Sebastopol, CA 95472
February 14, 2022
Dear Mayor Slayter and Councilmembers Hinton, Glass, Gurney and Rich, I am writing in support of Opt IN!
It is the ONLY Respectible Option we have, short of a law suit, or a sudden awakening on your part.
It appears the horses are out of the barn.
The City of Sebastopol is moving forward with the “PROJECT________ to Two significant Council votes have made it so:
The Council's unanimous vote October 19, 2021 supporting the overall project. And the December 21, 2021 3-2 vote (Slayter, Rich & Hinton 'yes' v. Gurney & Glass 'no') to move ahead with the contract and financing of the project.
The city and staff appear to have railroaded this project for the benefit of some residents at the expense of many others.
Staff purchased the software before the meters were approved Staff purchased the meters before the financing was approved The Council has merely put the final cherry on top – officially approving the Syserco (affiliate of PG&E) project - with its votes on October 19, 2021 and December 21, 2021.
I have held you, the Sebastopol Council, in high regard for many years. And with good reason.
I have deeply respected your integrity and commitment to taking the time to achieve good decisions. And, to incorporate practices of transparency and welcome full citizen participation in process.
The Council has had a visionary and courageous history regarding Electro Magnetic Frequencies in our community.
• In 2013,
• In
SANDY's piece;
In political and civic decisions of this scale and import, it is essential that the Council follow due process and support citizen involvement. That has not happened – for numerous reasons:
• A Survey is not Civic Involvement. The meager results of an August 2021 survey (“Are you in favor of the City of Sebastopol adopting a cellular water meter system?”) has served as one of the major foundational pillars upon which the Council has justified its claim that the public was in favor of installing 3,000 “smart” water meters.
• A Survey does not constitute Civic Involvement. The meager results of an August 2021 survey (“Are you in favor of the City of Sebastopol adopting a cellular water meter system?”) has served as one of the major foundational pillars upon which the Council has justified its claim that the public was in favor of installing 3,000 “smart” water meters.
In a community of over 7,000 residents, 320 responded to this Survey sent out to Sebastopol RatePayers by newsletter, email & Facebook This constitutes less than 1% (0.045% of the entire Sebastopol population. And of these 35% opposed and 15% were 'unsure'. • The Council Agenda-setting process and tabling of this issue has dampened opportunities for citizen comments, questions and involvement on this important item. ◦ The agenda-setting process has repeatedly put this important item towards the end of Council meeting agendas.
◦ This has resulted in putting decision-making off to the end of the night when fatigue has set in. And there has been little room for clear-headed thinking and ample discussion. ◦ And occasions on which Council has tabled the topic until the next Council meeting – due to lateness of the evening. Thus, postponing any citizen comments, questions, concerns, suggestions for 2 weeks.
• The Council has failed to abide by its own 2019 Telecommunications Ordinance 1123. This Ordinance requires public notice and a meeting where the technical specifications and the costs would have been vetted, prior to a planning commission review. This alone would have assured the public was properly notified about the proposed installation of 3,000 'smart' meters throughout the city. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/City-Government/DepartmentsServices/Planning/General-Plan • The Council has failed to follow the 2015 General Plan's language and intent regarding EMFs, which states, "Minimize Community Exposure to Unsafe Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and calls for minimizing EMF radiation and [for] community opt out of public utility smart meters.“ • The Council has neglected to heed the 2015 General Plan's purpose which “. . . is intended to serve as a . . . 'constitution' for all future development within the city." The intent of this document - and the 000's of hours that went into its creation - has been disregarded – as meaningless. General Plan