds should be fully developed nor relocated. A song in my youth still comes to mind when I think of such a potentially massive buildout ... 'They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.' The fairgrounds is a unique treasure in the middle of Petaluma, one that shouldn't be casually cast aside because of a need for sales tax revenues. Yes, it can be improved, upgraded and made more accessible to everyone, but with the paving over of the Kenilworth site, we may be losing too much of our local town character and feel that has so attracted many of us to move to this community. We don't need a shopping center like Serramonte in Daly City with a huge sign that makes our auto mall sign look like a 'postcard.' The fairgrounds can become a great central meeting place for our entire community; only the imagination of the fair board together with our City Council and the community-at-large can make the dream come true. We need to move VERY slowly on any change in use or relocation, and at this point I would be opposed to moving it to the outskirts of Petaluma. Such a dramatic and radical change to the character of central Petaluma should not be taken casually. Any relocation would affect future generations of Petalumans in such a dramatic way that ultimately I feel a ballot measure should be fully vetted, and all of our citizens should vote on this matter. I strongly believe that since the Fairgrounds is public property, we need to utilize it for the betterment and enjoyment of all.

Floodplain: What is your opinion of the city's surface water management plan incorporated in the General Plan and how do you proposed balancing the need to protect the integrity of the Army Corps of Engineers' Payran flood control project with the need for residential and retail development in the area?

A) The current proposed expansion of the outlet mall by adding approx. 240,000 square feet would dramatically impact on downstream flooding and in the Payran area. I believe a 125 percent increase in the size of the outlets is way out of proportion to the area where it is proposed. This would also put more pressure on building a cross-town connector at Rainier generating more traffic. Additional significant building in the floodplain would be flat-out dangerous. Any significant building in the floodplain needs to be certified as generating ZERO additional runoff, with possible bonds posted and paid for by all such builders/developers in the area, in the event of future downstream flooding (a suggestion brought up on Aug. 16 at the City Council meeting by a concerned citizen).

B) I don't see a 'need' for any significant growth in that area that would seriously affect the quality of life for all those now living downstream from the area!

Housing and infill development: In 1998, Petaluma voters overwhelmingly approved a 20-year urban growth boundary (UGB), aimed at preventing sprawl and focusing development in the city's core. What is your feeling about the kinds of high-density infill housing being built or planned in Petaluma? I would continue to promote 'infill' throughout the city wherever it was not in conflict with the existing design and 'feel' of a particular section or street in the City. Generally, I would be opposed to placing a large condo or apartment complex in a long established single home neighborhood. The project MUST fit the location! Infill does not mean that the citizens of Petaluma want a central area that looks like a mini-Manhattan! Recently the Petaluma Police Dept., in an article in the paper about potential problems in a southeast Petaluma apartment complex, reported that it was not unusual in apartment complexes in Petaluma to have a rate of one police call/incident for every five residences in a single year. This is unacceptable in my mind, and should be addressed in all future developments. We should address this issue at its 'core' and assure that our youth have options to positively and creatively channel their energies. As we approach the UGB around the city, we need to reduce the density of housing and development so that we gradually blend into the agricultural lands that surround us. Please see my response to the question below (How can Petaluma, with a population of more than 55,000, maintain its small-town qualities while meeting affordable housing needs as well as economic development needs? What is your vision for Petaluma?) for additional information on this question.

Name one controversial council decision or policy of the past four years and how you would have handled it differently. The most recent issue where the Council voted to negotiate with three possible suppliers for the long-term foreseeable future of our city garbage contract and rejecting a single bidder outright, is one I would have done differently. Four companies submitted preliminary reports; plans and estimates of how they proposed to best serve the future needs of Petaluma. It was, and should be, generally agreed that we should plan for more diversion of our waste (i.e. recycling food wastes, etc. so that they don't end up rapidly filling up local dump sites). The state also encourages this kind of treatment of our waste, and it makes common sense. Recent studies showed that in Sonoma County only about 30 percent of our garbage is handled this way. Most informed people propose increasing this amount to at least 50 percent with an ultimate goal of 70 percent. I also strongly agree. Three of these companies came in with preliminary bids HIGHER than our current rates. One company, who has recently taken over servicing Windsor, Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa, submitted a preliminary bid (with not as much diversion as we should have in my opinion) for a 30 percent reduction in the rates to the residents of Petaluma. Our council, for some reason, decided to only continue negotiations with the three companies that propose to increase the rates. While I cannot, nor will I debate whether the fourth company is BEST for Petaluma and our future needs, as a long time negotiator of contracts, agreements, etc., it just doesn't make any common sense to 'throw out' the low preliminary bid when you should use that as 'leverage' when negotiating with the other firms for cheaper rates for our residents. This is a common sense business practice that every businessperson or skilled negotiator should know how to utilize. I would have fought hard to have ALL of the proposals considered and negotiated by our city manager and staff. I would have used my position as a City Council member to make sure the entire community was aware of the situation, and urge their input and support at an evening council meeting, when most of the general public could attend.

