Evergreen Avenue Uproar Trims a Foot from Sidewalk Project

Friday night forum draws supporters and opponents of proposal, county outlines new timeline for tweaked Safe Routes to Schools project.

A to build a sidewalk along the south side of Evergreen Avenue in Homestead Valley took a step forward Friday night with a public forum featuring both supporters and opponents of the project, but little of the rancor that had been part of the online debate since a July meeting on the subject.

More than 75 residents turned out to the to hear a presentation on the $1.1 million project from Marin County's Public Works Department and a Q&A session facilitated by Supervisor Steve Kinsey, whose District 4 includes Homestead Valley.

The county revealed its plans to reduce the width of the sidewalk slightly to address residents' concerns but still conform to the state Safe Routes to Schools grant that will pay for the bulk of it. The Q&A session revealed some nuanced opinions in a debate that had been dominated by longtime residents who argued that a sidewalk didn't fit with the character of the neighborhood and parents of students at nearby concerned about the safety of their children.

"These are important conversations that touch on a lot of issues around community identity, and as the person who represents this area, I have an understanding of why there is such strong concern about the character issues of the neighborhood," Kinsey said in opening the two-hour meeting.

Principal Civil Engineer Ernest Klock presented a tweaked version of the project, which would extend along a 2,000-foot stretch of Evergreen from Mill Valley city limits (250 feet east of Ethel Avenue) to the intersection with Melrose, where Marin Horizon is located. It includes curbs and gutters, six new crosswalks, 11 accessible curb ramps, 29 news driveway aprons and myriad drainage improvements.

Klock said the county would reduce the width of the sidewalk from 6 feet to 5 feet to lessen the impact on street parking and aesthetics. He said the reduced width would only eliminate street parking in front of three homes on Evergreen.

"The design details can make a big difference in the way something feels, and that's what we're trying to do here," Kinsey said.

Klock noted that the project would formalize the street parking on the south side of Evergreen with an 8-foot wide parking lane. The addition of the sidewalk and the parking will reduce the width of the traffic lanes to 11 feet each.

Klock also unveiled a new timeline for the project. The state grant originally required that the project begin by June 2011, putting the county in a difficult spot to address the concerns of residents without risking the loss of the grant. With verbal state approval, the design of the project will be completed in the spring of 2012 and construction will begin in July 2012.

The bulk of the night centered on community input, with the crowd equally divided on the subject. The neighborhood's changing demographics, a slow shift from longtime residents to relatively recent arrivals with young children, was on display.

But much of the commentary wasn't that clear cut. For instance, while Marin Horizon parents spoke in favor of the project, so did a number of Homestead residents whose kids attend one of Mill Valley's public schools and who said they worried about letting their children commute to school because Evergreen was unsafe.

Mill Valley Mayor Stephanie Moulton-Peters, a longtime advocate for local Safe Routes to Schools efforts, sought to diffuse concerns about the sidewalk benefiting only Marin Horizon students. She noted that she co-founded the Safe Routes task force 10 years ago as a way to make school commuting safer for students at both public and private schools across the city and its unincorporated neighborhoods.

"Kids do better when they're separate and away from car traffic," she said. "Having them mixed up with cars is not going to work. We'd like you to be connected to the rest of the town."

Some parents said the project wouldn't necessarily make the street safer for bicyclists. By narrowing the street to accommodate the sidewalk and the paved parking, they said, bicyclists would have less of a safe zone from car traffic.

"I really wish the road was wide enough to make it safe for everyone," Public Works Director Farhad Mansourian said.

Some residents said the narrower lanes would actually slow traffic, and some even suggested that a sidewalk could foster community by forcing everyone to walk on the same side of the street.

Many of those with concerns about the project had issues specific to their respective property's drainage and aesthetics, and Klock assured them that the county would work with each property owner to find the right solution for them specifically. He said the new schedule allowed plenty of time for one-on-one discussion.

Despite strong views on both sides, the meeting avoided vitriol. The lone dustup of the night, albeit tame, came when Evergreen resident Mari Tamburo said the application for the $900,000 grant used accident data from within Mill Valley city limits and not in Homestead.

"Why are we so eager to grab onto this money when it's not justifiable?" she asked. "This street has a perfect safety record, and I don't see why we're taking this money we don't deserve and that was taken by ill-gotten means."

Mansourian objected, saying "there was absolutely no false information in the grant application."

