 Okay. Good evening. I'm going to call to order tonight's meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission and ask for roll call please. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present. With that we have a number of minutes tonight to approve. So let's start with our November 29th draft minutes. Any comments or corrections on those? Not seeing any. Those will stand as printed. On our December 13 minutes. Any comments or corrections? Not seeing any. Those are going to stand as printed. January 10th. Yes. Commissioner. It might get back to this station. So on the bottom of page 305 on the January 10th meeting minutes it indicates Commissioner Edmondson left for the evening during the recess and then he made the motion on the following page. So I think he left later than that. Which minutes was that? The January 10th minutes and on the bottom of page 305. Okay. We'll make the correction. Okay. And January 24th. Any comments or corrections on those? Okay. So those are going to stand as printed. All right. So with that we're going to go ahead and move on to public comments which is a time for any member of the public to address the commission on matters of interest to the commission that are not listed tonight as a public hearing on tonight's agenda. And I don't have any cards on public comments. You don't have to have filled one out. So if someone would like to make a public comment just go ahead and go to the microphone and state your name and you have three minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Nellison. I am here on behalf of John Paulson and Roseland Village a corporation. I attended the Roseland community meetings for the midpen project at the Roseland Village. All of the speakers complained about the horrible existing traffic congestion. Not one community member, not one, thought that high density housing, 175 units on seven acres, was appropriate for the site considering the existing lack of supporting infrastructure. How appropriate that three weeks ago at the scheduled hearing the last time it was scheduled. Number one, a community member pointed out how Roseland is grotesquely underserved by parks and children's play opportunities. Two, that the midpen proposal without advanced notice like today was taken off calendar with the consequence of prior attendees believed the city of Santa Rosa has no interest in real community input. Three, the midpen hearing was scheduled for today, Valentine's Day so that the arrows, if it's outrageous proposal, 175 units, traffic waivers could prick the Roseland community with no recourse by those most deeply aggrieved who took time off and paid to park and were here previously. Some of whom may even be here again today, but people I see previous I saw previously I don't see here today. Have you ever driven west on highway 12 and passed the Dutton exit in the afternoon? I am sure you did not attempt to exit there because if you had, you would still be waiting. That exit is the access to Roseland and Sebastopol Road. It does not begin to deal currently with normal afternoon traffic flows. I asked the commission members, do any of you regularly drive on Sebastopol Road during the day? Any of you? Show of hands? Anyone? We don't respond to questions from the public. We know regularly drives on Sebastopol Road. You know how bad it is. Mid-Pen's plans include some future undefined traffic measure which are not part of the scope of construction. Why? Because Mid-Pen expects the City of Santa Rosa citizens to pay to pay for Mid-Pen's profit interest. Mid-Pen is proposing the equivalent of erecting walls, installing windows, and saying that at some future time the City of Santa Rosa citizens can worry about installing a foundation. But here the vital essential road infrastructure to handle the increased traffic. Great. Thank you Mr. Nellison and that is going to be continued now to February 28th. So please, please submit Mr. Paulson's letter please. Yeah, and you'll get another chance at this. So thanks again for your comments. Okay. Any other individual wanting to make a public comment on something that is not on the agenda tonight which Mr. Nellison was observant enough to see that we had taken it off the public hearing agenda so that's why he was speaking on Roseland. Anyone else? Okay. Not seeing anyone else rise. I'll go ahead and close public comment and move on to Planning Commissioner's Report. I'm going to start. We have a new Commissioner this evening, Mr. Carter, and welcome him to our body and if there's anything you'd like to say. Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to be here. I'm a five-year resident in Santa Rosa now and I was a professional planner before I retired and moved to Sonoma County and I'm looking forward to using my professional experience to help the city in their in this exciting time for land use and planning in Santa Rosa. So thank you for having me. Great. Well, we're pleased to have you. Thanks, Commissioner Carter. Okay. Any other Commissioner Reports? Yeah. Vice Chair Weeks. I wanted to report out on the City Council meeting on Tuesday night where the Council heard the appeal by the Marriott Hotel that previously had come to this body. As you might have read in the newspaper or if you watched, the item was continued to a date uncertain at the request of the applicant and public comments were taken. I'm not sure how long that was, Claire? It was quite a few public comments and so I just wanted to report back to the Commission on that status. Thank you. Okay. Any other Planning Commissioner Reports? Okay. So with that, we're going to move on to the election of the Vice Chair and we have a nomination for Vice Chair. Yes, Commissioner. I would like to nominate Commissioner Weeks as Vice Chair. Okay. So we have a nomination of Commissioner Weeks or Vice Chair Weeks. I second that. Okay. So we have that nomination and a second and your votes please. Oops, I was late. Sorry. Okay. And that passes with seven ayes and congratulations for your continued service. Thank you all. Okay. Thank you. And lastly, I just want to indicate that Vice Chair Weeks will be doing our subdivision committee meetings and I'm going to continue for now on our Waterways Committee so that that's made record. Okay. So next Department Reports. So just a quick follow-up to Vice Chair Weeks' report on the Marriott at Residence Inn. That item was continued by the City Council. Other appeals that may be of interest of the Commission. There's an upcoming appeal hearing on be kind dispensary. It's the dispensary of the Commission granted approval of a use permit for. It's on Sonoma Avenue and I think that is scheduled for February 26. There is another appeal that has not yet been scheduled but we did receive the appeal and that was on the Montgomery Drive dispensary. So we did receive an appeal on that but the date has not yet been determined. And once I know that I'll communicate that to the Commission. Okay. Thanks for that. Next statements of abstention by commissioners. I will be abstaining from item 10.2 due to a conflict with the applicant. Okay. Thanks for that. No others. Thankfully. All right. We have no study session tonight. No consent items. So we're going to go ahead and move on to our public hearings. And as I said earlier, item number 10.1, the Rosen Village subdivision and density, tentative map subdivision map item has been continued to February 28th. And so if you were here to speak on that item, I would allow you to speak. That's what Mr. Nellison was doing. However, if you want to do that, you don't have to have filled out a card but you will have another opportunity, more meaningful opportunity when we actually present the item and hear the item. So not seeing anybody move to do that. So we'll consider that continued to February 28th. Yeah. Next, we're going to move on to item 10.2, which is the Lantana Place Homes Planning Project. Commissioner Kahlia is exiting the chamber for that. It is an ex parte of the plan. Next, we have a meeting. Commissioner Karpke, anything to disclose? I have nothing to disclose. Commissioner Peterson. I visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Vice Chair Wood. I also visited the site and have nothing to disclose. Commissioner Duggan. I have nothing to disclose. Commissioner Carter. and I also visited the site no new information to disclose so with that we'll move on to the staff report which is Adam Ross thank you chair Cisco and members of the Commission I'm Adam Ross city planner you're in Santa Rosa the item is Lantana Place Homes the tentative map associated with the project a little bit about this project before I get into this slide it's a 48 unit residential small-out subdivision with 100 percent affordable housing so then this slide kind of highlights that so 23 of the 48 units are moderate income so that is 120 percent of the median average income 25 units are for low income which is 80 percent of the median annual income which is 4.2 percent and 2.8 percent of the goals associated with the moderate and low income so the tentative map subdivides 3.79 acres into 48 lots each lot containing one attached duet unit 100 percent of the units are affordable as said and again the 25 are low income and 23 are moderate so 2.53 acres of this parcel are net developable so the rest go to city streets and two parcels are going to be by retention parcels that are dedicated to the city that include a special tax district that will be monitored by the city but that money will pay for a third party to manage those two parcels the smallest residential lot will be 1870 square feet the largest proposed lot is 4135 square feet and the average lot sizes 2128 square feet other associated infrastructures or new streets frontages frontage improvements on Dutton Meadow build out of a portion of common way and to bicycle paths project is located in the southwest quadrant of the city it's right at the so it's right here and here's Dutton Meadow common way will come up here and connect with two different subdivisions that are approved with the city and then you have county below that project history this project goes back to 2007 where the city approved a 96 unit residential rental project that did not move forward it was approved by the city but did not move forward to build out due to funding constraints so the project wasn't developed on May 1st of 2018 Burbank Housing Corporation development corporation submitted the project which included a tentative map minor conditional use permit and minor design review on January 18th the designer review board reviewed the project as a concept item on February 7th the zoning administrator held a meeting to to review and and rule on the project for the minor design review and the minor conditional use permit and in the next slide I'll explain how that kind of worked with the resilient city development measures so the remainder of the project that you see today is the major tentative map general plan land use designation is medium density residential which is 8 to 18 units per acre this project comes in at 13 units per acre which is right in the middle it's also within the Rosalind area subasipal road specific plan it's a planning-level document that addresses the land use circulation and infrastructure needs for the area and the specific plan was to develop concurrently with consideration of annexation of the previously unincorporated area the plan area includes the Rosalind priority development area and the subasipal road priority development area so the resilient city development measures is found in zoning code section 20-16 where it reduces the review authority to expedite the process of housing in the city so you have a major goes to a minor for design review and a major conditional use permit for the small-out subdivision goes to a minor use permit for that and that's reviewed and approved or denied whatever it may be by the zoning administrator and the zoning is our 318 which is multifamily housing it's the 18 stands for the units per acre here's an image of the tentative map so we have Dutton Meadow where public street improvements happen they dedicate some public right-of-way here these are the bio retention parcels that are being dedicated to the city and then you have two transitional streets and here's common way right here that is a new street that will be the applicant is responsible for this portion of common way there's a class 1 bicycle lane on common way which is a its own bicycle lane separate from the street they also will have class 2 bicycle lanes on Dutton Meadow here's a site plan for reference again this project was approved subject to appeal period by the zoning administrator on February 7th for the minor conditional use permit and the minor design review for the project so as you can see here's the so so you have on-street parking on one side of Mojave Avenue and once parking on one side of the street on this is gonna be called Lantana Drive I believe and you have attached housing three of those units are one story which will be accessible the rest are two story here's a streetscape image of the design of the of the units one car garage covered porch different housing types some of the items discussed or the some of the design review discussed had to do with different roof lines matching with different roof lines so you wouldn't have two of these types put together and that was all sorted out with the zoning administrator based on the design review boards recommendations for the concept item the project the proposed project had been reviewed in in compliance with sequel acted on by the zoning administrator so under a categorical exemption from sequel under government code California public resources code 65457 in that the it the project is because it implements and is consistent with the Roseland area subasphal road specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified by city council resolution every 28873 dated October 18th 2016 in addition to that the applicant provided a sequa 15183 analysis which is part of the initial study and and the general plan so the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning for which an environmental impact report was certified by council in 2009 so the 15183 analysis indicated that there are no project specific effects which are peculiar to the project site to the project or the site and was supported by surveys and analyses including special plant biological cultural resource and traffic therefore the the project has been reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator and acted upon at that point in time so public comments staff received two public comments since noticing for this meeting was sent out and the onsite signage was posted it included concerns about infrastructure traffic and parking and staff response to that was part of the concern was the the traffic in the area and circulation of the area in general another thing that was raised was the public library in the area the resources available to the residents so a little bit of the staff's response is that common way we'll have a type 1 bicycle lane as I stated before and Doug Meadow has a type 2 bicycle lane and the Roseland station has identified the new location for a Roseland branch library whether or not it has the funding available for that I don't know off the top of my head but I can't provide that information should you want it but that is part of a separate project and the project complies with all parking requirements for the area based on zoning code section 20-36.040 the they're required to provide one covered space plus one and a half visitor spaces the visitor space can be in tandem in the driveway it can be on the street so in total 120 spaces are required and the site provides 145 parking spaces and the applicant also provided a traffic memo which was reviewed and reviewed by city traffic engineering staff and applicable conditions of approval were applied to this project and that was and it was deemed appropriate so planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission approve a resolution for the tentative map to subdivide a 3.79 acre parcel into 48 small lots for the purpose of Lantana Place Homes and again I'm Adam Ross city planner the applicants here they have their team here as well to answer any questions you may have I am also here to answer questions you may have thank you mr. Ross in our the development advisory committee report attached to this project it was quite a bit of information about how this project is dependent on the southeast estates project going forward and who would build common way could would you mind just kind of going through that so the public understands sort of the if sands are butts of this project and the commission can understand that and it's it's on it's number item number eight page three and also page 17 I think there are the two things that I wanted to have clarified for us yeah I think I can give you general but city engineering can really answer that question specifically sorry staff engineer great chair Cisco and members of the Commission my name is Jesus McKagan I'm staff engineer assigned to this project so questions regarding the common way corridor there are currently three projects and potentially five or more that are associated that front along the common way and there's infrastructure within common way that has been designed that will support all of those projects including sewer water storm drain as well as a roadway and then a class one bike path as well mixed bike and pedestrian and it is essential for its southwest estates as was mentioned to function as it was designed to have that common way go through as designed as well as these other projects that all front along it so I think in layman's terms if whichever builds out first is responsible for certain portions of the common way and the public and private and the public improvements for the site especially especially along common way and if if if one builds out say if when Tana builds out they would enter a new into an agreement for reimbursal for the next one who comes in and ties into those public storm drain water sewer easements and I think that is kind of the gist of it but if you have any more specifics please clarify yeah I know that was really what I wanted was to be clear how how that would operate and and do we have a timeline on the southeast estates is that coming soon or likely to be before this project is built they at this point have approved improvement plans and a recorded final map so they could in theory build at any time okay but they haven't made a move to do so at this moment okay great and then the other thing mr. Ross you did forward a revised or a new resolution I know that made it to our email do you know if it made it to our our packets and I legislator when we come times to read it where should we go yes it did make it to the attachments okay great any other questions yeah commissioner Duggan yeah can I ask staff just to put up the tentative map and kind of indicate where Southwest way Southwest estates are from there so it's actually the north of that where it's you'll see the lots are subdivided out that right yeah so this is Southwest estates right here they've already recorded the map for the section and then so that common way comes down right here any other questions of staff right now before yes commissioner Peterson where's the nearest transit stop to this project yes actually this project which I failed to mention does include dedication and of a of a bus stop right on dot and meadow I'll pull it up right now so right here in this area there's a bench and a bus stop for Santa Rosa City bus commissioner cupcake yeah on your staff report page eight the staff response number six just a clarification for me it says that since there's only 48 peak hour trips and because it doesn't hit 50 there's no full traffic impact analysis necessary is that number 50 is that like a buffer so if it was like the real hardcore would be like 65 you put 50 just in case or is 50 like the hard line where it would be a major issue so you do a full impact study so we're talking two trips I believe so however I'm not the traffic engineer or I'm not a traffic engineer so I don't want to say what I believe and I think there's a city traffic engineer here who oh who's here who can answer that question specifically for you good afternoon I'm Rob sprinkle Public Works traffic engineer 50 is our threshold number that we we pick for p.m. peak trips it's we have to pick a number 50s pretty much the standard that's used throughout many other jurisdictions Stoma County and throughout the Bay Area as a trigger point that we use for requesting a more intense traffic study so it's not like a point where it becomes like a real issue so one has to be done 50 just kind of like you hear the number you choose so just in case correct and it's in its yeah it's chair weeks Adam can you explain about the bio retention program process and what that is yes so it's somewhat new to me but my understanding and I engineering can can again really specify these bio retention areas have to do with a sue some requirements for the project site and in order to fulfill that they have dedicated these two parcels and in order to pay for that a special tax district will be established for this area that will pay for the ongoing maintenance of this it'll be through a city run contract where we collect the taxes and we pay a third party or the city pays a third a third party company whoever that may be to manage the site and is that to monitor what goes on on the site that's question number one in question number two how big is the special tax district vice chairman weeks I can answer the first question it's those parcels that he was speaking of and also some areas along the planner strip on some of the streets they actually will take in the stormwater from the tenure storm event which is it's a minor storm not as big as the one we've been having now and then it both retains and treats that water and question two I think you'll answer question two is the size of them is that what it was I'm saying yes does it take into is the special tax district more than just Lantana project is it larger it's just Lantana thank you any other questions of staff right now okay great thank you is the applicant here wanting to make a presentation okay here and Massey I'm the project manager of the Lantana Place Homes project on behalf of Burbank Housing we are very pleased to be here tonight and would like to thank staff for all of their efforts and getting us to this point for those of you that are unfamiliar with Burbank Housing we are a local nonprofit housing affordable housing developer and we have built over 4,300 affordable housing units in this community as well as in Napa County so many of you I'm sure are probably very familiar with us Burbank has owned the Lantana property for quite some time now since 2008 so we're for that reason alone we're very pleased to be here tonight and have you consider the map in front of you in addition advancing the project and being able to construct these homes will enable us to utilize a more than seven million dollars of Santa Rosa Housing Authority funds that have been contributed to the project over the duration since this project has been in process as Adam noted the project before you tonight is a small lot subdivision it will create 48 new residential homes all of which will be sold to income eligible buyers that will be either low income or moderate income we're excited