 Mayor, do you have a mic check? We came through here. Thank you. Sorry, I had my mind turned down. I'm assuming you can hear me now. Yeah, we can. Well, it is four o'clock. I do recognize the quorum. Let's go ahead and get started and call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member McDonald. Here. Council Member Rogers. President. Mayor Rogers. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. As a record show that all. Climate action subcommittee members are present. Great. Let's go ahead and start our day with our public comment for non-agenda items. If you have a comment that's within this committee's jurisdiction, but it's not on the agenda, hit the raise hands feature on your zoom. And I don't see any hands. We'll keep moving through our agenda. Let's go to item number three, department reports. We'll go ahead and. Announce both. We've got a department report item from Rob sprinkle, and he is the deputy director of traffic engineering. He'll be providing an update on the city's. Progress. For the compliance with electric vehicle infrastructure training program. We call it. For short. And he'll discuss the requirements due to recently enacted legislation. Rob. Great. Thanks, Tasha. Hi, as Tasha mentioned, my name's Rob sprinkle and the deputy director in traffic engineering. I also oversee our electrical division, which is why I'm here today in that capacity. So I wanted to just give a brief background. Back in February, Peter Martin brought forward the electric vehicle infrastructure training program or the V. E. V. I. T. P. Certification that's required under assembly bill. 841. And if you recall, the requirement. Is set up to provide at least 25% of the electrical staff. Having the certification when they perform. Service or installation on EV chargers that supply 25 kilowatts or more charging power. To. To a vehicle. So we're going to do the installation or service of these. And this is a requirement when. The funding is from PUC. The energy commission or air board. The city of Petaluma passed a little more strict ordinance that required that 50% of the electricians on site are certified under this program. And that they are. Providing that. For any charger that's being installed, regardless of the The kilowatt output. So the city Santa Rosa is. From that. Back up from that meeting back in February. The subcommittee was very supportive of following the 50% certification of. The personnel doing these installations and. And maintenance efforts. And the city. Since then has included in our boiler spate boiler plate language for contracts. To include 50%. Of our. Electricians be certified under this program. It was asked that we come forward with a policy. To go back to council and do this. But we were hoping that. Addressing this in our job specifications and would be an adequate solution as it is much more immediate. And if there's any other changes in the future that we want to make to this, we can simply change the language in our. Specifications to address that. So for instance, if there was. A desire to have all of the electricians certified. We could go through that process and change that. And we could go through that process. And that would then all the contracts from that. Point forward would then be required to apply by that. Those rules. In addition to that, we're also having all of our electricians that are on site. In public works. Go through the same. Process of getting the certification for the, for safety reasons when they work on any of these chargers. So with that, I'd like to move on to the next slide. So I think that's a great question. For safety reasons when they work on any of these chargers. So with that, I'd just like to get feedback if that's an amicable solution for the subcommittee and if we're reaching the goals of having, uh, meeting the training requirements that that you were desiring and meeting the outcome of, uh, the AB. 841. Requirements. And I'm looking to see if there's any questions from. Committee members. I think what would be helpful is if, uh, committee members had something in writing to be able to point to when we're asked about the policy, just because council members come and go and see staff members come and go. And so something in writing that we can point to, to show to people. Yeah, your request was heard and we've implemented it. And we didn't do it through an ordinance, but we did. We were able to implement it through our, you know, our job descriptions or whatever have you. I think that'd be really helpful. So I'm going to go to the council suffice for that. I think so. Yeah. We can definitely talk about that offline. Uh, as well. Go to public comment and see if there are any questions. On the departmental report. All right. Seeing none. Uh, Rob, you and I can check in on, uh, on an offline, but I appreciate the effort and the, the work from the team, uh, on addressing the need. Great. Thank you. No, uh, no question, mayor. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for chair, but I did want to say that I appreciate you guys incorporating everything and trying to find a good way to, to do it and implement. Um, what we knew needed to be done. Great. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to item 4.1. Hello again. Um, introducing the upcoming code. Adoptions all electric only requirements and proposals. Well, good afternoon, mayor Rogers, council member McDonald, council member Rogers. Um, my, how time has flown. I believe the last time I addressed this subcommittee was in late 2019. When the city of Santa Rosa underwent, uh, quite the process of adopting. And setting the example for the entire North Bay of adopting an all electric only, uh, ordinance. Uh, for low rise residential construction. So I really can't believe it's been three years already. But, uh, Here we are getting ready to, uh, adopt codes again. Jesse, maybe it feels that way. It took a year and a half of litigation. That, that it was, uh, uh, edge of the seat for a period of, uh, year and a half. I, I certainly, uh, city attorney's office was keeping me updated on many aspects of that. And here we are. We were fruitful. We set the example. Uh, we showed the Santa Rosa did it right. And we, we proved it. That we did everything the way that it's supposed to be done. So here we are fast forward near the end of 2022. We're, we're, uh, working diligently on adopting the entire, uh, course of building codes and included in those. Oh, it is an element that back in, uh, 2019, uh, our first, uh, approach at, at the ordinance, uh, thank you for bringing up the slide. We can go to slide two, please. Now having lessons learned and learning from the industry, it's been, uh, quite refreshing. Uh, I've been, uh, teamed up with, uh, uh, an area, uh, California, uh, entity called MBA energy. And they are a group that has come together and it's not just focused on the Bay Area and the North Bay. It's the entirety of California. And what do these new codes and reach codes mean? So now, uh, being, having one that has set the example, everybody's following behind and everybody's going to, uh, not everybody, but a large number of jurisdictions will have reach codes coming up. So what it means for us now, uh, previous electric code code was, uh, founded in the energy code. Now as the slide, uh, proposes that the, the requirement, uh, live in the California green building standards code. And, uh, with that, it's a much more simplified process, but still gains all the, uh, benefits of this all electric ordinance. So what we're proposing moving forward really models, what we did before, maintaining the requirement that new low rise residential construction, the all electric only meeting a more refined definition of, of all electric building. Uh, next slide, please. So again, I spoke a little bit about the background, uh, because it was so forefront in the area of the council at that time chose to do a very refined and standalone ordinance. Addressing specifically the all electric only, uh, gave us the opportunity to do significant outreach, uh, for, for stakeholders, developers, citizens. Um, you, I believe we, we did a really fine job of reaching all corners of, of our area in trying to, uh, establish some consistency in, in how we, how we established the, our local ordinance. Um, one thing that was a really key element back then was we were required to, uh, execute a cost effectiveness study to show that the changes to the energy code at the time were cost effective. And we did leverage a, a study that was actually executed by PG and E for the purpose of going all record. And it was proven and upheld by the California energy commission and by this, our city council that it was proven to be cost effective. So for, uh, 2023, the codes are actually the 2022s becoming effective in 2023. Uh, we will amend the California green building. Uh, standards code again, uh, repeating some of the information that it still meets the intent. Uh, there are no tricks about it. It really actually simplifies it. Um, so that that's, um, Why this, this group and their hard work with the city council found this, this approach for us. And you'll see in, uh, about the fifth or sixth statement there, the energy commission has determined that reach codes specifically for decarbonization do not require a cost effectiveness study. So everything we did before we now don't have to do. So again, hopefully making our lives a little more straightforward. Next slide, please. So just some of the, the items specifically identified in climate action plan and how this relates. Very easy to see. And there are many other, other benefits as well. Um, the long-term sustainability greenhouse gases. Uh, climate change, uh, trying to approach and address our, our portion or small portion of the climate, climate change with, with, with, uh, other benefits. Hopefully, uh, the reduced reduction of the fossil fuel usage and certainly, uh, an element that really played out, uh, I believe rather well in our last adoption was the cleaner and healthier buildings. The, the, the, the, the fumes and, and such for using fossil fuels within a home, uh, cooking, the, the, the particulate, matter and burn fossil fuels in a home, you know, without having this, this fossil fuel, the opportunity to really reduce that interior environment, contaminants exist with these cleaner homes, not having fossil fuels burned inside of them. Next slide, please. So, uh, all electric moving forward and some lessons learned. Um, the benefit of the, the, the, the, the, the, the, moving forward and some lessons learned, um, the benefit so far, uh, approximately 1000 new units, uh, have been permitted. Meaning as I put in parentheses, they're, they're either built in construction or applied for, uh, meet this requirement of no match, no fuels, no fossil fuels connected to them for all aspects of utilizing the home for heating, water, heating, cooking, uh, any elements that's all electric only. And what this does encompass is, is quite the range of different types of construction from the single family dwelling to the accessory dwelling unit, which is an extremely, uh, viable and popular, uh, uh, pursuit for, for, um, construction now for by design, uh, hopefully by