"And I have a problem with the suggestion that 'we don't have accidents, so let's not do something," he continued. "Do you want me to wait until something happens?"

Longtime Evergreen resident Kim Jessup called for compromise, encouraging her neighbors to support the project and find ways to help the county make it fit with the community's rural aesthetic as it moves forward. She agreed with those who said photo renderings of the sidewalk showed too drastic a change for the street.

"A picture like that is really daunting and is not a good sales pitch, but I know that this community is a lot more creative than that," she said. "We can make it look and feel more appropriate for the neighborhood, but we need to make that street safe."

Mari November 08, 2010 at 04:38 PM
I appreciated that the meeting was civil, was grateful to hear from the kids and mothers who would like pedestrians to be separated from traffic on Evergreen & agree with Kim Jessup's comments. I did NOT appreciate that when I mentioned the Tamalpais Design Plan, which discourages the construction of curbs, gutters and sidewalks in our neighborhood, Mr. Mansourian dismissed its significance and instead chose to take that moment to imply that I am not concerned with safety. I started a neighborhood group: Homestead and Evergreen Avenue Residents United for Safety : HEAR US - because the current proposal does not do ENOUGH to address safety. Despite our disagreements as to how funding for this project was acquired, I'm very encouraged that the County has received an extension, because it will now give Homestead & Evergreen residents better opportunity to voice our concerns and be a part of the process. More than a few residents, who oppose this currently proposed design, have stated that we WOULD support a non-raised dedicated pathway that will serve the purpose of separating pedestrians from traffic while preserving the semi rural character of our street. I've done significant research on projects funded by Safe Routes to Schools, and have talked to several representatives at the state level, and they seem a lot more flexible in design options than the County. I hope the extra time will allow us to reach a better solution that makes sense and is SAFER for everyone.
Mari November 09, 2010 at 08:34 PM
To answer your question about "sufficient changes" - a clear "no," because the county has not made any changes yet. Since July, The Count has received many, many suggestions as to what our community wants and needs - and what we are rejecting about the current proposal. But at Friday's meeting, we were still shown the same proposal with a possibility of reducing the width by one foot- and a mention of change of color from light grey to "bone" or "buff." Also, Mr. Farhad states repeatedly that "the design is only at 10%" -- but whenever we ask DPW in about changes that will make this project more palatable, we are told - "oh no, we can't make that change or we'll lose the grant money, because the proposal was written for a six foot wide, light grey concrete sidewalk with curbs and gutters." In the HEAR US google group, we have linked to pictures of other projects funded by Safe Routes that would be a better fit for Evergreen Avenue and more likely to be accepted by the majority. We have shown examples of ADA paths without yellow domes that have been built in a week in Mill Valley for minimal cost. I sincerely hope that with the time extension, Mr. Mansourian is willing to be more open minded moving forward so we can work together to come up with a more context sensitive design, one that better accommodates bicyclist safety and adds stop signs or incorporates other changes to address the REAL safety issue on Evergreen - speeding cars.
Sean November 13, 2010 at 01:10 AM
I felt the meeting was a success on several levels and glad that the County took the extra step and presented their concept - again. Being a Homestead Valley resident I am in favor of the addition of the sidewalk, frankly it is hard to understand why this is even being debated when there are communities in Marin that would love this opportunity. It really is too bad that individual such as Mari (first two comments) are out to sabotage the process with ill advised claims, such as the Tamalpais Design Plan. This documment refers to new developments in the Tamalpais area - not a sidewalk installation in an established neighborhood. Furthermore, this document illustrates Evergreen Avenue to be classified as a Single Family neighborhood-not semi-rural or rural (which discourages sidewalks in these two zones). I believe this is exhibit 18. Every community has those that like to stir-the-pot, but I left the meeting feeling that the majority spoke and that majority said they agree with what the County is proposing.
Marie Porti November 13, 2010 at 02:29 AM