to be able to help address the housing needs of our community obviously we had a housing shortage before the fire and now we are certainly in crisis mode and we are working as quickly as we can to get through the approval process and then the engineering and building process with the goal of trying to start construction for this project as soon as this summer the project has been designed consistent with both the general plan as well as the rose land specific plan it is also consistent with the city street standards and we are proposing to exceed the parking requirements of the city's zoning code with regards to the Southwest estates project we have reviewed the conditions of approval we clearly understand that the two projects are tied together from an infrastructure standpoint perspective we have worked with staff on that issue and are comfortable with the conditions as written and we are working very closely with the applicant of Southwest estates to ensure that they can move forward as quickly as possible at this point they are trying to obtain their environmental permits from other state and federal agencies and so we're collaborating with them on that we have had the opportunity to review the conditions of approval as well as the revised resolution and are in agreement with all the items contained in those two documents the project team is here with me this evening in the event that you have any questions and we'd be happy to try to answer those for you great thank you any questions of the applicant right now okay yes commissioner Carter the I believe there's a condition that requires the project to obtain US Army Corps of Engineer permits and regional water quality board permits is that pardon me for not being completely familiar with the previous EIR that this is tied to but is that condition accepted by those agencies and there are no difficulties in obtaining those permits as far as we know no difficulties great question thank you very much for your question commissioner Carter given the interest in expediting this project as quickly as possible and the interest in utilizing the housing authority funds Burbank actually made the decision ahead of having the entitlements of place so the action that you'll take tonight to apply for all of our environmental permits so we have applied to Army Corps of Engineers regional water quality board and both state and federal Fish and Wildlife for the environmental permits that will be required for our project I am pleased to say with a lot of effort those permits are moving along very well in fact I did receive correspondence from the Corps today that said as soon as they receive the go-ahead from Fish and Wildlife they'll be in a position to be able to issue our wetlands permit within seven to ten days so that that is the one of the next challenges in this project that we're actively working on yeah by two weeks what is the deadline for you to use the housing authority funds thank you for your question currently we have authorization from the housing department to utilize the funds and begin construction of the project effective June 1st so actually ahead of this planning Commission meeting we've taken a little bit of risk on our side to advance preparation of the improvement plans and the building plans so that we can be in a position to be able to submit those plans as soon as we have a conclusion from this hearing tonight and obviously we're working towards that goal of working with staff to get those plans approved and permits ready to issue so that we can start construction on that June 1st deadline any other questions the applicant thank you okay this is a public hearing tonight I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing I have one card on the item and that is Dwayne DeWitt who knows the drill hello my name is Dwayne DeWitt I'm from Roseland I was a member of the Roseland specific steering committee and I felt we were steered rather than allowing the committee to steer where we would like to see things go with that in mind it's these types of projects that were being forced on Roseland and I'm quite sad to hear that the reasoning for it is because they've already got seven million dollars of taxpayers money over 11 years and they essentially are just doing it because they have the money now it's on the farthest edge of Santa Rosa it's out at the southwest corner right near Bellevue Avenue the last city limit area that's not city-centered growth it's not transit oriented even though there's a bus stop nearby people out there don't ride the bus matter of fact they use one or two cars per household to be able to afford the housing what's a real concern is that there's this glib approach of like well you know we're gonna get those permits just trust us that's what's happening to the item that was just continued before here they don't have their permits after years and years of trying to do that and that's taxpayers money that's doing that project also so I'm really really sad to say as a housing advocate and a member of the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group that I don't support this project I don't believe it should go forward I think this is really a pig in a poke and it's really sad that this kind of thing happens when those 48 units we could have units down closer into town near the transit mall and it could be real transit oriented development so I understand that Burbank is a business and it needs to do what it needs to do but it does not necessarily help our community in this situation now there are some of course that are going to say well any housing unit helps well I think all 48 of them could go along the southeast Greenway how about there if any housing helps let's spread it around town because almost all of the new affordable housing coming into the southwest area has been through Burbank which I like but Burbank already has hundreds upon hundreds of hundreds of units out in the southwest area we now have for-profit buildings going up and they're not selling that's something to keep in mind on the corner of Boyd Street and Sevastopol Road further down Sevastopol Road by Stony Point Road so we're in this dilemma right here where you're essentially getting this rush because the money's already been given by the housing authority not necessarily because it is good planning it's on the farthest edge of the town it won't be transit oriented development and they may not get their permits in time it didn't even mention the California Tiger Salamander which you definitely have to make sure and get those clearances if they buy mitigations perhaps all the best to you thank you Mr. Dewitt anyone else wanting to speak on this item okay great please state your name for the record and you have three minutes yes my name is Rick Coates I'm speaking on behalf of myself but I am a member of the Policy Advisory Council of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and as I look at this even though there's several things to recommend the project such as the bike trail and and the catchment of the stormwater I really want to point out that whenever you create habitat for a species the species will come streets and parking are habitat for automobiles the Roseland area already has traffic that is suffering from a cumulative impact if it's already a cumulative impact and you add more automobiles to it that's still a cumulative impact I think you need to take big concern to that fact the logic behind traffic planning for most cities is just screwball it doesn't make any sense we'd like to see more transit I'm wondering if the bus stop near this development will be in some way connected to the smart train will it will it go to the smart train how about the bicycle trail will it connect with the smart path those are considerations I think need to be made before we add more and I realize you don't determine how much parking is required that's the City Council but it is sort of crazy the parking requirements and I think MTC is beginning to believe that too thank you anyone else yes Madam Chair Commissioners Efren Carrillo 2158 Walter Road Santa Rosa out of full transparency I do work for Burbank Housing but I am here as a private citizen first and foremost I was raised in Roseland in Southwest Santa Rosa know the community as a very hard-working community and a community who has faced probably more severe housing challenges than any other part of town I say that with the understanding that many of our families are living two to three families per dwelling in dwellings where they shouldn't have that type of living as someone who lived in this county's first home built by Habitat for Humanity my family deeply understands what home ownership can do and the doors that it opens for us I was the first in my family to graduate from high school first to go to college and I can tell you with sincerity that it was having a place we call home that opened up those doors and to listen to a couple of prior commenters speak to how they're speaking on behalf of the entire community of Roseland I can tell you that there are many in the community who could benefit from housing opportunities like these that are working that are tied up with families and can't afford the time to come here and speak on behalf of what a project like they like like this would do for them if you look at the consistency of the project itself it conforms and it fits the location I think many of us who live in Santa Rosa acknowledge that yes we do have congestion and traffic problems that is not just a focus in Southwest Santa Rosa you see it across the board it can take 30 minutes to travel a couple miles going east-west and that's just part of living in a suburban urban environment lastly I would encourage the Planning Commission to look in the totality of this project as fulfilling not only the most important need that we're seeing from the residents and the community members in the city but fulfilling the mission of quality of life for the many folks that can't attend this hearing before you madam chair commissioners would encourage you to support this project thank you anyone else okay good afternoon my name is Charlie Traboulsy I'm a civil engineer here in Santa Rosa 883 3rd Street Santa Rosa I'm here today to support this project we're working on a couple of projects that are directly abutting the site and it makes sense what they're doing here we need the housing the projects well designed it's going to be well priced it's walking distance to schools it's walking distance to the parks and from a technical point of view the infrastructure is there the sewers in the street on Dutton the storm rains there and so is the water I hope and wish Burbank and other builders propose more housing like this in Santa Rosa I think it's commendable of them to push ahead and try and make it the summer we have to remember we lost 5,000 houses just over a year ago by the end of this year maybe a thousand of them would have been rebuilt however most of the housing that we lost is not going to be priced anywhere near where these houses are priced so while the fire rebuild is a separate issue it is related in the sense that people that are working on these homes that are getting rebuilt also need a place to stay we have a shortage overall in the community and this fulfills a very very very small part of it and I hope you approve the project tonight thank you thank you mr. Tbilisi and you yes hi thank you for the opportunity to comment and and for reviewing this project and please state your name for us forgive me yes my name is Thomas Ells and I'm a civil and environmental engineer and have been for many many years and again I thank you for the opportunity to speak I stand in support of this project and have been a member of the transportation land use committee for several decades involved in smart train and support of that and it's a really tough call because it is on the outside of the community it's on the very edge and and as previous speakers said it's devoting great amount of community resources and investment when that could be used elsewhere and more density and and transit oriented local downtown and and have additional funding that can come to that that this project may not be able to do at this point because of its situation but at the same time we do need a lot of housing I would just point out that the point of my comment is because it needs to be said the the transportation in that area suffers from the same planning ill-advised planning effort that proposed that the golf course driving range did not need to have or did not need to follow the the scenic viewscape along highway 12 and then the city backtracked and removed the scenic viewscape along highway 12 all the way through the entire city all the way out to to the valley of the moon along highway 12 by reversing their action on the golf course driving range and then eliminating the the viewscape and then readdressing the project and approving that project that's the same planner who did the the streets designs and and approvals of those with regard to Caltrans and the wide mean of highway 101 in that area for the southeast excuse me southwest area and and he did that study in and that's the reason he quit he left the city of San Rosa even with the support of the city manager he resigned because he knew that he did not have the support and training that he needed to do to make those conclusions and so those streets are under design and you know they are and it's terrible down there and it will always be that way now unfortunately smaller streets are better they serve the community better when there's lower lower traffic volumes but we need the housing it's where it is right now it's unfortunate but everyone here has been right and they it all needed to be said okay great thank you anyone else wishing to speak on go ahead yes please please state your name for the record for us Trish Fallone I live on Bellevue ad and my first concern is that not everyone that's going to be impacted was notified we we got a postcard because our our mailing addresses Bellevue but all the neighbors down our street all the cross streets no one knows about this I think it was only a only Bellevue and maybe Dutton Meadow so that's my big concern that a lot of people don't know about it my other concerns are again and I feel bad speaking out against affordable housing I feel terrible about this I'm all for affordable housing I'm all for low-income housing but not not there all these streets you're talking about there's only two ways out there's only her or Bellevue to get off from what I can see unless that common way comes out somewhere else but when you I don't know what time you guys are there but you can't go anywhere I mean the streets Dutton Meadow is backed up Bellevue is backed up Bellevue is just potholes hern is potholes it's it's terrible and and as for quality of life you're just packing poor people into one little area and you're saying it's walking distance to this you can't walk around there there's nowhere to walk the kids their parents don't let them walk to school it's too dangerous the cars are racing around so everybody drives the kids to school everybody drives them to the all the little high school the high school the one on primrose you know Dutton Meadow is always backed up because kid people are dropping their kids off and again I I'm all for this housing project but you can't just keep making a little ghetto in our neighborhood you know and they're talking about widening you can't you know widen the streets you're just making more trouble more cars more people that you need the Rosalind library there was editorial it's a joke it's not even a library it's an abandoned building with a few books in it we just you can't keep putting people in there where there's not things for them there's no stores you can walk to the only bus I don't take the bus my neighbor takes the bus she said the only place she can get to taking one bus is the Coddingtown mall other than that she's got to take the bus downtown and wait for another transfer so there may be a nice bench there but the bus doesn't go anywhere you can't walk to any they you can't walk to a grocery store you can't really walk to the library and again my big problem is that the condition of the roads I don't know if you drove up and down Bellevue they're terrible and as for the traffic thing I don't understand how you're saying it's only that few trips if you go there when people are bringing their kids to school you're gonna see a lot more trips than that we drove by that other one since I've been here you put in that place on what is it pebble pebble Hill a whole bunch of people in there they're all concentrated right there there's cars just all along the roads and then the kids are supposed to cross in between there's no crosswalks great thank you anyone else wishing to speak on this yes hello my name is Brian Hall I am a owner a property owner on Bellevue Avenue 530 Bellevue I've been there for 35 years I've watched the area grow but not succeed you know the traffic the potholes there's no sidewalks we were promised that Bellevue would be rebuilt years ago it never happened the traffic is awful you know and it seems really strange to me that this development a traffic report can't be done because it's because it's a 48 unit development the whole area at this point has traffic problems right now so I think it's the whole area the traffic should be addressed regardless of whether this goes in or not thank you thank you anyone else okay I'm not seeing anyone move to a microphone so I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and Miss Macy do you have any response to the comments that you'd like to make thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments this evening I would just like to reiterate that you know this parcel is certainly just one piece of the greater puzzle out there that is contemplated by the general plan and the Roseland specific plan the project as I stated earlier is consistent with the density as well as the plan for housing and growth in that area we have adhered to the city's design standards for streets and for parking specifically and intentionally with the effort of providing that greater connectivity obviously common way as a great as a piece of the greater piece of the puzzle we will be contributing to the section of the bike path that falls on our property and ultimately as the other projects develop in the area that bike path will be built out fully and provide greater connectivity in the area Dutton Meadow in front of our project will be widened and we will also be constructing sidewalks the conditions of approval also require that we provide connectivity from our side of the street on the west side of Dutton Meadow across the street to the east side of Dutton Meadow so not only the infrastructure that is shown on the tentative map and as is planned for per city standards but also the conditions that provide for those greater connections should really help facilitate the movement in that area I think that is all the remarks I have thank you for the opportunity to respond okay great thank you and then staff would you mind saying something about the notification process there was a concern from the public about that yeah the project was noticed in accordance with the zoning code zoning code requires 300 foot radius of this project we took it to 400 feet and on-site signage was there and that's it's kind of it oh and noticing in the newspaper as well as required by the zoning code okay and then maybe you could say just a little bit about how the city of Santa Rosa is dealing with there are transit issues just generally I'm sure our city's traffic engineer may be better equipped to answer this but I'll give it a try we do have a citywide transit plan and we are focusing on our reimagining our networks for the greatest efficiencies so while we have feeder routes which this will be one of those feeder routes we try to feed these routes into our rapid corridors which you know Sebastopol Road Mendocino Santa Rosa Avenue so that they have when they feed into those rapid corridors you have 15 minute headways and you can get to the smart train you can get to transfer stations and you can get to even the regional and Bay Area network so that is sort of the framework in which these projects fit into this isn't on a rapid corridor but it's on a feeder route and they are doing their part to participate in that that transit ridership framework okay great thank you I'm gonna go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for questions Commission's any questions of the applicant okay any further questions of staff cheers I'm sorry I wanted to make a correction earlier that you asked regarding if the updated resolution was available to you while it was sent in the email it is not with you now so I would like to enter that change into the public record by reading the text that way however the voting goes it would be as amended okay okay so the portion that changes regards the zoning administrators meeting originally it said it will be reviewed it's changed to that basically that it was reviewed and approved and it reads as whereas the project was reviewed by the zoning administrator on February 7th 2019 and at that time the zoning administrator approved the application for minor use permit for the small lots of residential use and minor design review for attached housing and determine the project compliant with CEQA pursuant to government code section 65457 and CEQA guidelines 15183 it also included a new condition of approval which is number four on the conditions of approval which reads comply with all applicable federal state and local codes failure to comply may result in issuance of a citation and or revocation of approval okay great again any other questions as chairman there's a question now that you've put new information wait mr. Dewitt we're done with the public hearing so it's about the public well I'm sorry we're not so Miss Crocker do you want to respond to that please certainly there's no new information that's been posted and presented this evening that's of a substantive nature it was just a clarification to properly reflect that the zoning administrator hearing did in fact occur as it was previously written it was written in advance of tonight's hearing and the action had not yet occurred the other is a standard condition of approval that appears in all of the city's resolutions and just says the applicant has to apply with state and federal regulations which is completely standard and they would have to do that in any event and the correspondence was put out can you explain it was emailed to yeah the changes were emailed to the planning commission as late correspondence which is part of the public record for this project and just as a follow-up to the noticing both the z a actions zoning administrator action and the the hearing tonight were notice according to city code so there's no defect in the notice okay thanks for that and it's always within the planning commission's purview to you know have discussions and and add conditions as appropriate okay great so no other questions of staff so would somebody like to read the resolution as amended by mr. Ross for the purposes of discussion I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa approving a subdivision tentative map for the plan to place home subdivision located within the roseland priority development district to subdivide a three point seven nine acre parcel into forty eight lots that would allow development of forty eight affordable attached residential duets pursuant to the minor use permit c up one eight dash zero eight five and minor design review permit d r one eight dash zero three one located at twenty nine seventy nine that in Meadow assessors parcels numbers zero four three dash one two one dash zero one three file number PRJ18-030 MAJ18-004 as amended by Planner Ross and way for the reading. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay great. Okay so that resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner Okrepke. Vice Chair Weeks you want to start? Sure I will be supporting the project I really appreciate the fact that there will be home ownership opportunities for those who would not normally be able to afford to buy homes and I don't support I don't have anything other to say than I'm supporting the project. Commissioner Peterson. Well I think I have to start out by saying that I I agree with the public's comments I I think that it's it's bad to concentrate affordable housing in one area I think the traffic is horrendous in that area certainly at rush hours I think that the streets have been poorly maintained including Dutton Meadow I think that if we build more parking than we need it's going to induce demand and you know not solve the problem by we can't build our way out of it with that however we have a huge homeless citizens huge number of homeless citizens we've got a huge number of rent burdened citizens and one thing that's been weighing on on my mind is that this is 2019 so the additional living expenses coverage through people's homeowners insurance is usually only for two years so it's going to be running out in October and we're going to be dealing with a whole new set of problems I think as people those other 4,000 houses that haven't yet been rebuilt come into play and don't have the insurance coverage so if you put a project in front of me that was dense had reduced parking transit oriented downtown absolutely I would vote in favor of it with no hesitation with a project like this I think that we've got to deal with the best option we've got and I think the best option from my perspective is that we provide housing in an area that desperately needs it and this is not the best development pattern this is not my preferred development pattern but it will provide housing for low-income people to hopefully build a future and avoid the problems that we're facing now with being rent burdened or facing homelessness so with that I think the other part of it is we're dealing with a tentative map and we've got to make a fairly discreet set of findings for the the tentative map and it's it's not again it's not the ideal that we're aiming for we've just got to have a basis for the findings that are in the resolution in front of us and so I will be voting in favor of this this project I can make these findings again it's it's not perfect but I think it's it's a good project and is something we need Commissioner Krapke yeah I was kind of struck by the one public comment is that everything everybody said here is right and it's it's not perfect it's not great but it's direly needed as as Commissioner Peterson pointed out the term that I think you're trying to find as precarious housing and so we need solutions to find housing for individuals that at any point could be homeless whether it's just a bad turn of luck or a lost job something like that we need to we need to find some way excuse me to to build housing that they can get into and so it's prioritizing for me it's prioritizing what's more important and I think there's also a little bit of chicken and egg here is yes the public infrastructure isn't there and the transportation is not the greatest but the population base also isn't there to demand stores come in to demand further use of public transportation so I think once that demand is there it could easily follow so all that being said I can make all the required findings and I will be in support of this application I can also make all the required findings in support of this project we've been talking about this parcel often on since 2007 the housing has been envisioned here since the general plan update and the Rosalind specific plan update I can't imagine putting denture housing on this parcel in fact but I think one of the earlier iterations had twice as many homes as this I think this is a really good project for this parcel I'm very happy that it's affordable and for sale units not just rental units I think that's going to be a great entry into the market for people who are starting out and need that affordability and so I can make all the necessary findings I like the transit stop and doesn't think that's going to help and just how it's going to connect the other things in the area so I'm in favor of the project right Commissioner Carter yes I'll be supporting the project also I was initially skeptical looking at the location wondering why does housing go here I was surprised to note that there is a residential neighborhood developed in the area that the housing will add to and that there's a little bit of commercial and public facilities in the vicinity I'm hoping that with the recent annexation of Rosalind to Santa Rosa that some of the infrastructure problems in that part of the world can be resolved and brought to the 21st century but I will be supporting the project and also I'll be supporting the project it it is a piece of a puzzle that's coming together and Commissioner O'Crepkey is makes a good point that there's always this tension between services and density you're not going to be able to get the kind of retail or services until you have the population to support it in fact we've really seen the backwards version of that with the with the fires and the loss of homes then affecting those services that were available that they can't make it without a population around to support it so that's always the tension and a struggle and like Commissioner Duggan says we've been looking at this parcel for a very long time I hope this one's built and it it does begin to build the infrastructure and add to the infrastructure and that's what we're looking for so I can also make all the findings and I'll be voting in favor of the project so with that the resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan it was seconded by Commissioner O'Crepkey and your votes please and that passes with six eyes Commissioner Kahlia abstaining and why don't we take just a quick break for a minute while Commissioner Kahlia comes back to the discussion. Okay I'm going to go ahead and reconvene and so if you wouldn't mind taking your seats we're going to move on our next item is item number 10.3 the Southeast Greenway revised draft environmental impact report and that is not an update disclosure and Jessica Jones is staff. Thank you Chair Siscoe and members of the commission as mentioned the item before you is the Southeast Greenway revised draft environmental impact report I will be giving the first part of the presentation and we'll be closing it up for you but we also have two members from our consultant team here to give some additional information we have Terry McCracken from place works and Zach Matley from WTrans. So the purpose of tonight's hearing is to review the revised draft environmental impact report or EIR for the Southeast Greenway project and to accept comments both from the public as well as from the Planning Commission. So the project is located in southeast Santa Rosa excuse me this is a street map showing the general location it's about a 57 acre area that spans about 1.9 linear miles from Farmer's Lane to the Spring Lake Regional Park and this is an aerial map showing that same location. This is the area that was at one time identified as an extension of the Highway 12. So the project that the EIR is analyzing is a general plan amendment to establish land use designations for this area as well as a zoning code amendment for text amendments to the zoning code as well as rezoning to establish zoning districts in this area because this area was identified as a future extension of Highway 12 and the city does not designate general plan land use or zoning district for street areas. This area does not currently have land use or zoning districts so this project would establish those with the thought that the Highway 12 would not be extended in that area. The map that was developed through a public outreach process which I'll show you in a moment identifies the proposed land use which would potentially result in just over 47 acres of parks and open space and about 244 residential multifamily units and about 12,000 square feet of commercial retail space. There are no proposed physical changes at this time in this area again it's just general plan amendment and zoning amendment. So this is the land use and circulation concept map that was developed through the public outreach process that I just mentioned. So it identifies the potential use of this area which again is analyzed in the environmental impact report. Primarily it would be parks and open space with some pockets of residential and retail uses. So I would like to go over just briefly the project history just to remind the public and the commission and we do have some new commissioners. So go over this relatively quickly and we can come back to it if you have any questions. In October 2011 and April of 2013 the council identified goals for the city specifically related to the southeast greenway. One being acknowledging the southeast greenway community planning projects and the other supporting efforts of the southeast greenway campaign by monitoring and providing information. Following that in June of 2014 the city joined the southeast greenway community partnership which is made up of the city Santa Rosa as well as the Sonoma County water agency, the Sonoma County regional parks, the southeast greenway campaign land pass and the Sonoma Land Trust group gets together to talk about the process of moving forward with potential future development in this area. Shortly thereafter in August of 2014 the California transportation commission rescinded the freeway adoption which released that land from potentially extending highway 12 and is now made available to potentially purchase for future development. In October of 2015 the city council initiated the general plan amendment rezoning and environmental impact report which is now moving forward and in August and October of 2016 there were two community workshops held the first with about 200 participants and the second with about 150 and it was during those community workshops that the vision for the future land use and circulation in this area was developed which ultimately led to the map that I showed you previously. The land use and circulation alternatives were brought to the commission and council in two joint sessions in November of 2016 and March of 2017 and it was ultimately refined down to the land use and circulation alternative that I just showed you. In May of 2017 an EIR scoping meeting was held with the community to go over what should be included in the scope of the EIR. In August of 2017 the draft EIR was released for a 45-day review period. The commission held a public hearing similar to the one that you're having tonight in September of 2017 which was part way through that 45-day review period to receive comments from the public. During that public review period the city did receive numerous comments on the draft EIR a couple of which raised some questions about the traffic analysis that was completed for the project specifically concerned that the traffic analysis for future impacts looked at future impacts of the proposed project with the extension of farmers lane as if it was completed. The concerns that were raised were regarding the fact that the extension of farmers lane is while it is identified as a project in the city's general plan it is very likely to be a very long-term project and so the traffic analysis should consider the potential project impacts if the project were to be developed prior to the completion of the farmers lane extension. So the city took a look at those comments and concerns and did agree that that additional analysis should be done. So we took a little bit of a pause to start doing that additional traffic analysis unfortunately as everybody is aware on October 8th the wildfires started in the city and along with the staff resources that were allocated to address impacts related to the fires in addition to the staff resources that had already been allocated to looking at the city's housing crisis and trying to address housing policy related to that the southeast greenway project was put on hold temporarily. We did have our consultants move forward with the traffic analysis so that once we were able to allocate staff time we could get back to it. So that portion did move forward and then in November of this last year the city staff was able to reallocate time to this project and complete that traffic analysis and prepare the revised draft DIR which is before you today. So that brings us to today and our next steps. So the revised draft DIR was released on January 28th. It will be available for public comment for 45 days. That public comment will end on March 13th. And so today is a day to receive verbal comment from the commission and the public but again we will be taking written comments through March 13th. We do anticipate that the final EIR which will include the response to all comments received so while we will be taking in comments today unless there are specific questions that need to be answered to help you in providing your comments we will be responding to all comments received today as well as those received up through March 13th in the final EIR which is anticipated to be released in early spring of this year. And then we will be bringing back the final EIR and consideration of certification of that document as well as the proposed general plan land use and zoning code amendments to the Planning Commission in early spring and then to the Council for final consideration in early summer. So now I would like to hand it over to our consultants to move on with the project analysis. Good afternoon. My name is Teri McCracken. I'm with PlaceWorks and we are the Seekwood consultant that prepared the EIR. Jessica did such a good job. This is my only slide really and it is just explaining what she just said so I'll make it quick. The comments that we did receive that required us to go ahead and do some additional analysis and recirculate the draft EIR were based on these comments that wondered what would happen or what would the impacts be if the southeast greenway project got built before the completion of the farmers lane extension. So the draft EIR had looked at the future conditions so this is like the full general plan build out conditions for the no project with farmers lane and future plus project with farmers lane. So what we had to do was go back and do the analysis under those two scenarios without the farmers lane extension so this is going to just change the flow of traffic. And so Zach Matlin here with WTrans is going to explain a little bit about what the impact differences were between what we uncovered when we did this new analysis. Good evening commissioners. Zach Matlin with WTrans here in Santa Rosa. Just to give a little bit of context this map shows the southeast greenway in the purple outline and then the future farmers lane extension which extends from Bennett Valley road to the south. So ultimately the farmers lane extension will connect to quadrants of Santa Rosa which is going to change traffic flow patterns quite a bit right now this whole area of Santa Rosa Bennett Valley or Lincoln Valley if you want to go down to the southern port of the city or down south highway 101 you get on highway 12 and go over and down the freeway generally. This will really improve circulation in the whole eastern portion of the city when it's complete which is not going to be immediately but it is identified in the general plan. So what does it mean with respect to the southeast greenway? The traffic patterns really will change at the highway 12 farmers lane interchange. Right now it's very heavy movement to between farmers lane and highway 12 west. Once farmers lane is extended that's going to balance out a bit more and there's going to be more of that traffic using the farmers lane corridor rather than getting to and from the freeway so it does change patterns and this as it turns out this intersection shown on the aerial is the highway 12 eastbound off ramp at farmers lane that's really where the crux of this analysis landed with respect to additional impacts. So under the future the cumulative condition if we assume that farmers lane is not complete by the time at the southeast area south southeast greenway is built out there would be a traffic impact at this intersection resulting in unacceptable low LOS operations because of the low LOS operations. And that is actually a condition happens both with and without southeast greenway. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable because southeast greenway takes that LOS and it actually adds an additional eight seconds of delay to it so under the sequence thresholds that are applied that is considered to be a significant impact and in this case significant and an inevitable traffic impact. So this is a different impact than was with the farmers lane extension the second impact does not occur but without farmers lane there's an impact here so this is the real difference between the with and without farmers lane scenario kind of boiled down to this location. I'm not going to go through every number in the table but this helps to shorter depict for that intersection the levels of service delays and then LOS grade under existing with the farmers lane extension and without the farmers lane extension and sort of reiterates if you over on the far right there when you look at the with versus or the additional delay that the project would create it's about eight seconds delay which is considered to be significant. So if there's more questions on this we can return to this I don't want to get into the weeds too far though. Okay I have one more slide. So with this change in the movement of traffic we also had to do a little bit more reevaluation of the noise impacts and this was specifically with the noise associated with transportation and vehicular movement so now we have a different flow we had a different set of streetways and segments that we wanted to look at how that different flow affected noise and the outcome of that was very similar to what we already had was we wouldn't exceed the three decibel increase and just the three decibels just the noise that the human ear can detect as being noticeable difference so we consider that to be a lesson significant impact so even with the change in movement the noise the additional noise analysis did not show any new impacts. Okay so as far as notification for this process we did provide a one-eighth page ad in the press democrat which is a larger larger ad than we typically do just because of the number of people that are located surrounding this this large area we also provided a mailed notice to property owners and tenants that live within 500 feet of the project site and that includes about 1800 mailings we also it was also mailed to other interested parties and agencies that have contacted us the notice is posted at city hall as well as on both project websites we have one that is on the city's website and then we have a separate project website which is planthegreenway.com which is both the notice as well as the draft revised draft DIR were posted on both of those locations we also sent out notices via the city's various social media networks we sent an email out to our project distribution list which includes a little over 900 email addresses it was posted at the county of San Francisco we also provided to the state for distribution to various state agencies so the planning commission's role in this process for tonight as we've mentioned you will be reviewing the revised draft DIR and holding the public hearing we are hoping to receive comments not only from the public tonight but also from the planning commission and again it's the public comment period on the original draft DIR has closed so we will be looking at just the changes to the circulation and transportation section and the noise section at a subsequent meeting the commission will be considering making a recommendation to council for certification of the final DIR as well as adoption of the proposed general plan and zoning code amendments part of that statement of overwriting considerations which is required for project approval should that move forward because of the identified significant and unavoidable impacts that are included in the environmental impact report so we anticipate that coming forward to you as a package probably towards the end of May of this year so with that we are recommending that you conduct the public hearing and provide comments from yourselves so that we can receive comments from the public and again we will be continuing to accept written comments through March 13th and those written comments can be mailed to me at the address shown on this slide or sent to my e-mail address which is jjonesatsrcity.org and we are here to answer any questions you may have but mostly to receive your comments. Mr. Jones I just really just want to repeat for our benefit and for the public's benefit what our purview is tonight that we really just focused on these revisions we'll be taking public comment on the revisions in this document not for against the project generally the merits or demerits of the project generally but specific to if there's something to comment on or a particular revisions and that's what you'll be asking of us as well. That is correct. In the southeast greenway people tend to be a very sophisticated bunch so I think you understand what I'm saying here if you definitely want to I mean we see your green shirts we know what that means and if you want to make comments about how much you love this project it would be more pertinent to put those in writing and come back when we're actually going to be discussing the project. So with that I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing and I do have a card from Bob geyser. Thank you madam chair and commission. I'm Bob geyser I'm co-chair of the southeast greenway campaign a group is very important. I'm going to go ahead and talk a little bit about what is going on here. It's been a long time since the environmental impact report the draft EIR hearing in September of 2017 and we understand the reasons for the delay and the reasons for the EIR revision and we have to agree that the comment and issue that you're dealing with here is one that does not take place. If the farmers laying extension does not take place before development occurs seems to be worthwhile for public purposes. And the analysis that's been done we have not gotten through it totally but from what we see thus far it appears to be reasonable good faith effort to consider the future options in this area. So tonight we are not getting into specific comments we're in a listening mode we're considering what we're learning here and whether or not we can offer any specific written comments to the commission by the deadline. We just ask you to keep in mind two things that the center of the greenway is a set of bike and walking paths that are available to the commission. We have a lot of travel trips in the area ultimately. And number two that the 208 medium and medium high density units that are proposed on the west end of the greenway next to farmers lane are in an excellent location for walking to shopping for using public transportation services. We have a lot of public transportation services. We have a lot of cars on busy streets like farmers lane. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Mike Raymond. And following Mr. Raymond will be Peter Basing if you want to queue up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The new AR doesn't show that we're going to get any improvement in the actual vicinity of the farmers lane and highway 12 ramp. For some reason westbound lane was put in years ago. The eastbound lane was put in years ago. We have to come back. I don't know why there isn't a bridge over farmers lane. There isn't one over spring lake that we know if we could put a bridge over farmers lane. Governor Jerry Brown increased our gas taxes from 18 cents a gallon to 30 cents a gallon. We have to come back. We have to come back. We have to come back. We have to come back. And those over 23,000 cars per day. The LOS level as we were pointed out before is going to go up to a E. The westbound side however is at a level A. So it shows that maybe a bridge doesn't improve the impact on the intersection. We have to come back. We have to come back. We have to come back. We have to come back from 12 from farmers lane to 101 if something isn't done with the intersection. This is becoming a let's back up highway traffic plan rather than an eastbound greenway plan. It will also create more pollution by car sitting and idling and it will increase the amount of pollution followed by going to it. Yes, thank you very much. My comments are as much a question and very specific as to traffic. My traffic concern is on Vallejo Street east of farmers lane which you may know is really a very short stub of a street. Two elements of the plan appear to me to impact greatly on Vallejo Street. There is a 67-unit multifamily housing project which characterizes at the east end of Vallejo. As I understand it, one of the four trail heads that would serve the greenway would be located at roughly the same place at the end of Vallejo. Table 413-11 of the revised draft EIR identifies an additional 446 daily trips just arising from the housing. And if I understand their assumption right that they're dividing the trail head traffic equally among the four trail heads, that's another 117 for a total of 563 daily trips. That as far as I can tell they serve by Vallejo Street which as I say is not much of a street. I then turn to figure 4.13-3 which has intersection impacts and on this chart it's intersection number six which is Vallejo Street and unless I'm completely misapprehending it, it shows not a single that is zero cars coming in or out of Vallejo Street as a result of the project. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me how 67 units of housing and one of four trail heads can be served by a street that then doesn't have any additional traffic on it. That's all I have. Thank you. Last card is Dwayne DeWitt. Hello. My name is Dwayne DeWitt. I'm from Rosen. I wanted to thank you for the work you've done on this. I'm supportive of this project and I also was quite glad to hear all of the commissioner's comments on the last item saying how supportive you are of more housing and the need to get housing wherever we can get it. During the process I attended the two years of the project. I have advocated over the years that the southeast greenway would connect to the southwest greenway and there would be more housing along the pathways. By pathways I mean that whole strip of 1.9 miles. I really hope that you commissioners will follow up on what you've just used as a rationale for the last item to make sure that the EIR for this matter looks up and says okay, what if we're actually putting in more housing over there? Make the EIR broader for traffic saying what if the traffic loads are higher and prepare that for this community to also be able to share in the benefits of housing that you just talked about earlier. It's something that we can all share throughout the city. It will be a wonderful thing especially because this came up after the fire was held for a while now we know just how much more housing we need especially throughout the community so we reduce the traffic trips by having people live in certain areas maybe closer to where they work maybe not having to work if they're seniors and they might not even need a car and then those folks that perhaps just use a bicycle. So you folks in your comments do have the ability in a sense to expand this idea and this vision which is going to be a great thing for the whole city and the housing will really really be a great thing if we would have more. Right now it says 244. The gentleman that was just upset 280 units. I believe you could triple that quadruple that done with efficient sustainable urban design and placement and it wouldn't really have as negative an impact as some people might think especially if it was placed near existing roadways at the end of those streets that stub on the north side of it. Things like that. So I'm just asking you folks to take that planning approach. You're a planning commission. You see a need that needs to be filled as all of you have said except Mr. Kalihi wasn't here at the time but you get the basic drift. You can make this even bigger even better with your help. Thank you for your time. I know it's going to be the upcoming bicycle master plan. So actually even give incentives for more housing where people used bikes and had less parking spaces. Wonderful idea. Thank you for your time. Thank you Mr. Duitt. Next is Thomas Ells. Do forgive me and thank you again. Thomas Ells I would point out very much in support of the Greenway I think and Duane and I are very much housing advocates but I don't think housing should be on the Greenway. Should be Greenway. There are some. I think the areas surrounding it I dearly hope that they will be rezoned and for much more dense housing and really benefit from that and I think that's a great opportunity to share our track all the way up to now Trionney and Adel Park which will be great but I'm looking right here at what is coming up which is the bike pedestrian plan and it's not showing a continuation of the proposed what would be proposed class one shared use path along the way into the public housing unit so it doesn't continue there at all and I would recommend or hope to see something that can get people from the higher level of the property that's going to have the multifamily housing down to farmers lane to go along underneath the pedestrian plan and I think that's a great opportunity to go over the top to get them over to the shopping area of Montgomery Village and I don't really see anything on the pedestrian plan. There is the existing class one shared use path that goes along home but it doesn't really address the people that's going to have the pedestrian plan and I think that's a great opportunity to see how people can get across Hoenn at that point. They can't get across Hoenn where it comes and it goes to the freeway and it goes over like that or it's rather bad and I think you need something underneath on both sides of that westbound highway 12 so that people could go either way and get along there and then back on to the path because I think that there's some difficulty in actually crossing Hoenn Avenue not just the extension but that actual Hoenn Avenue there. That's my point. You need a microcosm in the bike pedestrian path of this project and that should be the actual traffic flow of pedestrians and bicycles right on that and that should be included in this plan. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Ells. Anyone else wishing to speak on this? If you'll state your name for the record please. Rick Coates. I can't seem to keep my mouth shut. Let me first say that I am totally in favor of the southeast greenway. I wouldn't be wearing this t-shirt if I weren't. I am concerned once again about the traffic analysis and the logic behind it. If you extend the farmer's lane as proposed that's more habitat for automobiles. What's overlooked is induced traffic will actually make the traffic worse not better at the intersection of farmer's lane and highway 12. That's one point I want to make. The second point is I would love to see an extension of the bicycle trail within the greenway from farmer's lane all the way to the Prince Memorial Greenway and I think there are and I have investigated ways to do that along the creeks and along Hoenn. The smaller Hoenn to the west. So I hope that will be considered at some point. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment on the revised EIR? Okay. I'm not seeing anyone else move to the podium so I'm going to go ahead and bring this public hearing and bring this back to the commission for our comments and vice chair weeks if you want to start with comments. I appreciate the fact that you went back and we did this analysis as we asked and I really don't know what to do with this but I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and bring this back to the commission. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Thank you. For the final EIR. To me that's where we are right now. That's really the only question I have we receive a number of public comments in writing and you're going to be receiving more and we will be reviewing all of those comments what's up with farmers lane and certainly we can provide a more detailed response at the next hearing but you know the farmers lane extension is identified in the general plan as a future roadway so you know as with all the projects that are in and around that area we do need to consider it as a future roadway it is a long-term project we do not have full funding for it but at this time it is a future roadway Mr. Peterson any comments I'm just trying to keep myself on on rails here we're limiting our comments to the revisions specifically yes okay so we've already commented on the other one housing and pedestrian interface okay you'll get your chance later then as far as the revisions go I have no comment at this time okay Commissioner O'Crapke as far as the revisions go I have no comment either I have very few comments because it's like if we're keeping ourselves restricted to the revisions the noise section seems totally understandable and the traffic section you know the the current condition is level of service e and the future condition is level of service e with like what eight more seconds of delay so it's not like we're you know I mean it's already bad and it's just like what degree of bad so I don't you know I have no other comments besides what degree of bad that that's a good one it is difficult to confine ourselves just purely on this revision but something that I would be interested to see is if that bike path did connect through the Greenway and into the the bike path that's by Bennett Valley Road there so it connects from the Greenway to the Taylor Mountain regional park trail how that would impact the traffic because obviously you're going right through that really kind of hairy situation that already exists but in regards to you know creating a more friendly and safer biking community I think it'd be something important for us to look into thank you Commissioner Carter any comments yeah I hope this is in fact pertaining to the revision what I have been able to read of the environmental document the fixes to the intersections that are bad are your typical intersection expansions triple turn lanes double turn lanes those sort of things I'm not sure this is appropriate but I hope the final EIR and other materials we've received as planning commissioners talk about how traffic analyses are going to be based more on vehicle miles traveled rather than levels of service I'm hoping the IR can have some discussion over how vehicle miles traveled can be the mechanism for reducing the impacts on these intersections rather than intersection improvements thank you great thank you and I have no comments on on these revisions so I think with that Ms. Jones do you have what you need from us and from the public we do I'm just a reminder that the public comment period is open until March 13th and written comment can be either mailed to me via snail mail or sent to my email address which is jjones at srcd.org great thank you and thank you all for coming out and we can see your green T-shirt so we know we know who you are so okay next we're going to move on to the bicycle and pedestrian master plan update item 10.4 it's not an ex parte disclosure and that staff report I'm gonna let people get out here but that staff report we're gonna wait a minute here and if you can exit quietly please so we can just keep going here so again item 10.4 our bicycle and pedestrian master plan Nancy Adams transportation planner will be giving the staff report good afternoon Commissioner Cisco and planning commissioners I am happy to be here it's been about a 13 month process with altar planning and design to now present the draft bicycle and pedestrian master plan to not only your body but eventually to the city council in March so I'm gonna kick the presentation off and I'll hand it over to Jeff Knowles who's been the project lead for multi-planning and design to really talk more about the document that he's prepared for us as a city so just a quick reminder that this is an update to a current plan that the count that the city has we will be asking the commissioners to consider that adopting that plan and the general plan amendments that will eventually get to the council so those the two action items that we'd like consideration from the commissioners this afternoon so just a little bit of the history of the project so as I mentioned the city currently has a city-wide bicycle and pedestrian master plan that the council adopted back in February of 2011 we received some grant money in 2016 to actually update the plan which is Jeff's team has been doing that over the last little over a year in November there was a lot of conversations with our bicycle and pedestrian advisory board the consultant team has done a really wonderful job of working not only with with the our advisory board but also Santa Rosa residents and agency staff so wanted to let the commissioners know that and so part of that conversation was meeting with the bike and pedestrian advisory board and the waterways advisory committee so series of meetings in November they both reviewed the plan that you're seeing before you this afternoon and eventually got comments from the waterways advisory committee which we incorporated in and Steve Brady's been very instrumental in working with that committee as we move through the review and the preparation of the plan and then January last month our bicycle and pedestrian advisory board passed a motion to recommend that the city council adopt the plan and approve the amendments to the plan so I'm going to kick this off now to Jeff and he's been working quite a bit with our marketing and not treat each week out reach coordinator Jamie Smith as who's been very instrumental in in messaging this plan through the process and I'll now turn it over to Jeff thank you chair commissioners members of the public staff again my name is Jeff Knowles with all the planning design it's a pleasure to be here at this kind of important juncture with the plan this milestone and bringing this to you how appropriate that it's Valentine's Day where my job is to make you fall in love with this plan if you haven't already fallen in love with it so I appreciate you and you know letting me play Cupid tonight I wanted to bring up something kind of from the get-go to help frame the discussion tonight and that's community engagement this is a kind of a marked departure from the last plan we really took this seriously and so there were three phases of community engagement I'll walk through a couple of the different strategies we had within those phases the first was listen that's really where we started to understand the needs and concerns of residents before we brought to them any ideas we had as consultants the second was to collaborate this is where we brought back early ideas about recommendations in terms of projects policy changes and programs that the residents like to see we collaborated we refined them into the last phase we brought to them the draft plan and we let them provide us feedback on the draft plan make revisions until this until we got to this final draft plan that you see in front of you a couple key elements we had three community open houses six community pop-ups where we are tabling at different large events throughout Santa Rosa 11 stakeholder interviews small focus groups with particular user group areas we had project flyers again with Jamie and your own outreach team project websites community survey with over 1,300 responses we produced an interactive online map with 2,100 comments and votes where the public who couldn't attend our events were able to drop points identify concerns draw the routes they'd like to see throughout Santa Rosa for walking and bicycling we had multiple email distributions to an 11,000 person newsletter subscriber list and also there were local newspaper radio and media alerts a few images from some of our events one of our most well-attended ones South East Greenway came to almost all of our events and so again with the green shirts they made up a good portion of community input and the bottom left we had over 90 people come to our second open house this is at Rinkan Valley Library in the middle of July and a summer night really excited to see the turnout it was pretty consistent throughout again our strategy for our pop-up event locations were to make sure that we were strategically placing them throughout Santa Rosa we didn't want to just have them here at City Hall and hope that everybody could drop what they were doing and come all the way to City Hall so we had pop-up events two of them were in Roseland at the welcome Rosalind annexation events also Cinco de Mayo we had them at Cottington Mall we had them at Earth Day a couple different events so well attended great idea for getting lots of small you know two-minute conversations with staff and with public again 11 stakeholder interviews in those pop-ups I mentioned the stats before they were impressive this is a screen capture of that online interactive tool that community survey that folks were taken I think this is one of the best results we've had using this tool I do bicycle and pedestrian master plans all around the Bay Area in Northern California and to see 2100 commons is as it's the new bar to me to say right now so well done Nancy mentioned this before but we would also want to coordinate internally and so there were eight bicycle and pedestrian advisory board meetings this was really our steering committee they helped direct and coordinate a lot of the different revisions to deliverables that we were sharing with them along the way so there were no surprises at the end their hand was in all of the different chapters that culminated in the plan three waterway advisory committee meetings community advisory board meeting planning Commission tonight and then City Council in March tentatively really quickly the components of the plan this is a standard planning process where we looked at existing conditions and needs analysis that helped inform a vision goals and policies section we use that to develop recommended bikeway and pedestrian projects and then in addition to that there are policy and program recommendations within the plan so we know that it's not all reliant on engineering fixes to increase people walking bicycling there are other policies and related to education and encouragement evaluation that need to go on into this problem into this plan we looked at proposed crossing enhancement locations and trail bridges to make sure we were consistent with other specific plans along with the creek wide trails master plan and finally we had an implementation chapter that walked through how do we how does the city go through with limited staff resources and funding make a sense of what needs to happen first to get the biggest benefit to the residents of Santa Rosa finally there's an appendix of bicycle and pedestrian facility guidelines so anything that's not recommended here is a project there are service requests that come in all the time to rob and the rest of the transportation team there are design guidelines now to make sure that as the city is designing either small fixes or new projects that maybe we even haven't conceived yet in this plan there are guidelines for how to design those effectively and making sure that they're reflecting the best the you know the most current standards across the country there are two new types of analysis that we were piloting in this project that i wanted quickly make attention to attention of this map shows the communities of concern is defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission so equity was a key component in this the the new one that i think was not involved in the last one was a level of traffic stress analysis for the bicycle network this was looking more than just is there a bike lane or not so unless of a binary decision it's more like how do people feel bicycling on this roadway whether or not there's the bike lane right and so there are four different levels of traffic stress we calculated based on the speed of moving vehicles how wide the travel lanes are if there's bike lanes present or not volumes of traffic essentially trying to simulate what your experience would be and this map here shows that on most of your arterials the places that have a lot of your commercial shopping areas the destinations it's really difficult people feel uncomfortable bicycling on those roads you feel more comfortable within your own local local roads your residential roads and maybe some of the collectors as well so that was a new analysis that went into and helped us fact figure out the different bikeway recommendations safety was another key component so collision reduction here we mapped out the high injury network for walking and bicycling again we were looking at the prevalence of collisions over the last 10 years and so we mapped out the the corridors that saw those areas really high in the recommendations we were looking to see what projects could either address these corridors head on or provide good parallel alternatives to bring people off of these high injury corridors all that existing conditions work factored in with community input to develop a vision statement Santa Rosa's a community where walking and bicycling are comfortable convenient and common for people of all ages and abilities within that there are three main goals increase the comfort of people walking and bicycling so we want to design bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are accessible and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities goal to maintain and expand the network Santa Rosa already has a really robust pedestrian network in terms of its trails and we want to make sure that we can grow that and connect that into the neighborhood so identify develop and maintain a complete and convenient bicycle and pedestrian network and goal