design, affordable housing, uh, ADU production has significantly increased and continues to increase. So we have a lot of those that show up, uh, one offs that you don't see or hear about until they come in and it's refreshing to see the numbers. I don't have the numbers, but we do have a dashboard that can provide the number of ADUs. Uh, other types of construction do include the multi family three story, uh, construction. Uh, we've had a few of those construction constructed or in construction here, uh, town home style, uh, construction, uh, uh, through different areas of the city of Santa Rosa all incorporate this all electric only, uh, element now. So I believe we're making, making gains, having success. And as time goes on, more and more, uh, permitting will just increase these numbers. Um, one thing we did do locally and as proposed last time, uh, for the adoption was to exempt these ADUs. Um, and then we, uh, we, uh, we, uh, that we at the time called them attached. That was an element that followed state law that was still developing for accessory dwelling units. Back then in the 17, 18, 19 era, the state was still, uh, developing their codes. And now they have these codes, uh, and laws that really give the possibility to develop ADUs, uh, in the city of Santa Rosa. Um, and then, uh, they also have a new legal accessory structure, garage, um, things like that. So the hope here in the proposal is to allow the exemption for those buildings that were literally converting that are, they're typically in the, in the rationale behind it is. These ADUs are creating created on parcels that are already served by fossil fuels. And many times they're being converted within a portion of a, they're being converted by fossil fuels. So the exemption made sense then it appears to make sense now. Um, to not penalized, so to speak, someone trying to do a, uh, an affordable construction project, converting a garage, converting space within their home, converting space within their detached garage, um, to add additional cost part of the, you know, I'll try to provide a little background for that part of that cost effectiveness, even though we don't have to, uh, execute cost effectiveness. If you develop, uh, property that already has a fossil fuel and don't use it, say on an accessory dwelling unit, you may be inclined to have to use additional costs to in, install electric type heat pumps or stoves or, or other elements that. Don't benefit from the cost effectiveness of not installing gas infrastructure to the parcel. So one of the main elements of the cost effectiveness study was that you don't have to install gas infrastructure. And there were ranging costs from four to $14,000 for that. So even though cost effectiveness isn't a part of the, the requirement now that is still an element that is extremely important to those that are trying to develop ADUs, most applicants for ADUs are families that are trying to develop either a mechanism to gain more revenue from their property to afford high costs of mortgages and things like that. A couple of other other exemptions are proposed and they don't stray from the exemptions that existed in 2019. One being, uh, reconstructed buildings lost in a disaster or calamity. In 2019, we really were forced into an exemption for rebuilds anyway. The governor at that time signed AB 178 or 179, I believe, which exempted all rebuilds, declared disasters, rebuilds in the declared disasters from photovoltaic. You can't build a home that doesn't have photovoltaic to meet, to be all electrical. It costs a lot of money again, but it costs extremely more. So that's following the same suit, but establishing in our ordinance that we continue to allow rebuilds from disasters for folks that are rebuilding and don't have to literally pay to have gas infrastructure removed from their parcel to rebuild. And that's a key element here is if a disaster rebuild or any disaster in town burned down. And we say they have to be all electric. They will likely have to pay the cost to have PG and E remove the gas lateral from the parcel. On this meeting with MBA energy, I had a rep from PG and E, and it's inconsistent right now across the state where they do and don't charge for that. But I do know for a fact that I have a developer here in Santa Rosa that would have been charged by PG and E. So that's a, that's some foundational rationale for why we want to consider exempting buildings lost in a disaster or calamity. And then the other one follows the exact same line where that infrastructure exists on the parcel and the owner would have to pay to have it removed. So again, we don't have to consider cost effectiveness, but I do hear the stories every day on costs of construction and it's, it's, it's a tough sell. I will certainly sell it, but when people tell me how much it's costing them to build an ADU and we add another five to $15,000 on it, they, they, they don't become very happy. Next slide, please. So please, if you can forget that you read number three. I learned from one of my esteemed colleagues, deputy director Osburn, that that has real no effect. The idea was that if somebody had a fully developed plan that they had already put a lot of money into this development of gas infrastructure, but that's not the case. So please ignore number three. I did strike it from the proposed ordinance and I made it in, I got it out of the earlier part of the ordinance or the presentation. So for, for our, our purpose today is, is looking for any feedback on what I've presented, how we, we propose to move forward. And if the, the exemptions seem reasonable and, and are supported to move forward to the October 25th, first public hearing for the coded option. And I believe that's it. All right. Council member Rogers. Council member McDonald any questions. Diana, go ahead. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions when it comes to equipment. Is this upping the timeline from what the state of California is requiring, is putting us in alignment with what the state of California is requiring. We're still in advance of the state of California. So my only caution on this is because I know the procurement of equipment specifically on rebuilds for electric equipment when it comes to HVAC and other things, there's a delay in that. So my concern about us moving it up on the timeline, I can tell you with the new rules in California, which is around 2023 with it, when everything has to be electrified, I'm just worried that we're pushing it and it's going to delay projects from being done because they can't get the equipment in until after the first of the year. That's actually what we're kind of contending with right now on a, a change out of equipment. It won't come in until 2023. If people are putting in 2022 equipment, the, if they want to add an air conditioner, they're not going to be able to match up their coils to their new HVAC equipment. So the concern I have on this is it meets our climate goals. It meets everything like that, but what does it do to people that are trying to actually build the developers that are trying to get their projects finished when we see a huge increase of cost to construction. So if you could give me any feedback specifically on what happens in this case, if we're trying to implement something in November, say, and then something's delayed till after January, are we going to allow those to go through? Right. Very good points and good question. Thank you for that. So there's one really good key fortunate element to this in that we're really not proposing to do anything differently than what we've done for the last three years. So that's our local builders, contractors, developers. They are keyed into what, what it takes. Another fortunate element is say a project starts now or maybe even started earlier in this year. Every, all of the requirements are based on those requirements in place at the time that they applied. So say we, we issued a permit and they're not going to get their equipment till 2023. They get to meet the old requirements. And to, to stack a little bit on top of that, I forgot to add the new, the new energy code, which we're really not touching with this is significantly more stringent yet again, which you're hearing in the new energy code literally has within it the ability to construct an all electric only building without making it a requirement. They have the option to do what they, they calculate values and efficiencies. Most homes without the requirement to be all electric may go electric and fuel, but the ability now let is, is within that energy code, which it didn't exist before. So that's just something I wanted to put out there that I, I forgot to mention that that's why we had such a harder time on the adoption last time is we had to build a pretty significant portion of our ordinance to tell people how to do it. Now we simply define all electric only building and say meet it because the energy code tells you how. I hope that helps. That does the concern was really around these projects that are currently going on if we move up this timeline that we aren't going to delay any of those specifically. So thank you so much for that and the presentation. I appreciate it. Natalie, any questions. I don't have any questions. I think the exemptions are good. I think they did a good job. And it's a change for a lot of people. I just moved into my all electric home, but it's kind of the same thing except for the stove. All right. Thank you, Jesse. My only question is only tangentially related. This is the first I saw data that showed that we've got a thousand homes that have been built. All electric since we passed the ordinance. Do we have a comparison? How many homes have been built? That didn't have to meet the, the all electric ordinance versus how many did. Do we have any feedback from, from the folks who had to do the building any, any additional costs that we didn't anticipate from doing it? And it'd be great if we could get a number. And I know this isn't your purview, but perhaps Tasha or somebody else that we work closely with or our CPA, maybe we can get an analysis of how much we've actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions from buildings just by those thousand homes coming online. And we've talked about this before the, the new greenhouse gas emission inventory for Sonoma County, which goes through 2020, which would have taken some of this ordinance in some of the impacts of this ordinance in that did show a significant drop in building GHGs. It'd be great if we can figure out how to attribute that to different policies that we've passed. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I will do my utter best to find that other data. You've heard, heard historically our systems aren't really great for data. We continue to improve them. And honestly, we have a couple of agencies out there that have requested documentation to help build that data for us. They are offering to scour our information. We have one being Bayron and I believe Sonoma clean power as well. So they've requested permitting information to hopefully really bring us to some of that real raw data that you're looking for. And I bet too, I know one of the groups that was particularly interested when we did this three years ago and have continued to kind of carry the mantle. I want to say it's the building decarbonization group. I could look up their, their, their actual technical title, but perhaps they'd be interested if we just tell them how many homes and how many square feet those homes were, they might be able to do a rough analysis for us. I will put that on my list and hopefully have information on the 25th. Cool. All right. It's going to public comment on the item. If you're interested, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your zoom. I'm seeing no comment. So go ahead and bring it back. I don't know if you need a motion and a second Jesse, but it did sound like you've got pretty unanimous support from subcommittee members about moving this forward to the city council. I do have everything I need. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And really appreciate your time. And again, much smoother time this year, we're going to be, we've set the example. So I'm proud of city of Santa Rosa for the work we already did. And here we are again. I feel we're still leaving the back. I appreciate the work on it. We'll move on to item 4.2. Speaking of leading the pack. And I'm happy to introduce Matt. Wilcox. He is a. Planner from a TPW and he will be presenting the city bus short range transit plan. And the service override and. Sorry. Priorities. I'm having a hard time talking today. Okay. Take it away, Matt. Good evening. So this presentation is to go over the, what we've kind of accomplished so far with the short range transit plan and also some of our service priorities. You know, the short range transit plan is kind of our preeminent planning process. But as you've, you heard in our previous presentations on it, we have changed since the previous iterations of it. This time around in regards to how we're responding to the pandemic across the Bay Area as transit agencies. And then also in tandem with that, we have our transit integration process with head of Luma transit and Sonoma County transit. So some of the items in the presentation are also related to that effort. So this is kind of a catch all presentation on what we have in the planning and service area. I don't know if anybody else can see the presentation, but I can't. There it is. So we can go to the next slide since that's the title page. So for just a kind of a brief. Overview of what our ridership has been doing. There's a very obvious drop in the pandemic. And then last fiscal year, we had our highest ridership at 95,000 in the month of May. So that was, that was some good growth coming out of the pandemic. And we were certainly pleased to see that, but going into the current fiscal year, we go to the next slide. Some highlights here and these are outdated. And fortunately, we have some good news to go forward into September. But in August, we had 108,000. That was our first month since the pandemic that we had achieved over a hundred thousand rides. In the previous fiscal year, about 36% of our monthly rides were free. That's 35,000 riders a month. And that August number was about a 41% increased year over year. And then on the right side of the slide, we can see our youth rides. We have been total for the fiscal year, 245,626. The JC with 36,000 and changed veterans 19, almost 20,000 and then paratransit riders, which are also free or about 27,000. And just some updates on those numbers. In September, we actually had a 110,978. So a hundred was 111 rides. Our free rides accumulated to in September alone were 48,800. So those are a combination of those fair categories you see on the right hand side of the screen and youth were 33,515 of those rides. So a substantial number of trips on city bus in the month of September did not require individuals to pay. So very good news on that front. And we can go to the next slide. So this is the timeline that we showed at our study session. It's been modified. And we have some tweaks to it given what we learned as we went through the process of making the draft plan, which we turned in this month. That draft plan didn't contain a lot of the service planning stuff that we had hoped to have in it. It was mostly related to MTC's requirements for the financial outlook for us going forward based off of their scenarios. So this timeline is accurate for what we will do for the short-range transit plan as required by MTC. But there are other planning efforts that we intend to go forward with that may end up on a different timeline and may require different council action as more like a service plan because we still have routes that are currently suspended. We have some potential modification to routes. So to do our due diligence and make sure we do it right, we want to extend that timeline beyond what the MTC requirement is. If we want to go to the next slide. So the requirements for the SLRTP this time around for for us are prescribed by MTC. Usually we do a there are things we need to include in it, but we do more so have the ability to make a service plan based off our own projections. This time MTC prescribed what we needed to do for service or for our revenue envelopes for each of these scenarios you see here. And so as we went through this process, we actually found that we've kind of already exceeded what they expected even in the robust recovery. So the intent is if we do go forward, we will go through the scenario process that MTC prescribed and we'll wait for their feedback from the draft. But in regards to our actual service planning efforts, we will probably create what is essentially a fourth scenario that's