As an Evergreen Ave. resident of 29 years I'm fully aware of the issues on my street. For me, all have survived nicely without a sidewalk. My son was born and raised on this street and attended daycare at Homestead Daycare walking home as he got older, with no problems. Turning a car around will be impossible with a sidewalk. And Garbage Day is already dangerous. Despite this I am open to "Safe Routes To School". I am willing to explore alternatives such as bumps ( they build wide low ones now), stop signs and crossing guards before we get to the sidewalk idea. I am struck with a sense of viciousness from some of the folks who want the sidewalk. I say, "You knew the make up of the neighborhood before you bought here." As for the evil comments lobbed at someone (Mari) who has put herself heart and soul into looking at solutions with openness, shame on you! Your mean words are not solution finding or community binding. Tonight as I got out of my car, a young driver speed by. This to me is more the issue. I have watched the middle school and high school kids walk down the street. They like to spread out. I doubt they will walk packed together on a sidewalk. They are more likely to walk on something graded flat that they can spread out on. So consider the needs of everyone. Thanks.
Mari November 13, 2010 at 03:22 PM
Sean - maybe a dozen people spoke at that meeting - The DPW received over 120 letters of opposition to this project. - this issue is being debated because many residents were left out of the process and deliberately kept in the dark about it for more than FOUR years. We have written letters and have many questions - many which are still unanswered. As a result, this plan, which is a drastic change, overkill, complete eyesore as currently proposed - it does not serve the community and is NOT supported by the majority of the community. If you really want to know more, I'll be happy to talk to you about it. or you can just join the hear us group and read for yourself. Worse than that, it has the potential to create more problems than it claims to solve. There is a happy medium somewhere - it just needs to be negotiated.
Curry Eckelhoff November 13, 2010 at 09:13 PM
A clarification to Sean: the Tamalpais Area Community Plan [TACP] identifies the entire planning area as being semi-rural. Evergreen Ave. is a Single Family zoned neighborhood as much of the planning area is but it is encompassed in Homestead Valley which is considered sem-rural. The Tam Plan, as it is informally called, is not just for new development in the planning area---it is for much more as you will see if you read it. It touches on all development and standards for development, old and new. Many of us who live in the Tam Planning Area and who have been on the committee that wrote the plan wonder why residents complain about the way things are---weren't they that way when you moved in??? Isn't this the same as someone moving in next to an airport and then complaining about the noisy planes?? Safety may be an issue with the proposed sidewalks but moderation is the key. Often times this is not possible due to ADA regulations and engineering standards but to put down community residents, many who live on Evergreen Ave. and will be directly affected, is inexcusable.
Frank Lurz November 13, 2010 at 09:27 PM
Being a Homestead Valley resident doesn’t mean one is in favor of the proposed sidewalk, and holding an opinion that differs from Sean’s does not make one a saboteur. I met Mari in July, when this sidewalk debate began and have found her to be a source of reason and calm in the midst of storm. She has united neighbors who will be directly impacted by the development, kept them informed via the Internet, gotten answers to important questions and acted as liaison between Evergreen residents and government bureaucrats. When the project is completed, I suspect it will be far better than the one that was proposed without the neighborhood input for which Mari is largely responsible! Throughout it all Mari has struggled to advocate patience, seek compromise and maintain civility among those involved. Certainly, she has tried my patience; I have little faith in civility as I’ve seen it used so many times before to cloak subterfuge and deceit. I don’t agree with Mari on this matter (which I consider to be an important one), but I respect her nonetheless. I would add that I also have enough self-respect to refrain from settling my differences with her by defaming her as a “saboteur” or as a community troublemaker who likes to “stir-the-pot.” We’ll have to leave that to individuals like Sean.
Mari November 13, 2010 at 10:44 PM
let me try this comment again - Marie, Curry and Frank - thanks for adding your comments and coming to my defense. Oh and Frank - I wouldn't assume the project is going to be completed, just yet. At least not until and unless these conflicts with the TAM plan are resolved - this isn't about what I want - it is about what is best for the community, and there are other residents who are hopping mad and do not see a need for any kind of compromise. If anyone should be accused of working to sabotage this project, it is the people who initiated the proposal and support it- they chose to exclude residents from the planning process - and caused this whole uproar. if they had done it the right way, we wouldn't be debating it at this point - and kids would probably have had a safer route by now - one that fits in with the street.
Sean November 16, 2010 at 02:06 AM