three support a culture of walking and bicycling increase awareness and support of bicycling and walking through programs and citywide initiatives another key element that we were asked to look at was the bicycle friendly designation this comes from the league of American bicyclists right now Santa Rosa is a bronze community and there's a couple different criteria and rankings that go into that designation staff asked us to help them understand what were the key levers and moving to a higher level to a silver or maybe a gold or or hopefully one day maybe a diamond level bicycle friendly community the good news is that on a lot of the key criteria you're already achieving silver and better community level status but there are three major outcomes that the league is looking at that are kind of holding you back and those related to fatalities crashes and the amount of ridership we see in the city so that audit that analysis also factored in some of our program and project recommendations I'm going to turn things over to Nancy because we also started some conversations about some new policies that will continue beyond this plan and so Nancy if you want to talk about the vision zero and the VMT that was mentioned before yeah I just wanted to let the commissioners know that these are a couple of new areas that we haven't incorporated into the current plan and and I think these are things that have certainly emerged since the last time we prepared the plan and Jeff's team has done a really good job of of just framing you know these these ideas and concepts in the plan and and the vision zero policy is something that Jeff's team is is recommending in the plan that that the city consider that you know it's something that we don't we're not considered a vision zero and it would be a policy change that the city council we need to think about in terms of all the other priorities that you know they're they're trying to sort through at a city level so right now it's something that you know we're we're offering as a something that the city can consider and the VMT is is is something now that's being required with the CEQA as a result of the SB 743 so so it's again one of the commissioners did mention VMT and the prior item and so we are addressing those in in this update is just something that has emerged since the last time when the plan was reviewed yeah and I'll just take this one real quick so just again they've done a great job of integrating some emerging initiatives that weren't around back in 2011 and certainly the the large most obvious is the introduction of the smart passenger service rail through the county and these are just some statistics that we got from their staff and actually I was at the smart board meeting last weekend that number of bicycles now is increased over to over 90,000 bikes have boarded the trains since they've been in service so it's it's something that we need to you know to recognize as a city and how we can really partner with you know active transportation and supporting their service and then just getting around in Santa Rosa and then the second one is actually a bike share that two counties Sonoma County Marin County are working on and that will be something that will be piloted and started probably sometime late this year and again that's providing a a bike share service which Santa Rosa will be one of those participating cities in Sonoma County so I will turn it back to Jeff thanks Nancy so I know you've all read the plan cover to cover I'm not going to go through each individual project I will spare you that tonight but I am available to answer questions once I complete the the presentation I just wanted to highlight that in chapter five that's where we identify citywide projects programs and policies this is a map of the recommended bicycle network we've also got your existing network in solid and our recommendations in dashed colors what this all means in terms of the actual number of mileage recommended for class one this is your shared use path these are your trails you have 30 close to 31 miles we're more than doubling that to 38.9 miles recommended in this plan again new class ones and class ones identified in your creek master plan bicycle lanes 67 miles exist today we're adding 48 and a half miles buffer bike lanes two miles of additional buffered bike lanes so additional separation between the motorist and the bicyclist bike routes 35.3 new miles on top of the 12 that you have here bike boulevards two and a half new miles of bike boulevards so this is adding additional traffic calming to make sure that people feel comfortable on these bike routes where you're sharing the road with traffic there's not as dedicated space and then a new classification from Caltrans a class four these are separated bikeways consider this there's a physical separation between you the bicyclist and motor vehicles so it creates greater comfort this requires additional roadway space and so there's a lot of tradeoffs that involve with class fours and installing them however we did identify two miles in the roseland community on sabbatical road that we think would be really relevant and needed for this additional separation so that's a new element of this plan that was not in the previous plan on the pedestrian side again we're showing here class one paths in addition to sidewalk gaps that we're recommending filled close to as i mentioned before close to 40 miles of trails 21 miles of sidewalks and then intersections we know intersections are sometimes difficult for folks to cross they feel unsafe they feel uncomfortable we have crossing location enhancement locations 39 of them and trail bridges 31 of them we haven't specified exactly the type of treatment at each individual crossing locations we started down this path but i think we we realized it's going to take a lot more design detail to understand them these reflect a combination of school walk audits that were performed throughout the city these are coming from the public through community outreach they come through our analysis and the downtown a lot of these come from kind of an array of different sources so these are essentially our locations that have been prioritized for additional study to determine exactly what that means in terms of additional beacons curb radius new sidewalks new walk crosswalks an array of different features all of the different projects were then went through a prioritization process we were looking at a couple different criteria one was balancing feasibility and complexity right we know that some of these are going to acquire additional study additional funding staff resources tradeoffs like parking removal for some of them some of them might also require roadway reconfigurations or road diets we were trying to balance that with strategic value making sure that we had the best bang for your buck in terms of giving you the projects that would then meet our goals and create that vision so we're looking at things like safety connectivity to destinations comfort again trying to make sure that people feel comfortable on these roadways closing gaps in your existing network and equity from that process we had different buckets and that's in chapter six of the plan about different short-term long-term opportunity projects and low priority projects with staff a first phase map was pulled together of different types of projects strategically located throughout the city here and you have this I think is 11 by 17 and it's it's here as the implementation first phase this does not mean that the other projects are being ignored what's great to think about our prior prioritization process is that there's always an opportunity through staff through the public through city council to move projects as funding becomes available as development happens and you can tie this as a condition to development this is this is a flexible plan I hope so that the city and staff can implement as much as possible given the resources we have a also a funding strategy identifying that there are local you know cip dollars there's local money that's flowing through formula through the gas tax there are also competitive grant programs that the city would be eligible for we've identified all those programs those funding sources and what type of project would be eligible for those funding sources I think lastly I'll just share that in the bicycle facility guidelines they show a number of features examples and also some appropriate cost estimates for installing these things like those buffer bike lanes here's a separate bikeway types of barriers that might be involved whether using parked cars or planted medians all those are there and I'd be happy to answer questions if you have any specific ones I'm going to turn things over to Nancy to talk about the amendment to the general plan okay thanks just so the I'm going to go through quickly with the commissioners the proposed amendments to the general plan and just as a reference they are attachments seven and eight that were in your packet so basically we're going to be replacing the existing figure five dash two which is the bicycle corridors with the figure that has been generated as a result of Jeff's work and so that is the first amendment and then I'll go through the the text changes and as you can see that's there's a couple of different pages for not only the bicycle but also the pedestrian changes so I'll run through the bike facility changes real quickly with the commissioners so on page five dash 10 we're going to change the designated number of designated miles from 180 to 242 an increase based on Jeff's work and then we're going to be adding three new bikeway categories so we're going to be adding the buffered bike lane which is class 2b and then the bike boulevard which is class 3b and then the new separated bikeway which is class 4 so that will be a change to the current general plan description and then this is just an update on the number of miles and I can certainly go through those with the commissioners if they want but basically it's now reflecting the new mileage as a result of you know Alta's work updating the plan and then lastly I oh I forgot one sorry and then we have the criteria that we use to prioritize the bike and pedestrian projects and Jeff ran through those with you just just a minute ago and then the pedestrian facilities we just and commissioners if you want me to go through that but we just basically put in all the new language for the pedestrian facilities replacing the existing language that is in the general plan to reflect again what was described in the the plan that is before you today so let me see what else I have well one a couple things before I get to the recommendation I did want to to let the commissioners know that we also in terms of notification we had the one eighth page in the press democrat that was published February 2nd as Jeff mentioned we have done a really great job of messaging this plan on our website social media and project distribution groups and then I wanted to briefly go over some of the comments that I've heard from the the public that since this has been noticed I will do a quick review of those summarize them and if certainly commissioners have I have missed something I'm happy to to hear that and we can certainly answer those questions so I did receive a notice sorry some comments from the southeast greenway group and I actually did go through we met with them and we went through their questions and comments and we felt like we had addressed all the their questions and so I wanted the commissioners to know that I received a an email or an email a yes actually it was an email from the snowman county bike coalition and I think that was also received by the commissioners as well and I did receive an email from a resident about similar concerns about the class four and their desire to have more of those and so I did meet with that individual resident as well and then I did receive a message from an individual resident about a specific location it was at B Street and Ross and I did actually reply to that resident about his the concerns that were expressed at that specific location and then I also received some communication regarding Santa Rosa Avenue class two bike lanes and I did meet with the resident about about that project as well so I will now just offer the recommendation for the planning commissioners this evening and then Jeff and I and Rob sprinkle is here if there's any questions so basic the recommendation for the commissioners to consider this evening is that you recommend to the city council that they adopt the bicycle and pedestrian master plan update and approve the general plan amendments that are consistent with our bicycle and pedestrian master plan and that concludes our presentation great thank you commissioners I think it would be best if we held all our questions until after we get the publics in there too okay so with that I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing and I have bob geyser followed by dwayne do it madam chair and commission thank you for the opportunity to be here we've we're very pleased and would come in the the staff for moving this project ahead expeditiously it should achieve its objectives of creating a comprehensive biking and walking network we did submit written comments two days ago this did follow discussion the previous week with staff we decided that there are some that we did want to to continue to request and ask your consideration for I wanted to focus on the key thing that's one of the first specific common address in our letter which is what happens within the greenway itself as Nancy's pointed out this will become the essence of the bike plan goes into the general plan well on the greenway project the the description of the uses in the project and the map and some guidelines they would go into a general plan section also so what we see is the need to be consistent not only just in general different sections the general plan but we want to work hard to help the city and county and other parties in getting funding from grants from donations foundations etc and it's really important when you're doing that to be able to say all the adopted plans of the jurisdiction the city or county or whatever are consistent and support your project the change has been made on the final map at least I think it has you when you look at these maps you got these little little circles you know on these these these class one paths and you have to blow it up to make sure that it it actually goes as far as you you hope it does it looks like it goes from the end of Vallejo all the way to spring lake park and that's what we wanted and that's what requested and we're we thank thank staff and consultant for that the only remaining request we have within the greenway is that there's four major street crossings in order to make this work in order to create the potential here we need those street crossings two of them are anybody would consider major on summer field in Yalupa and we'll probably require you know some sort of signalized crossing uh frank ad is a little less daunting but still will require a you know a definite crossing uh honed avenue all it's needed is on the north side of the intersection where there's no marked crosswalk at all to put in across a marked crosswalk that could be used by by pedestrians and also probably by by some bikes so there's four four intersections where we're not these crossings designated on the crossing location map in the the bike plan we think these will be busy heavily used and as worthy of of this type of designation as any other crossings in the city great thank you thank you mr geiser next is dwayne duit followed by eris weaver hello my name is dwayne duit i'm from roseland i'd like my comments to be taken in uh memory of sydney fall bow who was killed on her bicycle at the joe rdota trail on stony point road and it was just around the corner from two separate spots where pedestrians were killed so vision zero should be a very important part of this plan and i'm hoping that you folks will emphasize that to the city council especially because you're a bit more sympathetic than some of the other councils of the past i'm hoping that you'll also look at the southwest greenway the roseland creek bikeway it's already been a full decade since two and a half million dollars of taxpayers money was spent to buy i think it was five point nine acres on the south side of roseland creek between burbank avenue and mc minne avenue with the explicit statement by the then recreation and parks department director that got the money from the snow county agar noble space district that there would be a bike path on the south side of roseland creek and that's why it was so important to get that land bought the community members had never advocated for that land to be bought they'd always been advocating for acreage to the north of the creek and mr richardson after the business strategy planning of 2008 for the recreation and parks department went forward and made sure to broker that deal so six acres of land has been owned it was deeded over to the city of san rosa it sat there fenced off this entire time and we'd like that bike way to go through rosin school district put in a paved bike way on some of their property next to rosin creek and they put a bridge across it and it comes off of an area that you have marked in your maps for a study there's also a class one path further to the west along the creek it's there so we're not requesting much from you we're just asking that you put into your recommendations to the city council that the bike way that money has already been spent for be on the south side of rosin creek and be done in such a way that it is cognizant of creek setbacks and habitat it actually has some california purple needlegrass nearby which is the state grass it's a riparian corridor so you want to make sure and do your best to have that be a nature trail that's what we'd like it's a multi uh what's it it's it's dual use a pathway for walkers pedestrians and bicyclists thank you for your time thank you mr duet eris weaver followed by steve burtlebow good evening i'm the executive director of the sonoma county bicycle coalition we applaud all of the opportunities that you've had for public engagement in the creation of this plan and we fully support all the program and policy recommendations that you made many of which sound like they come right out of our playbook smart cycling classes and safe routes to school better parking bike to work day educating drivers we look forward to working with the city on those programs to the recommendations that are in the plan that i particularly would like to support are the hiring of the dedicated biking pedestrian program coordinator and then an annual report card or evaluation we know that what gets evaluated is on a regular basis is more likely to get done so we highly support that every day people talk to me about where they bike what experiences they have and why they don't bike there's a small contingent of people who are going to ride their bike no matter what there's 30 percent of people who are never going to get on a bike that 50 or 60 percent in the middle is who we have to move if we want to meet the um very expansive goals for increasing bike ridership that are in the plan and the reason most people tell me that they don't ride more is that they don't feel safe so we can do all the class two stripes and smart cycling and bike parking we want but if somebody doesn't feel safe they're not going to ride so we need more of the separated class one or class three paths about one third of the proposed project miles in the plan are those separated paths so it's good more than what we've had more would be better um the thing that most concerns me about the plan are some of those projects that are enlisted in the first phase to be studied stony point roslyn creek college montgomery drive fourth street mr duit talked about sydney falbo i know of at least two other incidents that have happened on that stretch of stony point just in the last few months people are dying in some of these areas and the plan says that these will be studied by 2040 in 10 years when we look at the plan and check off is it successful did we do what we said we were going to do if all we do is study those i don't think that's good enough i want more aspirational language in the plan around those study areas that maybe there needs to be some more temporary short-term interventions made i know new york city has been having great success with temporary short-term measures using movable barriers and things like that until there's money to do bigger construction in areas that need that need improvement so i would recommend looking at that i do want to say one other thing about the class three separated bikeways my daily commute into the city passes through one of our neighboring cities and i do one stretch of that has a class three section with a curb may i can you finish quick yes okay if they're not maintained then they're useless the street sweeper can't get in there they don't do something else to keep it clean and it fills up with debris even faster than just the regular lanes so whatever design features you look at make sure that the maintenance needs goes along with that thank you thank you steve burdle ball followed by tom bonning thank you madam chair and members steve burdle ball with the transportation and land use coalition i want to commend the work that's been done on this project and uh it's it's really important uh our objective is to shift people out of their cars and into other ways of getting around and bicycling is great walking is great the one area that i would comment on is the west college avenue study and the idea that a class two bicycle lane on west college avenue or maybe it's east college avenue uh is uh it can be safe uh traffic really crowds that area uh it's unless you can figure out a way to uh to make that two lanes of traffic instead of four lanes of traffic i i really don't know that you can ever have a safe safe class two bike rail bike trail on west college avenue the idea of the jennings bicycle boulevard uh as a way of giving people an east west direction without having to use college or uh gernville road is a good one we're working on it we think we got good news from the public utilities commission uh earlier this week and uh we really hope that that can be the main place that we focus bicycle and pedestrian traffic that's east west in that part of town and thank you very much for the work and thanks to the staff staff help me understand this document it's really complex and uh there are a lot of overlaps and sometimes it's a little hard to read but uh good work thank you thank you tom bonning followed by vincent hoagland madam chair and commissioners um my name is tom banning i've been a resident of the jc neighborhood since 89 on humboldt and slater streets and i've attended a scoping meeting for this document and i'm also a passport member of the bike coalition and i like to get around town on my bike my general topic is implementation that guidelines in documents like this often don't match realities on the street as in a look back on work completed case in point the humble bike boulevard the first one in town as currently installed and comparing it to the guidelines listed in uh section or appendix b32 humboldt is um a good location for a bike boulevard the longest straight street in the neighborhood parallel to a big arterial and