more in line with the projected numbers that we expect with that with ridership and funding. So we're going to kind of do a two fold. And hopefully that will result in a robust planning process that we can then improve the service with. And we go to the next slide. So as I mentioned, we want to go through this process as a service planning process, not just what the SRTP is being as it's laid out by MTC. So things that we're looking at is how do we apply more frequent service in the system? How do we make our alignments more direct service? That's more bi-directional, strong anchors, spacing of routes and connectivity. And all of these are planning principles. And it's not to say that we'll redesign all of our routes, but these are things that we're keeping in mind. And also, you know, with the coordination with the other transit operators in the Bay Area, not Bay Area, but Sonoma County, you know, we're especially looking at the spacing connectivity part of it. It's not just how our routes are spaced, but how they interact with Sonoma County transit. And also the connectivity, not only between our local routes when people make transfers, but making better transfers between us and Sonoma County transit are smart. These are the things that we want to look at as we go through the service planning part of it's not necessarily the SRTP, but we're kind of, it's all layered together. So to speak, we can go to the next slide. So the efforts that are currently underway to, we're improving regional coordination. We should go to the next slide. There we, sorry, can we go back? I was thrown off of my notes, my apologies. So we, as part of the SRTP, or not part of the SRTP, but our regional efforts to coordinate with Sonoma County transit and Potaluma transit. We're, one of those first steps is to align holidays service level. So right now we are moving from our regular weekday service on Martin Luther King Day, or at least that's the intent. President's Day, day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve to a Saturday level service. And this would bring us in alignment with Sonoma County transit and Potaluma transit, who have the same service level, their Saturday schedule on those, on those days. And being able to message and synchronize, there's a consistent expectation across the ridership in Sonoma County about, you know, when they go to ride the bus on those days, they can expect the same level of service and can then plan accordingly and make their connections if need be. And we can go to the next slide. So as a lead up to the cancel item on 1025, we did some outreach to the public around the holiday service, but also to touch in some of the service priorities that we'll be looking at as we move through our service planning process. So we asked the public kind of a trade off of, you know, what is most important to you? Is it frequency? Is it later service on weekdays? Or is it equal weekend service? And then we also asked the public how we could better serve the areas are, you know, which areas can we serve that we do not currently serve? So we looked at the map and those areas were North of Pioneer, West of Coffee, Fountain Grove, South of Bellevue, into the Moreland Avenue neighborhood, Santa Rosa Avenue, south of ELSA towards where Freedmen's Home Improvement is. And then also south of the fairgrounds where Brookwood continues. And then finally, as I mentioned, we asked the public how those Saturday schedules would affect their ability to use city bus and move about the city. And we put in three very specific categories. You know, it does not affect me at all. It will affect me a little, but I'll be able to get where I need to go. And then lastly, I will not be able to make the trips that I need to make that day. And that's kind of the most problematic is people not being able to get where they need to go with these changes. We can go to the next slide. So much like the data on the, or the second slide, this survey was open between when we submitted this and things have slightly changed. The 54% is now 56% of respondents are unaffected by the holiday service. And then interestingly enough, New Year's Eve became one of the most problematic days with 20%. And the rest of the holidays with respondents saying that they would be unable to make the trips for about 17% of respondents. And we had roughly 250 respondents to this survey. As for the service priorities, 30 minute service was ranked the highest followed by service that operates until 10pm on weekdays. And then lastly, a Saturday level service on Sunday. And then location served area north of Piner, west of Coffee Lane, which kind of teased in with our high Piner high ridership. So I imagine a lot of those people responded there saying they want more direct service, I suppose, to having to walk down Fulton. And then the next highest there was on the southeast side of Santa Rosa, down towards Friedman's. So not only did we do the kind of anecdotal evidence from the public with the survey, but we also, as you'll see in the staff report, as it's related to the item of making holiday, those five holidays, Saturday service, we also got the data and looked at the ridership. And there's a consistent 30% drop in ridership on those days historically. It's not equal to Saturday, but there is certainly a drop in ridership and would be more in line with what we would expect from a Saturday level of service for us. Let me go to the next slide. And then, as I mentioned, we're doing our outreach. And one of the more specific things that we're going to bring to the public in the coming months is a change to the Route 