First I'll apologize for coming across as rude, my frustrations spoke first. Obviously both parties are frustrated judging from the comments at both Public meeting 1 and 2 over this topic. My frustrations are mainly wrong facts put out in public view. For example, more than a dozen people stood up and commented on this proposal last Friday- by my notes I counted +40 people. Of this +40 the majority favored the sidewalk by my count. To say only a dozen spoke makes it seems like the whole Valley is up in arms and that just isnt true. Also, I have to disagree on the TAM Plan comments- I have read this document and I'll repeat myself it's contents refer to new developments after 1992. This document is contridicting. The Transportation goal #1. Same with T1.3. On the argument side- there are discussions discouraging the use of concrete paths...it goes on and on and back and forth with pros and cons. My point is that the Tam Plan is open for interpretation, and subject to review. Being an Engineer and seeing the existing conditions on Evergreen there are two options in my opinion - 1. The sidewalk or 2. Nothing. Unless there is an additional several million dollars handy to redesign the entire 50' ROW, and all residents are willing to lose parking and not encroach within this ROW there is not a lot that can be done when you consider the drainage issues, ADA compliance, and street parking. The one way street option could work but that's a much larger issue to tackle.
Robert Cogswell November 16, 2010 at 04:00 AM
Replying to Sean: I was tempted to reply to your 1st comment, and I'm glad I didn't, because the thrust of my comment would have been similar to yours insofar as it was mainly a reaction of frustration, and I doubt I would have looked any better than you did coming from that place. Thank-you for your second response. I don't live on Evergreen Ave. Therefore, anything I contribute has to be considered next to the greater investment those Evergreen dwellers have. I live on Madrone Park Circle and have for 39 years. My kids spent their whole elementary lives at Homestead School, and I have traveled Evergreen Ave the whole time as a resident passing through. Because I travel that street so much, I feel close to it, like it's family (can a street be family?). I want all users to enjoy their use of the street, and walkers, bicyclists & motor veh's. in that order (plus parkers and delivery folks) are who I'm talking about. I resent being told that wanting an esthetically pleasing solution is outside the available options: "two options in my opinion - 1. The sidewalk or 2. Nothing.". There is a reason the time period was stretched by a year. The initial process was distorted. No community input was solicited. No ideas from the community other than the proposal on the table were considered. Because no one knew to think about the problem as presented and try to come up with alternatives. The process should have begun like it is now unfolding. Bob Cogswell
Dan Brousseau November 16, 2010 at 06:14 AM
I was at this meeting and commented that the plan would make it less safe for cyclists. I am against the sidewalk as planned, and I live on Evergreen on the south side. The fact is if the street is narrowed and the speed limit stays the same, and no new traffic calming measures are done, how can cyclists be just as safe as with wider street? People will drive slower because the road is narrower? That's taking a lot on faith and simply absurd. I thought Klock and Kinsey did well at the meeting. The issue I have is with Mansurian. His attitude started off okay but as the evening progressed it seemed to me that his approach was to make it through the meeting by dishing out platitudes and to try and dismiss any possible changes to the standard operating procedure. Taking one foot off the width is really a minor change - it's still ugly and kills the rural appeal of the street. I'd rather leave as is (I believe it's safe enough - and I have a young child). Lots of suggestions were offered up by residents. Mansurian's disingenuous response was "we will look into that." Klock's statement about design is absolutely true - it can make all the difference. But there has to be an acceptance of design possibilities. My sense was that the county is used to the model of Mansurian knows best, live with it. I also maintain that the original SR2S issue was safety, and the sidewalk is only one (extreme) remedy of many that can help resolve it. Why can't others be examined?
Sean November 16, 2010 at 05:32 PM
Dan...Well said. I would have to agree with you on the Mansurian comments.
Mari November 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Thanks, Sean - your apology is much appreciated. FYI - I did not sign the petition in support of Keith's proposed plan, but the idea has merit. His points about wheelchair users are valid. The point is, other ideas are worth consideration and time and cooperation are the only things that are going to salvage this funding opportunity. In the interim, hopefully, the County will respond to our requests for at least one additional Stop sign at the Melrose & Evergreen. True, the TAM plan is open to interpretation, but why would anyone design a sidewalk that represents the complete antithesis of street's aesthetic - WITHOUT gauging community input? My guess is that, they feared opposition. Well, "You create what you fear," certainly applies in this case. Ironic that the people who want this sidewalk the most, have created a situation that has placed it in the most jeopardy of failure. The majority of residents would never approve a raised sidewalk with federal yellow ADA curb ramps. Because we were excluded from this process, community support for this project, as currently proposed, does NOT exist. We all need to take a breather - allow the County to process the feedback, survey the actual road use and the root cause of safety concerns - and work together come up with a design that will be accepted by and serve the residents of this community. If need exists for a path, many residents are open to that. But this "take this or nothing" approach - is not working.