a natural um pathway between the county center and downtown um in implementation humboldt's also a natural shortcut between shanae pacific and college the bike boulevard as is hasn't reduced traffic volume down the street the current traffic measurements posted by the city are two to four thousand vehicles per day depending on the location which is well above the 1500 vehicles per day listed in the uh called out in this document now when it went in traffic diverters were rejected by the city early on due to local complaints as in it's harder to get in and out of the neighborhood if you do this so tables or speed bumps were put in to slow vehicles down to the new lower speed limit and to discourage third through traffic and my observation is this may work for small cars but the the bigger vehicles with heavy suspensions well i've actually seen vehicles speed up to go over those things um and i think that a new four-way stop was recently installed at humboldt and spencer suggests that vehicle volume and speeds are not what they should be and on top of this it's a narrow street with a large number of parked cars which means any cyclists will have to claim the lane and hope motors will give the three feet when passing and i think until the city does some engineering fix to this to reduce the volume it'll remain a flawed bible of art that results in a high stress transit for all but the most experienced cyclist and taking action to reduce volume which i think the consultant alluded to in his comments will create some kind of mix of applause and pushback to city government but if the city government's serious about the goals in this plan climate action and general plan it'll have to deal with it thank you thank you vincent hoagland followed by thomas ells hi my name is vincent hoagland i'm a member of the sonoma county bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee and i've been to many of the meetings of the senator roza bicycle and pedestrian advisory board and i really want to commend the board city staff jeff and the alta people for putting together just what i think is a very important update of the bicycle pedestrian plan i've been a member as you can see of the southeast greenway committee campaign for nine years and i use my bicycle whenever i possibly can last year i rode over 2,500 miles just doing errands on my bike so i'm really concerned about how the bike plan is going to affect the safety of people riding bicycles um i have one of the things that have came up during the discussion of the eir was the intersection area up on bennett valley road and farmers lane when i ride the greenway meetings over on ylupa um i'll ride east on bennett valley road turn left on farmers lane and then head over onto hoan there's a bike lane to the right of the left turn lane on bennett valley road and i'm an experienced cyclist so i use it although i have to cross the designated straight through lane in order to reach that i think that this is a very dangerous intersection for both cyclists and pedestrians the idea of the new class one bike path starting from bennett valley road we've talked about that going up over the hill to taylor mountain what i believe in looking at the plan it's not quite clear how that's going to allow people to connect to farmers lane or to the southeast greenway which basically ends at valet and then could come out onto farmers lane so i'm concerned about the fact that there are no sidewalks on bennett valley road from the path east of the farmers lane intersection there are no north south crossings at that intersection and there are inconsistent or no bike lanes on farmers lane heading north to the greenway to montgomery high school or to montgomery village and so i'm concerned and i hope that these improvements can be addressed in the updating of the bicycle and pedestrian plan great thank you last card is thomas ells thank you so much thomas ells and thank you to the bike coalition and the bike department bike division of the transportation department for this analysis which take a long time there's a lot of effort has gone into a lot of community effort i want to speak about the quality of life issues that this actually presents us with the benefits if fulfilled the fatalities and the crashes are really an element or an outgrowth of the homeless situation and the stresses of housing some questions that we just had here this is really a holistic problem one of the things cathleen cayne mentioned which was she was head of the cdc before margaret van velden she said that 80 percent of the residents of sonoma county spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing and transportation of which housing is very high and the transportation is the highest in the country so the combination makes us the highest in the country higher than new york as far as our incomes relative to our incomes the highest in the country um 80 percent so the quality of life is suffering and we can benefit that greatly here and by improving this and cut down on fatalities and crashes and the thing is is that if if we emphasize this plan develop these things we can cut down on those and you can actually benefit and become a higher silver gold standard platinum uh by cutting those down which case they really fits into many of the other types of things that you look at whether it's a homeless type of solution which benefits people and helps them in because the crash that killed that person at stony point and the trail she was riding on the wrong side of the road it happened so often and and the truck wasn't didn't see her coming it actually moved before she even maybe moved it's very complicated but a lot of those things happen because people are completely distracted they cannot think of what's in front of them either one of those people because either one of them probably could have avoided that I want to echo Steve Birtlebaugh's comments about Jennings I think that's where the focus needs to be I don't really see that on here um whereas the administrative law judge did say that they were there to actually make sure that the PEUCs order get completed that that actually be a crossing um and so and and that I don't see Elliott and Edwards 101 crossing as a part of this uh emphasized but I did see a dot if I could just finish one second okay that there is a dot of a bikeway through that multi family area of bifarmers lane there is a dot there and it is hard to trace out these dots but not pedestrian so there's and that's the thing that I would ask for at that area thank you great thank you anyone else wishing to speak to the commission an action packed agenda tonight Rick Coates uh the other hat I wear is executive director of a nonprofit called eco ring which whose partners are businesses in green certified businesses in the tourist industry one of the things we advocate is for tourists to take multi-day trips by bicycle of course that depends on infrastructure tourists will not ride on streets by and large especially will they not ride on bike lanes that are unprotected so I would strongly recommend that we include mainly protected bike lanes in this plan tell you a little story uh when I was in San Francisco for the MTC meeting I was walking down the Embarcadero where they have bike lanes on two occasions I witnessed near fatal accidents because a car was trying to turn either to turn right across a bike lane or to turn right across the bike lane to get to parking parking should be placed outside of the bike lane the bike lane should be placed next to the curb preferably on a raised section slightly which is in fact what they're beginning to do and plan to do now at the Embarcadero in San Francisco vision zero is crucial it's far past time to start prior prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian safety over automobile flow automobiles kill and they kill more than our wars it's time for a change thank you anyone else thank you mr else um anyone else wishing to speak to the commission tonight on this matter okay I'm not seeing anyone else rise I'm going to go ahead and close the the public hearing and bring it back to staff I think there were some suggestions questions I don't want this to be too overwhelming but there may be things that we heard tonight that you spoke to the public about how they were considered how you arrived maybe at a different decision and or maybe you're hearing something new so if you can go through that as kind of globally as you can that would be I think helpful to us good I'm happy to do that so I just will go down my list here I did hear one of the speakers talk about specifics of the greenway and I would just respond to that the this plan is very high level and my response to to the um residents that are interested in specifics on the greenway is that that will come out of assuming that gets through to the city council and that is um is is approved then there would I would imagine be a subsequent master plan for that area and crossings and how we treat those crossings will come out of that planning process it's it's not it's beyond the purview of this plan to get specific and it would be shortsighted to do that because we don't know what what is planned out there for in terms of land use and so that is a response to I think the concern I heard um on that from that speaker I did make a couple notes about um this uh the rosin creek and the rosin study um we have worked quite extensively with Steve Brady um in the center was a water to make sure that we were consistent with uh the creek master plan and Jeff's team has included in the first phase um a study for the reach between stony point road and burbank um and then uh first phase project to look at that connection between burbank and McMahon so I think that hopefully it will um address that concern and so and then uh the next speaker talked about um a couple different things and I hope hopefully I captured them all so um I did hear where there was uh some kudos for the class four which is a totally new thing that we're now concerning with uh with our plan something that uh obviously is not there out in the street and so I have talked to um a couple of residents about you know about this this is this is new and it's it's it's it's kind of a baby step we have to start somewhere and um so that's the good news um the the more challenging part of class four facilities are is that they do require can require um right of way or you know they they aren't they aren't awful awfully um easy to fit into existing right away um constraints so so you know Jeff's team has done a good job of identifying where we could potentially do something um with a class four facility and then looking at the studies which is also a new area for our plan we haven't ever included studies as part of the um look ahead for active transportation in Santa Rosa so this is a new area so as we get through um you know a look ahead over the next few years um on our radar screen is working with our bike and ped board is um you know assuming this gets through and everyone likes the the concepts of studies we will start looking at um what we would what we'd start um uh what would be on our short list of studies of corridors in Santa Rosa that we could look at and based on on the work that the consultant has completed so I think I think that's a that's the good part of that story is is is we're beginning to break ground in that area and you know we have to we have to start somewhere um and it it addresses the concern about so much of our population is yet not comfortable riding on a class two and on arterial so what do we do with a you know an option would be the class ones or the class fours so um let's see that I'm thinking um we did we do include I've heard I heard Jennings a couple of times I heard the the the bridge over highway 101 that's included in the plan um have that has not changed so those both are in there um let's see I heard about implementation on on particularly the humble bike boulevard that was actually a project that I was involved in and that was a very challenging project and it was a lot working with the neighborhoods and we find that with bike boulevards we you know there's it it means a lot for the residents to engage in that conversation and it's it's a mixture of traffic calming treatments and trying to address you know bicycle movement through through an area so it can look different um based on the neighborhood and um so I would suspect that any other bike boulevards that we embark on it will be a same conversation with the residents that um are most impacted by um what we would put out there um let's see I I did hear about the connection with farmers lane and bandit valley road and I did meet with the southeast greenway and we talked through some of the concerns about that particular location and I don't have an aerial um with me but um I we understood that crossing there currently if you look at bandit valley road um and where it intersects with with farmers lane there's a crosswalk on what I call the east or the west leg on on a north south crosswalk on on bandit valley road so and there's a ped push button there so that you can cross there and a cyclist if they aren't comfortable with making a left onto farmers lane they could walk their bike through the crosswalk which is which is um acceptable there is an existing it's kind of a a goat path but we we could in an interim basis look at putting um a little pathway with an ac dyke on the south side of bandit valley to meet up to farmers lane that's something that we could look at in an interim and in the long term you know assuming and we had a conversation about farmers lane one of the commissioners had asked that question if you know if there's the political well and we get through you know all the questions about that project if that one that project and if a one that project gets um two you know two uh point where we're ready to actually build it that that full intersection would be designed to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian um access at that location so that's you know in the future so i think i have addressed all the things that i heard so if i'm missing something let me know um the one thing um was the hiring of the program coordinator that's included in the plan i know that that's going to be a tricky one and involves the city council or involves budgeting but could you maybe sort of elaborate on what that process would look like so the city council has a goal setting session at the end of this month and i do know that this is a very high interest of our bicycle and pedestrian advisory board and so um they have um committed themselves to talk to their individual account uh council appointees about um some of their you know their the plan and just some of the things that they have gleaned from this process and the bike pedestrian coordinator is one of those items and so frankly it's it's it's just you know it's a resource question and it's and it's um a council question about of all the things that we got on got going on at the city how does this fit into prioritization with um staff resources and and just priorities for the for the community so that's that's what i know right now okay great okay um questions of staff commissioner dug in well i have um questions and i have comments should i just do the questions why don't we just do the questions right now and then we'll we'll do the do the comments let's get all the questions out on the table so i actually have um like the four pages of questions and comments so what i might do is just do um sort of the highlights and i've got a copy to give to staff that sounds great just because i know four pages might at this hour you know people aren't going to like this okay okay so i've got specific comments on the attachments in the packet so attachment number one the recommended bikeways attachment um are all of the on-street improvements um considered for both sides of the street and um attachment number five on the first phase projects uh study item bb the class two bike lanes currently exist between west third and grenville road on stony point and i'm wondering why that's a study item and attachment number six uh table six four the studies um are all the studies that are listed today for for pedestrian or um bike improvements or both or you know which one are they for and it can kind of be made more clear in that table six four uh which what exactly is going to be studied and attachment eight from the packet the general plan um amendment text red line um what's the criteria can you include the criteria to determine which bikeway treatment a particular location receives and also i would i would love to see um part of the text amendment say that um class one bike paths should be of a predetermined minimum width in areas where there's an expectation for a large number of pedestrians as well as bicyclists because of the speed discrepancies between bicycling and walking okay so those are from the packet and now from the plan explicitly um page eight of the plan and page nine um both denote the climate action plan and the general plan goals about um greenhouse gas emission reduction and vehicle mile trip reductions and um they just note that we've got these pretty pretty ambitious goals that are coming due in 2020 which is only a year away and i'd love to see something here telling us how we are doing on meeting our goal let's see i don't know if i want to do all of these right now but just on page um 14 goals one and three uh the performance measure is where are we with those goals and page 54 and 56 of the plan um so the information on the pages um talk about crash information and the main causes of crashes and on the bicycle crash page it seems to indicate that the vast majority of crashes are due to the cyclist fault while on the next page the pedestrian collisions the vast majority are due to the the driver's fault and i'm wondering um is that correct it just seems like the driver should somehow have have more fault in the bike collisions and on page 60 um phase one improvements and i think that's the high intensity the um injury network page if i'm not mistaken so i it's not exactly clear if the um phase one improvements if the recommended phase one improvements are going to be concentrated in the areas of the highest um injury rate which is like on this map at stony point um from glenn brook to sabastopol road medicina from elliott to 10th street and steel lane from humble to the smart train path so if you could make that clear and also on um so page 86 a figure five two shows a class one bike path shown along santa rosa creek like rights underneath here and i'm wondering how feasible is it to connect to include a plan for a bike path um on a culverted um underground at creek okay on appendix a this is just a general request for all the the tables that appendix a includes would it be possible to add a column to all of the tables to to indicate the priority level for each of those projects you know the short term long term um low priority the opportunity projects that have been assigned to all of those projects and i think that's my questions i have more comments later okay any other questions can she call you it's it's hard to have a question after all of the good good questions um but i think i do have one that you might didn't ask um i just want to know a little bit more about how the priorities are they weighted were they weighted differently and like how do you you know did you compare you know by prioritizing the collision reduction over are kind of to see like where does equity play in in regards to that that way and those different priorities and mrs adams and mr nulls are you comfortable just collecting the questions now and then answering them more globally or do you want to respond to each commissioner's questions as they ask them i whatever the the commissioners would like to do like i i'm fine either way so what okay do you want your answers now well since i've planned to give you a copy of it of my comments my questions i'd be fine if they were responded to in writing at the next meeting i'm you know i don't know i don't know that you've got all the answers right now but well i think one of the issues is that you know we're being asked to we're being asked to do a resolution and and pass it along to city council so how how would we manage that yeah that that is the goal this evening to right to to get through that so i'm happy to um go through individual commissioner questions and then um so let's do that first so and so do i'll go i'll just go back to your question do is do you want to go through the rest of the commissioners and i'll just make list and then we'll go or how what's what's the preference of the commissioners well i'm looking for ease and efficiency here i don't know still be similar questions or questions that can be sort of answered in a narrative form that's what i'm looking for and so i'm going to ask for your expertise i'm sure the commissioners will be happy however they get an answer okay so let's let's start with um commissioner dugins questions now and i'm sorry i didn't attachment one i want to make sure i didn't i didn't get your your question so if you wouldn't mind repeating that so on attachment one it was um for the recommended bikeways are all of the indicated improvements for both sides of the street and looks like yes yes okay thank you okay and then question uh your question two had to do with attachment five and i believe it had to do with west third street yeah it's a study item bb it already there already are class two bike lanes between west third and um grindale road on stony point and i'm just wondering why that segments being studied our direct uh so good so studies are listed on page 108 all the individual studies here are there's a paragraph dedicated to each of them so if you're interested in note the criteria and what was to be studied it's there was 108 through 111 and so for benette that we're on third street study point sorry so starting points on 111 okay you also asked uh commissioner dugin um would they be bicycle or pedestrian uh i think i think the question is we don't know at this pay at this level of doing a citywide master plan and so all of these things would be evaluated bike and ped components maybe even transit is part of that and when you do the study to balance out the different modes so that would be idealized and all the studies would be looked at so it looks like it's just because of the high um injury rate on stony point because they're are you asking why it was a study and not a recommendation no i'm just wondering why we're studying when we already have existing infrastructure so in the paragraph here on page 111 if i can direct your attention to that yeah i'll read stony point road is an important artery of the bicycle and pedestrian network in santa rosa providing a north south connection across state route 12 from grover roads is a basketball road it's also a busy high speed arterial street with an average daily traffic volumes between 20 000 and 30 000 and posted speed limits of 35 to 40 miles per hour the corridor is also part of the high injury network for both bicyclists and pedestrians with a fatal or severe injury collisions occurring at higher frequency than other corridors in the community this plan update 2018 recommends this corridor be studied from grenville road to sabastable road for bicycle or pedestrian facilities that increase comfort and may reduce their frequency and severity of collisions okay is that justifying