How can Petaluma, with a population of more than 55,000, maintain its small-town qualities while meeting affordable housing needs as well as economic development needs? What is your vision for Petaluma?

A) We only need to look back at our past and some of our more recent growth to find solutions to our future. Without repeating what I said in the question above (concerning why I am running for the Petaluma City Council), which pretty well explains my views on this subject, I think that we need to continue the kinds of affordable housing construction that have recently been completed in town. The 'small town' feeling of the joint public/private housing development behind La Taquer�a Mi Pueblo at Petaluma Boulevard North and Payran Street, is a good example of what I would encourage. It is a 'mini-town' inside of our town.

b) We also need to support the current mobile home residents in our community; many of them are seniors trying to live their lives to the fullest. Mobile homes are one of the best sources of reasonably priced homes in our community. We need to make sure that they are not subject to exorbitant space rent increases or owners who might try and capitalize on increased land values that could be generated by a new crosstown connector. My parents spent most of their retirement years living in a mobile home park in Tempe, Arizona in a 'single wide' home. They experienced, first hand, the additional financial pressures placed on fixed income seniors when a series of new park owners each decided to 'pad their pockets' with excessive space rate increases! They tried to force many of the long time residents to purchase new mobile homes so that the park would attract 'higher class' residents who wouldn't object to the higher space rental charges. How can we not look out for and protect our seniors who have given so much to us? Basic common sense needs to be applied.

C) My vision for Petaluma is a community that is kept fully informed of potential changes to their lives BEFORE they happen. A multi-cultural community that just doesn't share the culinary pleasures of the many cultures who live here, but who try and blend their cultures into a community of Petalumans with only one goal � to improve the quality of life for all of us! I am very proud of my Sicilian/English/German heritage (as everyone should be very proud of theirs); my years of family history research have taught me one thing ... we all come from one heritage ... human kind! We shouldn't just 'get along,' we should work together to share our cultures and history, and that will make us a stronger community. Together we can do anything! It just makes common sense!

What do you think about the job City Manager Mike Bierman is doing? I feel that Mr. Bierman is doing a good job dealing with all the various diverse elements in our city and city government. He appears to be very professional with his dealings with the public. I believe he has done an admirable job recently, having to rapidly adjust to the constantly changing financial situation at the state level. I did disagree with him when he recommended that no TOT funds be given to local groups that encourage visitors and tourist income for our city (Cinnabar Theater, etc.), but the council quickly corrected this poor advice after hearing from the public. Making mistakes just prove that we are all HUMAN, only machines aren't supposed to make mistakes!

Describe one new program or idea you would propose if elected. I would push for a significant southern entrance to our new shopping center proposed on the Kenilworth site. We need to take a common sense approach to this development and make sure that not ALL of the additional traffic that it will generate will be 'squeezed' into the East Washington corridor. The school bus yard by Kenilworth, which is part of the deal with the school district and the developer, already has a southern gateway to the property. The current western end of the Caulfield overpass could be an excellent southern entrance to the proposed center that would take a good deal of the strain off of East Washington. It may even be possible to construct a southbound off ramp from Highway 101 at Caulfield, one that might even be able to directly access the center. A minor realignment or relocation of the Caltrans facility may be the only significant issue to be resolved. Even without modifying the Caltrans facility, a two block 'jog' off the current Caulfield ramp through the current school bus yard, should not be a reason to 'reject' the southern entrance option. If we fully 'build out' the Caulfield crosstown connector, and we develop this southern entrance, we could feed the center from both McDowell and someday directly from Petaluma Boulevard. This would be the kind of 'win-win' situation that I would like to encourage in Petaluma. New, creative and imaginative ideas must be the cornerstone for progress and future growth in Petaluma. As a community we need to pull together to find new solutions to old problems. Together we have a chance, divided we will fail! I will continue to bring up new common sense solutions; solutions that will bring us 'together,' not separate us! If you've read through all my answers to this extensive questionnaire, then you are like me, 'concerned about the future of our city!' You have the same desire to try to do what is RIGHT as I do, and you are ready to 'open the door' to any possible new ideas and solutions to the issues we face. Common sense and open minds will build a better Petaluma for generations to come!