Sean November 17, 2010 at 06:08 PM
Mari...your apology is apreciated as well. The 'take this or nothing' approach is exactly what this is...You need to understand the politcis here. The proposal was approved for a 6' concrete sidewalk- not stop signs, not two sidewalks, not speed bumps, not crossing guards, not DG paths, not street trees, not one way streets. The 5' colored option is a comprise- you will not get much more. Cal safe routes to school WILL consider another grant proposal outside of the approved scope, but experience tells me the County would not waste their time to go through another application. It costs too much money- your money, my money to make everyone happy. If you were left out of the community process- that's between you and the initiators. Maybe they should undo what they started...So it is this or nothing. It is perplexing to me given the existing conditions of the street why the proposed sidewalk is such a big deal - There is not enough money to address all the existing conditions and make everyone happy. I would focus more on learning the engineering/design than hiding behind the 'safety' card. After all this isnt your land in question. Within reason the County doesnt tell you what you can and cant do on your property. Since residents are responsible for this path ...the south side residents would hate the monthly maintenance needed to keep a "path" ADA compliant, let alone be able to handle a lawsuit for non compliance.
Mari November 17, 2010 at 07:02 PM
Dan and I are on the same page as far as this issue is concerned. The main problem lies with everyone's perception that Safe Routes to Schools will not accept a radically modified design, because of the way the grant was written. Well, the grant was written from a very limited perspective, and that has been proven. If we work together toward a common goal - children's safety - by gathering more credible information from our neighbors, we will be able to make the case for a new design that works for this street - and there is a good chance to salvage this opportunity. They need to not be so rigid. There are options to implement safety improvements that increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety, while preserving the unique character and perfect safety record of our street. In the interim - to continue to shove this sidewalk on this street - before placing a Stop sign at the most problem intersection - is ludicrous.
Mari November 17, 2010 at 07:33 PM
Sean - I understand the politics here. Safe Routes is part of this whole bicycle "livable community" green movement. Please explain to me what you mean by "existing conditions of the street." I have no problem with the county clearing the right of way and/or repaving the street - two things that will increase safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians. And, by the way, I am not "hiding" behind the safety card. Our street has a perfect safety record. I just want to keep it that way. Do you live in this neighborhood? Have you observed the way that the street is currently used?
Sean November 18, 2010 at 06:44 PM
Comment to Mari...Existing conditions of the street= includes every element currently within the 50' right of way. This includes grading, hsitorical drainage, parking, street width, condition of the street, encroaching in the right of way by homeowners, crown of the road, material of the road, utilities, etc.... Yes, I live in Homestead and yes, I know about the conditions on Evergreen. I keep hearing the same make if safe argument and lets all work together...My question to you. If you and others are so unhappy you must have an idea that will make all happy, then please explain to me what design will make everyone happy and will work taking into account, as the County did, current conditions on Evergreen that is within the allotted funds (1.1 million) and scope laid out in the grant that was awarded. I am very intersted to hear your thoughts on what this design??
Robert Cogswell November 18, 2010 at 07:10 PM
Hello Sean, Bob Cogswell here. I sent a post to HEARUS a week or two ago. Can't remember seeing it pop up after I sent it, but it will not alter any of the existing conditions to simply find a way to implement it, although I think that it will open up a lot of possibilities, most of which would be alterations/ improvements made possible by the change. That is to make Evergreen Ave all or in its various parts a one-way road. I mean by this that it could be one-way along its entire length, or starting from Ethyl, or starting from another street, or be one-way in more than one direction, splitting the street into separate one-way zones using the streets that connect Evergreen Ave with its parallel streets to9 facilitate flow. Using this idea, a one-way street could be quite a bit wider that 11 ft. and there could be room on both sides of the street for a path/sidewalk AND bike lane. Landscaping could be kept closer to the present status and add to the preservation of the "feel" of the community. Parking could be preserved and "traffic calming" would automatically take place, assuming stop signs were placed strategically, taking into account the final design choices. Discuss, please. Bob Cogswell
Mari November 18, 2010 at 07:17 PM