yeah that's that's fine okay i'm gonna go then to you had um attachment eight so you had some questions or suggestions on the red lines for the general plan so i want to make sure i captured those well i also had um the attachment six comment question oh uh you have the studies are they all for bike or pedestrian improvements but i guess it looks like they're all described here they would consider both okay thank you so then yeah attachment eight the question there so so what i again i want to make sure i captured i i wasn't writing that fast so i'm sorry so on attachment um for attachment eight i was saying what's the criteria to determine which bikeway treatment is a particular location it's going to be to receive you know why put it at to class two here or class three or whatever is it is a traffic volume traffic speed it's a mixture of a lot of different factors traffic volumes traffic speed where it's available sometimes we don't have that information so it's not a there's no computer model that went through and created this recommendation network and so it was case by case basis looking and measuring available right of way that we did do and make sure that there was space so that every recommendation is at least feasible given current considerations where there are trade-offs required that's where we identified study or if there was a minor trade-off or minor impact we talked with staff and kind of made a decision about things like so i guess with my comment here um i would like to see more language like that in the general plan text saying that this is how this is what the criteria depends on all these things so we that's why we can't tell you exactly why every street's not going to get a class two but you know depends on all these different things okay and then also the the um note about class one bike paths being of a certain minimum depending on and also depending on how much if they're expected to have a high rate of pedestrian use as well as bicycling use i would direct your attention to chapter four of the um facility guidelines so there's on page 60 of silly guidance it's shared use path and there's design features and there's uh talking about the widths there okay the next question that i got go ahead so so i just want to make sure um i'm i'm i want to clarify so duo i hear the commissioner suggesting that you would like to see and those criteria added to the general plan text amendment is that what i'm language saying how you arrive at what the treatment is like we we consider a bunch of different criteria including traffic volume speed injury rate right to to determine what treatment a particular um location receives is that i i just clear i'm just trying to get clarification that you want that as part of our of our text changes to the general plan that's okay got it perfect the next question i wrote down was how are we doing on meeting the goals of the climate action plan yeah that's outside of our purview for this study so i would ask if maybe planning staff or others have an update that they could share with that i'm sorry what what is the question well just by reference the climate action planner general planner included here saying that we're we've got all these ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas by 2020 which is only a year from now and i just said like do we know how we're doing are we going to work close to meeting our goals well um well as you may know we are due for a climate action plan update and i uh report and was earlier in uh was in 2018 we did provide a status update on basically how are we doing and the council um has tabled um and potential will be part of their council goal settings about revisiting our climate action plan and updating that plan and um refreshing that plan so that will be outside the scope of this project but they all dovetail together and ultimately our general plan sort of embraces all of that so as they as they get updated over time we we make all the adjustments that we can as they relate so for example when we update the climate action plan if it touches back down to the bike and ped plan we'll make those amendments as we update the climate action plan so as we go forward we try to make all those plans consistent okay the next question i wrote down was about the um looking at the goals and the performance measures and you were asking about if they if we have statistics on where we are today with some of those performance measures some of these are new and so the city's been collecting data and so it'd be at this point moving forward on these recommendations start to collect some of this data so you can report back so next time we're before you we can tell you definitively about how we're meeting some of these measures okay thank you some of them are reported through the census and so that information is available and reported in um the existing conditions chapter so like the ridership information here yeah is there okay the next question that i wrote down was about um how crashes are reported and how we've documented them here that's we get all information up from a statewide database that comes from and these are reported collisions where you are interviewed by a police officer or highway patrol and that gets confirmed in the database and so how they define the behaviors that that are at fault you know distracted walking distracted bicycling bicycling on the right side of the road can can lead for and at fault for bicyclists and so that's just kind of reflection of how those categories are determined i agree a lot of advocates would probably say more fault lies with the the vehicle but but uh or the driver but um that's just kind of how the law enforcement and maybe the reading of the vehicle code and reading of kind of the the situation on hand that's how they're recorded there so okay yeah we do know things like if we see a lot of uh riding on the wrong side of the road you know by the letter of the law the bicyclist is is violating but we have to ask ourselves why are they bicycling on the wrong side of the road probably because they have an uncomfortable crossing that what they would have to meet and it's more convenient more comfortable to go against traffic even though it could be less safe exactly right so there's that factors in to kind of a more macro level of what we're looking at here um so hopefully that maybe not satisfactorily but that's that's as good of information no i understand that that um that bad infrastructure leads to bad behavior yeah yeah phase one you asked about on page 60 if um if these improvements are correlated with hindering network and i will say and this also i think directs to commissioner calio's question about the weighting of different partisan criteria safety was weighted the highest and so we were looking specifically on were our projects on or off the hindering network and so if you were on the hindering network projects related to that were weighted higher and so yes that was looked at closely um yeah so i'll say that um the other were kind of equally weighted among equity gap closure connecting to major destinations and comfort but safety was the one that we thought we heard loud and clear from the community and with incidents on study point we wanted to make sure that was that was helping weight things at the higher end uh page 86 figure five two on senator creek or the feasibility of that um for most of the creek wide trails and working with steve brady we wanted to be consistent with the creek master plan and not through this process start to amend that already adopted an approved plan and so we were trying to be consistent he did provide us additional feasibility that has come out and additional studies that have been done since that plan and we've modified it based on his understanding and knowledge this was not one that came up so um our understanding is that it's still feasible given certain criteria so it's left in anything to add Nancy okay um you asked if implementation categories could be attached in appendix a i'd have to ask with staff if that's something that could be done i think they're they're not included just for legibility so that i know that the maps we tried to do as best we could with the quadrant maps in the zoom in but it's still a very large city and and so we wanted to provide those appendix tables so that people could see the street they could look up the road see the start end points and the link and the recommendation so we could see if adding another prioritization criteria um i think there's tradeoffs with providing that as well it's already in the map function but um again there is fluidity and flexibility on the staff perspective of moving things and so i don't want people to feel like if they see their project uh as a low priority that it'll never get accomplished i don't want people to feel locked in with that so there's a little bit of tradeoff of of assigning that to that project okay and the next one i think that was that's as far as i got and then why commissioner calia with the the weighting of the prioritization so hopefully i've answered that question i think that's a good batch but please more and i think that what would be most helpful if i can offer this to the commission is that if there are questions that would prevent you from tonight being willing to approve this that's i think what we'd want to hear most and if there are small corrections or additions please direct them to to nancy um hopefully that's amenable to staff and into the commission here tonight i'm willing to stay as long as is is necessary but i want to make that understanding to everybody that's here mr carter do you have any questions yeah i'll preface my questions by saying i'm generally in support of this plan because there's a lot of good stuff in there and i don't think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good um i do have a couple small questions i don't think any of them will affect my vote but i'm going to go ahead and ask those real quickly so the study areas are not included in any of the general plan amendments but every recommendation all of the recommended changes are part of the general plan is that correct if you look at the first text it changes from 180 to 242 miles and that's that matches the table of the recommendation so i'm my assumption is the recommendations get folded into the general plan and my question is of the study areas if there if a recommendation comes out of those studies is it a separate process then to amend to amend the general plan yeah i actually yes i talked with um jessica jones that very question so you know once we get into you know a potential study of a corridor that will um you know that may may result in a designation that's currently not there or currently not in the plan as you know as it gets through the city council so that would require us to come back through with a general plan amendment which right and and one more just it's probably minor or just from my lack of complete knowledge the taylor mountain trail looks like the farmers lane extension are those two being designed or planned in concert or can they occur independently as far as my understanding is that they'd be happening concurrently that they would that there'd be part of that project would be building the trail as in addition to the extension of the road okay and there'd also i think i just want to point out it's hard to see because they're overlapping there are on street facilities also planned and then there would be a separate off street facility and finally sort of tagging on to that a comment that what i've heard tonight suggests that there should be a study area linking up the taylor mountain trail and the greenway but i don't think the plan is fatally flawed without it thank you thank you vice chair weeks any questions um just a couple real quick ones um um also on the study areas how are you going to prioritize which area to study first so that's a great question uh that will be a conversation i think starting with our bicycle and pedestrian advisory board um they are they have been a our beacon as we've gone through this process so we will certainly start there um with with that conversation and then we'll see see how it um uh it goes from there we've had a it's been a very interesting we've had a lot of public participation at on the bike and pedestrian boards throughout this process and it's that's been really uh and a very happy point for staff to see the residents come out and you know support things that they're seeing out there in san rosa so um i think that's that's where we're starting and we'll i'm certainly i'm sure we'll get the residents involved as as needed thank you and um i'm assuming that you consulted with the police department in their traffic section in developing this we did and jeff can um answer that because i think one of the stakeholder meetings we connected with with uh our police department staff we did and um also with former officer that led a lot of the saffords just not their lot of the um office of traffic safety uh education campaigns in the past and so that was a conversation around bringing those back and kind of continuing that effort with additional funding if it became available so yes enforcement and education uh for motorists iceless pedestrians is something that we heard loud and clear from the public and so that again is reflected here as a as a program that we think should be amplified and continue Mr. Peterson questions uh so i do have a couple questions um i'm gonna start sort of broad with i mean what what is this document's goal i mean is this a ambitious aspirational document is this a document that's designed to have specific uh checkboxes um sort of how do those interact and what's what are we looking at here basically sure so very first page in fact purpose of the plan i think that on page five really tries to outline that it's it is a document a tool for staff and for private development to have in the long-term development of the bicycle pedestrian network and so this is essentially an aspirational document that's long term with a couple of short-term ideas that came out of it that can be accomplished now we want to make sure that as you're seeing developments you're thinking about this plan in the back of your mind is a condition of development staff will be planning staff will be looking at as well so that they can be private development helping implement pieces of this plan in addition this will help the city be eligible and competitive for grant funding which we know that there's not enough funding through the tax base here alone to fund all the projects here and so grant funding competitive grant funding will be available luckily through sp1 and active transportation program every year there are 250 million dollars available and funding for exactly these types of projects here in school zones that are having high safety risks that need connections by bike or pet and so we've hopefully identified those in this plan so that you can find the money to to get this accomplished that's i think the goal it's aspirational but i think it's measured as well considering that getting this accomplished and meeting these goals is is an evolution not a revolution so with things like class four a pretty radical change to your roadway network i've seen communities where they try and kind of go ahead without doing the appropriate study studies are not to slow down the process they're to do it right and to do it with the community hand in hand that we just couldn't accomplish at a citywide level because there'll be impacts to residents about their parking potentially about commercial parking there could be impacts to delay i'm not saying that these things override the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in their safety comfort but communities that have done that in advance have had a heavy pushback and some of these facilities have been taken out and so we want to make sure that we do this thoughtfully and respectfully and hopefully you build some good momentum off some small pieces that you see the benefits and it's done well and the community is part of that design process and that study you can start to build a great momentum and really get the ball rolling on these things and sort of related that when looking on page 14 when we look at these short-term long-term kind of goals the performance measures to complete the short-term project is by 2030 and high priority projects by 2040 sort of where did that seems like a long amount of time to me where did those numbers come from and and how is that a short-term kind of project it seems like a long way away but an understanding how slowly things especially in the public development occurs right now again that ATP program is is kind of looking at even the four years out that you can actually start to even begin to use that money for for projects if you're awarded design phase of a year moving through going out to bid for contractors built in the project I think that there's an opportunity I think the bicycle coalition mentioned this before something that I think that they're if I can critique my own plan there could be opportunities for short-term interventions pilot projects temporary materials that can go out and demonstrate some immediate safety impacts with just paint and ballards to demonstrate some of these longer-term ones and that's something that I think on a case-by-case basis staff can really go out and explore maybe part of these studies is they culminate and a preferred alternative that's then go you can go out and test it and that's something that maybe if the pilot works well you keep in place for the short-term while you're finding the funding or doing the final design 2030 I think is realistic for given that the number of short-term projects in 2040 again given those high priority projects a lot of funding is going to be developed and so it's not saying wait till 2040 but by that time we hope that you've cleared this deck and you have a new plan in place and you're thinking about 2080 and beyond and my my last one related to your your final point there with the new plan in place on again back to page five ideally maybe this is more for staff ideally a plan update should be reviewed every two years update maps project list priorities without with an agreement not to hold you strictly to it are we is that a realistic time frame is that truly an ideal time frame you know we're going to be looking at this in 2021 2025 so what we staff comes to the bike board every year with an annual work plan that really sets what we want to try to accomplish in terms of implementing the plan I think I'll say that I think it's the we've we've gone a pretty long time since we've had an update to the plan and and I think there's there's a happy medium that we have to try to balance you know maybe two years is is is a little ambitious but I think you know a 10 year 11 year range is is is a little bit more and I think what will happen is as part of the integrating the studies into the plan it'll force us to ask some questions and really you know give some more detail to just the plan itself and and help us keep it moving and I think that will help try to figure out what you know maybe it's not two years but maybe it's like five years and and the the beauty about that is it's the work effort is conceivably could be a little less you know jeff has spent a good time on on this because it's been on there's been a lot of old data that he had to work through so yeah thank you commissioner crepeke yeah just one real question what is the flexibility in this so I understand if we adopt I'll give you an example the one that just came to mind is one of the examples it's on here is a class 2 on hopper lane I know that there's a road diet to be coming on hopper lane and so if a road diet happens a class 2b would be applicable to that and make for more room and stuff like that so is it are we are we hard and fast on what classes or just what the goal is is if we adopt this so so your example was what hopper yeah so a part of our team and rob's here is we you know we try to to figure out what works best out there as we transition to a bike facility and you know we're doing one right now for eastry and we're trying to figure out what what's what kind of design would work would work best out there could we make it a class 2 with buffered bike lanes and so part of that evolution just comes when we get out there in the field and start looking at really how how traffic and bicycles and pedestrians interact out out in the field so I think there is flexibility and that is based just on the the individual location and the project that we're trying to figure out yeah yeah that was basically trying to get we're not gonna have to come back here and amend anything or anything like that it's okay there's discretion thank you okay any other questions yeah commissioner dug in so I'm thinking that we need to move the resolution for purposes of discussion before we do the comments is that our best method okay so let's get to that part would someone like to move the resolution I'll move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to the city council the adoption of the bicycle and pedestrian master plan update 2018 an approval of a general plan amendment consistent with the master plan and waive for the reading and I'll second okay so that was moved by commissioner Pearson seconded by commissioner dug in and commissioner dug in you want to make your comments yeah I feel like I don't in any way want to hold up this process I think this is a great improvement on the adopted plan but I feel a little bit frustrated here because I feel like this was our our meeting to give you comments and maybe have some things incorporated in the plan so I feel a little bit of frustration there because I feel like I haven't had to say here and like my fellow commissioners haven't had a say to have some input here so that's where I'm starting from but anyway I do think I do think it's a great plan is a vast improvement on the last one it's clear and easy to read it's got all sorts of good information but as somebody who bicycles and walks most of the time and a lot of the time in the downtown area you know I have a lot of strong opinions about stuff where things could be improved and I also just this week this was just an interesting coincidence this week there's a website called USA streets blog.org people might be familiar with it they have a lot of things about urbanism and bike infrastructure pedestrian infrastructure and they had an article this week saying that Minneapolis and Seattle have both reduced their vehicle miles traveled into their downtown core over the past nine years by investing in bicycle infrastructure and transit and the connections between the two this was at the same time frame that Minneapolis grew by 30 000 residents and Seattle increased the jobs downtown by 45 000 so if they can do it with their climate and their topography you know it should be easy for us but I think we have to go sort of further than what we've got going here thanks as my nose flying the floor but the things that I would like to have say and and I'll give them to you as comments I think a lot about our current infrastructure is like some of it is pretty poorly done the right turn lanes that are striped for a cyclist to go straight ahead it causes you're just setting up people for a conflict if you want the cyclist to behave and be in that straight ahead bike lane while you've got a motorist wanting to turn