9. And this on the page is an example of what we're using as a outreach tool and what we'll probably be using on some of our other Route specific outreach. Just kind of getting the facts out there in a very concise manner, providing multiple outlets for feedback, whether people want to call, mail, they can respond online. These eight and a half by 11 sheets will also be in Spanish so people can comment in multiple languages and their feedback will be heard. For this Route 9 specifically, it's creating a bidirectional service that will go between Coddingtown and the transit mall. And we're also going to be looking at our Route 18, which is kind of circuitous at the current, in its current state. So we want to kind of look and see if there's ways to strain that out and make it more efficient. And then as, you know, talks of annexation of the southern part of, in the southern part of the city happen, looking at potential realignments of the 12 and 15 and making sure that those services then meet the needs. And we've mentioned before, it's not necessarily tied to any sort of annexation, but that's also part of our effort to coordinate with Sonoma County transit as we look about how services overlap or don't overlap or where we can provide better service to residents all over Sonoma County, not necessarily within the city limits. And then lastly, we're also going to take a look at the Oakmont service to make sure that that's meeting the needs of the community. It's been a while since we've really sat down and figured out, you know, this is the best structure for the service. So that's another one that we're going to be reviewing to make sure that it's meeting the needs of that community. And we can go to the next slide, which is questions or comments. Thank you so much, Matt. I'm looking to my colleagues to see if you have any questions. Go ahead, Diana. I just want to thank you for all the outreach that you've been doing to make sure that we're meeting the needs of the community and looking at like the times that will work best for people. And specifically, obviously in my area in D3, I have Oakmont. So I really appreciate the outreach to that part of the community and everything that you've done to make sure that we're on target. So thank you so much. Okay. All right. I think one of the things that I always find, Matt and Rachel and team is not only do I love the data that you give us, but you always give us a sneak peek at the next month data. And I try to write down fervorously the numbers so that we can, you know, talk about them and not have to wait for them to come back. And I appreciate the, the sneak peek always. Really it's encouraging work and want to thank you all for your work, particularly on the ties study and moving things together. So we have a cohesive network. Let me go to public comment and see if anybody has anything to add. All right. I'm not seeing anything. So great work on the presentation. And I look forward to the next step from this. Oh, go ahead. Good Natalie. Chair, you always confuse me because when you say questions and I'm like, I don't have a question. And then you guys give comments. So my comment would be your team always amazes me at looking at the need at looking at what our resources are. Getting feedback from the community and implementing the implementation. And when we don't have resources, where can you go get the resources? So Matt, Gary and Rachel, I know that it's not only you guys that do this, but from the management all the way to the drivers to the people that clean our transit, your team is amazing. And I just wanted to let you guys know that. So please keep doing what you're doing. It makes all of us look great. So thank you very much. Thanks for that. All right, Diana. Any comments? I do what I want Natalie. If I want to make a comment, I want to ask a question. Just do what you want. All right, we'll move on then. Last thing on our agenda stage feature agenda items. I'll turn that over to Tasha. Great. Thank you. So on our future items list, we have coming up in November. We're going to have a conversation about wildfire mitigation and resiliency from presented by Paul Lowenthal. And we'll hear about essentially what is happening. That over time we've been doing, which is perfect timing considering we're in fire season. So we're looking forward to that. And then in December on the 14th, we will have a status update on the Santa Rosa forward. And that will include our climate action plan as well. And this will be perfect timing because it's going to also include the release of the greenhouse gas inventory and forecast. So we'll be looking forward to that. And hoping that you will be able to provide staff with direction and. Provide them with some insight and about the general plan process moving forward. We look forward to that. And that's all I have for you. There will be future updates as well. Coming on our standard items, but we hope to fill up those other spots. And like I said, December 14th will be our. Our next item. We'll have one right before the holidays and then November night. That's going to be our next one. Great. And I don't know if I'll be able to join us on the night. So if not, I'll have one of the other council members. Chair of the committee will make sure we have a quorum. Let's go to public comment. And see if there are any comments. I'm going to bring it back. Any comment. From the committee. It's a little hesitant now. No, I have none. When is she ever hesitant? No mayor. I have none. All right. Thank you, team. We'll go ahead and adjourn. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.