Sean - you are still looking at this from strictly an engineer's perspective. I'm asking you to consider the street's perfect safety record, and look at its current design, what makes it unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians and at what times of the day, and address those issues directly. The County stated that they have the funds to repave the road. County is required to fix drainage, sidewalk or no sidewalk.
Curry Eckelhoff November 18, 2010 at 07:21 PM
So much discussion of materials and width of the proposed sidewalk---has an in depth study been done as to how many children really walk or bike to this private school?? From what I have read in the past there is gridlock of cars at start and end of the school day. Cars abound---but walkers?? bikers?? Conversely in Tam Valley, Marin Ave. , a major roadway to Tam Valley School, will be improved with sidewalks this Summer. The children who attend Tam Valley School live in Tam Valley so the addition of a sidewalk may be considered worth the "inconvenience" to the residents of Marin Ave. I am not sure I could say the same for the residents of Evergreen Ave.
Curry Eckelhoff November 18, 2010 at 07:45 PM
Well, doesn't this approach preserve the semi-rural definition of Homestead Valley and the Tamalpais Area Community Plan. WOW!! Again I ask--will this proposed SRTS project in fact be used by school children on their way to this private school?? The concerns of the residents, property owners and homeowners affected by this project should be first and foremost unless and until it can be demonstrated that there is a real need for this 2000' monster sidewalk .
Mari November 18, 2010 at 09:35 PM
Curry, you should join the hear us group and read the proposal. Actually, since the school started busing in all students, the street has not been gridlocked in the morning. I'm pretty sure that Safe Routes operates on the "build it and they will walk" philosophy. "True potential cannot be realized unless communication is placed above everything else." Dan Pallotta
Curry Eckelhoff November 18, 2010 at 09:47 PM
Mea culpa ---I was only trying to bring the discussions back to "need" or "not need". Some of these ideas seem to be expanding way past what is needed. I'm delighted to hear about the busing. Great idea and definitely needed for the congested area around the school. Interesting thought that if you "build it they will walk". From out of town to the school? Hmmm...
Sean November 18, 2010 at 10:40 PM
Mari...You did not answer my design question and what you would do. Honestly I do not think you are being practical, but Good luck...I'm done...The safety argument is going to come back to bite you!! Robert...I do like the idea, though.
Robert Cogswell November 18, 2010 at 11:10 PM
Sean, I'm puzzled by your comment. Are you answering both my reply and Mari's. Mari and I have briefly discussed the idea I outlined above, and my floating it here can be viewed as a proposal that addresses design questions, even though by sidestepping those questions that would be mooted by changing the direction traffic flows on the street. If you like the idea, weigh in on questions of design that the idea may raise. Certainly, the change of direction would be a pretty low cost of implementation component of a larger solution. It also allows the possibility to give a more even-handed treatment to both sides of the street. Then, both north and south sides would benefit.
Mari November 18, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Sean...well, based upon the information received thus far, there seems to be insufficient evidence represented to back the claims of need to build a sidewalk. What is causing the safety risk? Problem : Increased traffic on Evergreen Solution : MHS parents to enter on Montford and exit on Laverne. Cost : $0 Address the most often stated safety concern : speeding cars Problem Area #1 : the blind curve on Evergreen, between Ethel and Linden Lane Solution : Route that bypasses the blind curve: Start at Miller: Montford to Linden - Turn Right onto Evergreen - Up Melrose to School Clear all parking on the North side from Linden Lane to Melrose to create an improvised pedestrian path. Benefit : an interim safer route - increased safety on our street. No engineering needed. Problem Area #2 : Melrose & Evergreen Intersection Problem : cars from Homestead whip around that corner, limited visibility. Solution : Install a Stop sign Problem : parked cars on the North Side block entrance to Volunteer Park and require kids to climb navigate through utility poles or walk in the street. Parked cars narrow the road. Solution : No parking on North Side between Scott & Melrose. Problem : crosswalk worn Solution : repaint crosswalk Cost : a lot less than a million dollars Optional : to encourage more bicyclists to use the road Problem : edges of road , cracks Repair and repave the road Cost : ? with further analysis
Mari January 22, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Please take a look and provide feedback : Thanks! http://www.indiegogo.com/forevergreen
Mari May 24, 2012 at 03:00 PM
Here are our neighborhood safety improvement suggestions : http://hv94941hearus.blogspot.com/p/hear-us-evergreen-safety-improvements.html
Mari October 07, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Sean - Please feel free to join us in Nextdoor Homestead Valley. Thanks https://nextdoor.com/invite/c69e1498c43ff4051c8b


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something