right on red I mean I've been forced on the sidewalk by people trying to get me out of their way because they wanted to make their right turn and they didn't care who who was in front of them so I think that's a real bad problem and it's all over downtown it's all over the city in right turn lanes let's see I'm just trying to find my comments not my questions I think one way that this plan could better relate to the previous plan is it doesn't have information talking about what was in the previous plan and what of that plan was accomplished and if some of that plan was not accomplished has it been carried forward into this plan and why or why not you know is has had conditions changed so that some of those proposed projects in the 2010 plan are not applicable anymore but there's no kind of scorecard what was accomplished from that plan okay I fully support the goal to hire a bike ped coordinator I think the only way we're going to get our vehicle miles reduced is to really push on increasing our infrastructure and our transit connections and I think a full-time coordinator will would do that I think the vision zero idea is hugely ambitious and very difficult but I think it's a real important one let's see and just as far as specific improvements I think there's a couple of crossing places for both for bikes and pads specifically Benton street at Mendocino, Glenn street at college and Lomitas and Chenete where those crossings need to be enhanced or improved maybe with one of those hawk strike type beacons because traffic in both all three of those places is pretty high and it's pretty difficult to to cross in those locations and I was also curious to see on in appendix no it wasn't on the appendix there's one of the maps third street between E and Montgomery was called out as being a bicycle boulevard and that I know is a new proposal it wasn't in the previous bike plan but that portion third street between Brookwood and E carries 6600 cars a day which is far more than the 1500 that are that are good for a bike boulevard and I don't understand how like that why that rose to the top as being the best treatment for that that portion of third street and also my specific things are the loading zone that's at I think it's Healdsburg Avenue a street where that gets to seventh it used to be a flooring store now it's the museum part of that is striped as bike lane but it's also painted loading zone which is a carryover from the old flooring store people park there all the time and if you're a cyclist coming down in that bike lane you usually have to quickly get over because there are parked cars in that section and lots of times if there's traffic it's a real dangerous maneuver so I think the loading zone's got to be removed from that that section also the smart path crossing at Hearn Avenue and this comment comes about from a conversation with this a smart board member I complained about this to them they said that's the city's problem so the crossing there the bike path is in two segments across Hearn there's a solid concrete island with no crossing mechanism you can't walk across there unless you hop over the island you can't bike through there and the sign points you to go the wrong direction down the sidewalk or the streets in the bike lane to the light that's over at Dow Drive cross the street and then come back going the wrong direction on the sidewalk or the bike lane to the other segment of path and I asked the smart person what's going on with that and they said the city was going to come back and fix that crossing so I'm putting that out there and also just just a general comment about the document I know when you pull together a document like this over so much time and all the comments and hitting a deadline like this there are typos that happen there's one glaring one on page 147 and then there's also a couple of exhibits that are marked the same I think it's five seven happens in like two or three places so on 147 there's an incomplete sentence you can't tell what the sentence is talking about and so I just encourage you to proofread that and fix those and otherwise I'll just give you my comments and you can figure out what to do with them thanks so before I continue I'm concerned that everybody get heard up here and and and I don't want that that particularly Commissioner Tuggin who's quite the expert on this for that to get lost so how how will this go forward to council so there's capturing like her comments without us amending the resolution or amending the plan I mean I want to make sure that she gets heard and that those things get looked at by you I certainly think the staff report to to council could take care of what was accomplished in the prior plan and what isn't coming forward I think there's some clarifications that that could happen in the staff report but how do you see is our method of best making sure that everybody up here feels heard while we move the resolution along sure I I can see where there's a few things and I'll quickly address the smart crossing we actually have a project in design that's going to be constructed this year 2019 so we've been working on that so that should happen fairly soon a lot of a lot of the comments and questions that I heard were very specific and I know traffic engineering does a lot of these we get a lot of requests from from residents about just like your your commissioner Tuggin about the zoning the loading zone and the bike lane out there and specific crossings that you identified so I think the good thing is if we could provide that information to our team and I'll make sure that folks on our team are aware of your concerns related to specifics which I heard in your comments and we can address that in that manner things like and the right turn lane was another one I heard so things like the plan update we can address that in the staff report that we prepare for council we can have a little part of our analysis that would look at that and then you know that the typos and things like that those would be things that I have sorry Jeff I have my own little blue tags of typos so those are going to all get integrated into to Jeff's team and I think he's going to do you know one fill cleanup after we get through you know not only your review but the council and just you know just in terms of his contract work so I hope that answers your question and and commissioner sis go and just process okay yeah just this as long as we're capturing everything and you know again in an efficient way but so that we can move this forward and so everybody feels heard so okay commissioner call you any comments no commissioner carter no comments nice chair weeks um thank you for the report I think it was very thorough educated me I had a couple questions when I was reading it and by the time I was finished they were answered I do enthusiastically support your the position the bicycle pedestrian position but I know that's probably going to be a stretch but from back in the day when the police department had a bicycle outreach specialist it I think really was well worth the money but I know economic times are hard so but I am supportive of the plan okay commissioner Pearson I'd like to start by saying I think it's a really you can tell the incredible amount of work that went into this it's a very well put together thought out plan my frustration is much like commissioner dug ins I'm not exactly sure what we're doing here if we can't actually alter anything because my concern is that if this isn't ambitious aspirational document I'm not sure I'm seeing the level of ambition and the level of aspiration that I would want to see for a vision document like this we're you know the intergovernmental panel on climate change says that we've got till 2030 to get to you know net zero carbon emissions we've got very serious issues with vehicle miles traveled and what we hear from both the public comment tonight and the written comments that were submitted was what what the public wants to see if we're serious about getting people out of their cars and on the bikes is safety is it you know whether it's a separated bike lane or however it may be I can tell you from experience that it is not often a pleasant ride to ride around Santa Rosa and so with something like this where you know I I think that to take the climate action plan seriously to take you know getting people out of cars seriously we have to aim higher we have to have bigger goals in a shorter time frame however that's not really what's in front of us today and I think that with the idea that we can expect the specifics of the plan to be looked at maybe not every two years but at least sooner than 10 years I I can support this resolution you know again it's it's not perfect it's not exactly what I would want to see but I think it is a great improvement over the previous one and again obviously very well thought out and a lot of work went into it just I'd like to see a little bit more ambition Commissioner Creppy yeah I'm in favor of the plan just a couple comments I agree with the timeframe comment of my fellow commissioner we've proven that with rebuilding and with development we can prioritize things we can move things faster and so I think that's something that we get we could take on as a city to do the vision zero designated bike program staff and converting to vehicle miles travel they're all great love it and the only other thing I would say is for me I would like to see Barnes Road sidewalk put in phase one I have personally almost been hit by a car at least three times there and with the rebuild going on their families are moving back in and it just makes it for a safer circular you know whether it's families walking biking and the development the county on the other side of Dennis Lane makes for easier travel to see neighbors and stuff like that but as I said I'm in favor of this plan okay yeah tremendous amount of work in this plan which is what makes it difficult if we all have our own individual ideas for us to vote on that and then have it assessed and weighed it just makes it complicated but it's really important that that everybody's comments get addressed at the city council level or the staff has at least an attempt to take a look at you know what's been said and what the feasibility is I had the luxury of being on the waterways committee and this came in front of us some like two or three times with very specific segments of you know how the how the bike master plan would line up with with the waterways and creek master plan so a lot of evaluation a lot of assessment a lot of what's feasible a lot of how do we keep it flexible and and so I found the plan very readable the maps not so much but the narratives on the side yet the dots don't work for my aging eyes but the plan itself is it's very easy to read it makes sense I think it it portrays itself well and like most everybody up here I think the program coordinator is such an important need for this city and I know that it's really difficult with the times as they are but I would just recommend that those of us that feel that way make sure you contact your council member and express that because because what happens is when development happens it comes in front of staff and they're they're weighing all of the you know the zoning the general plan they're looking at the segments of the roadway does this meet the you know what what kind of class bike way gets here and and they're excellent at it but the idea of having somebody who's the coordinator of it who who can take a look and maybe see some of the more current methods and designs and can say this would work better here I just think that would be such a great thing for Santa Rosa and and again I know it's tough times but at least we can tell people what we what we want with it so madam chair yes if I may first just a overall reflection the process is going as it is supposed to and I know it can be frustrating to feel like you're at the tail end and you're asked to make a recommendation substantial plan for the city but the process the workshop so the workshopping was with the community the waterways advisory committee quite a few sessions with the bicycle advisory committee which is the appointed body that is what that is one of their primary purposes is to workshop these plans with the community they've done that work and now it's to you is in terms of a how it relates to our land use plans and that is kind of the hat that you wear though some of you have a lot of experience and interest in the details of this you do sort of have a higher level review of this but that said so we are looking for a number of things tonight and I know it's valentine's day night but we're we're doing good so far and I think we can get through it all of your comments can be forwarded you can have strong comments if you know I hear there's a lot of themes coming from all the commissioners about elements of the plans or the program proposals for you know the coordinator position and whatnot all those comments can be forwarded uh Commissioner Duggan has a lot of them but that doesn't mean that they can't all be forwarded on the part of the commission and in addition to all the the other ones that other commissioners have added and you can recommend changes we can attach that to the resolution so you're not making the changes because you're a recommending authority but the council will listen to your recommendation and they that's what you're here to to do so if you can sort out what are general comments and one of them is is really showing your support bypassing the resolution forwarding comments and then if you have specific recommended changes and even if they're big that's that's what you are here to do so if you think it's you want to change the horizon you want to make it more aggressive in certain areas then go ahead and that is your purview you have the right to do that and we will forward that on okay so anybody wanting to make a grand change I mean I think one change that we could entertain is your is your suggestion to the text to make sure that there's clarifying language or more of it how we get here to the you know a text amendment I would certainly be in favor of including that as part of an amendment to the to our resolution so I don't know how other people feel about that Commissioner Carter you okay with doing that adding that in okay well they were telling us that we do have the ability to amend things or recommend amendments and Commissioner Duggan had made a relatively simple one for us to entertain was a text where the text amendment would be describing where did I write it how how much treatment was chosen yeah how each treatment was chosen so that the criteria is better explained in the text itself I think that's something that we we could propose to amend our our resolution for that oh you've got that okay and um chair sister sir what what exactly are we proposing here these these aren't amendments to the resolution well the this one was a a question about the general plan text it was in the in the packet and how it was going to be revised for this document and I asked if it could include the criteria for how each different bikeway treatment was arrived at language to that right and so how is how is that being attached to the resolution I guess is my question yeah so or what what are we what would we be voting on yeah so miss crocker probably is going to have to give us some help here I mean typically when we have you know we'd have the resolution with the text amendment and we've we've already you know we're entertaining a discussion it seems to me that we could say as part of our resolution we're mending it but we need help so the way that we have handled this in the past with our specific plans is you know if there are general comments that you don't necessarily you know want to make a change to the plan but you just have comments that you wanted forward on to the commission we would do that through in our staff report there's a section of the staff report that goes to council that has the commission's action and we say what your action was and then we include comments that were provided by the commission so and then if there are you know a very specific list of things that perhaps commissioner dug in wants we can that can be an attachment to the staff report but if the commission has changes that they want to make to the document itself what we have done in the past is in the resolution as part of and I think it's typically done at the end where where it's now therefore be resolved that the commission is making this recommendation to the council with the changes identified in attachment a to the resolution and so then we would include an attachment to that resolution that specifically lists each change that you want on page 54 we want to change the text to be x so you can give us very specific changes that you want made that would be included in a list as part of the resolution does that make sense it does make sense the issue is how do we all agree on some of these things that are very specific that's my issue is like how do we get to something that I know we can all agree on versus I know nothing about Barnes Avenue I don't read it sort of like how do we get there so my question would be how do we even do that when it was a conversation going on of oh well we do this and this and this comes into factor if it's if we're going to amend it we need to have or would have to do a friendly amendment but we have to know what we're doing exactly that's what I'm saying like how do we that would be the method but I don't know yeah so we want to sit here and determine the verbiage right now is that worth the text clarification because I heard a lot of different things I'm sorry I was talking to our attorney was there a question my my concern is this you know commissioner Duggan has a lot of comments and we could take the time to discuss each of those among ourselves and and do a straw vote or a you know whatever one of our Rosenbergs things that we never do to decide whether to include those who are as amendments or we can just let her comments be her comments and the one that we I think we can agree on is the clarification or as to the text yeah I mean I think if there are some big ticket items like that that all the commissioners agree on we can certainly put that into the resolution which is much more formal but there were a lot of comments that were made and so all of those comments can be forwarded to the council for their consideration as part of the staff report the concern is that if there are changes that you really want made putting it into the resolution it makes it much more formal and more likely for those changes to actually get incorporated so that that would be my only caution right okay so we did hear a lot of comments yeah we're I don't know that there were a huge amount of specific changes right well that's why I'm way and heavy on the text because that one I definitely heard is a potential change that we could work with I'm gonna make a stab at this so I think we all agree that Commissioner Dugan's assuming that the commissioners all support her suggestion to add in the general plan text amendment some clarifying language about how we determine those different categories for facilities so I see a lot of I see some head nodding so that was that seemed to be pretty pretty obvious and then when I listened to the commissioners with their comments I heard some some some reoccurring themes I heard the the bike head coordinator was a seemed to be a reoccurring concern that that may may warrant rising to you know the bringing that to the council's attention I heard the the time frame of the bike plan update as as another kind of reoccurring item that some of the commissioners mentioned so those I and I heard VMT and Vision Zero also things that were reoccurring in the conversations amongst the commissioner so I think I've captured those but a lot of other things that I heard were more specific to an individual like Barnes Road I don't want to pick on Commissioner on on that one but the but they were very specific and and I know because you're doing had a quite a few very specific things which we could get those you know addressed separately from you know the council conversation so the red lines adding the general plan about the criteria for classification for categories bikeways one item the bike coordinator another item the time frame of the plan how frequently we update it the VMT and the vision zero were the kind of the big ticket items that I heard to reoccur in the conversation so yeah except that the our support of Vision Zero VMT the program aren't really changes they're in the plan and we are so that wouldn't really be something that we would address in the resolution maybe the timing of the that would be maybe the other change but those we got change versus we have support for things that are already existing in the plan so and that could be I mean those could be part of the staff report that said the commissioners these these these these elements of the of the plan were important to the commissioners and we could do that separately in the staff report as just as alluded to and quite frankly I'm I'm really only hearing this general plan text amendment which would be attached to the resolution anyway that's all I can come up with everything else sounds like it needs to be handled in the staff report otherwise we're we're going to get bogged down in little details that maybe some of us aren't familiar with or comfortable to vote and we're going to end up backed with the way it is so if I can add something to commissioners it's true the bike coordinator and the vision zero are included in this plan but they are also say like consider doing this consider doing that and we're just saying I'd like to see it in the staff report that the planning commission would like to see this happen like yes feel strongly about this we don't we don't want it to be kind of a maybe considerate if the money's there because that will never happen I absolutely agree with that and that's a and that way we could we could certainly do that yes so what we're talking about here is an idea for those recurring themes that that we're kind of identifying that those could be forwarded in the staff report as the strong recommendations that we talked about earlier even the text amendment could be forwarded as a strong recommendation if we don't want to get involved in the friendly amendment and all that okay might we might want to just stay persistent and just stick with correct so we could have strong recommendations and then we could have all of the comments also be forwarded but the way that we write up the staff report it would indicate you know for example this new position as you state we really strongly recommend that this be something that is elevated that is done you know as a priority item so we could separate them out in that fashion which kind of showing consensus of the Commission for all of these items and then here's everything else that we recommend okay to be comfortable with that we'll just be consistent we won't amend the resolution and those strong recommendations will go forward okay I think we're ready to vote okay so the resolution was moved by Commissioner Pearson it was seconded by Commissioner Duggan and your votes please and that passes with seven eyes and that concludes our business tonight maybe we'll get dinner for Valentine's Day maybe not so with that we'll close the meeting and adjourn to our February 28th meeting