City Council meeting March 12, 2024 Item 13.A Active Transportation Plan Dear Mayor Sparks, Vice Mayor Ford and Councilmembers Lemus, Rivers and Harvey, Good to hear that Los Angeles residents, as a transforming motor city, have voted for “Measure HLZ” Mobility Plan 2035, for their streets to be safer https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-03- 06/measure-hla-angelenos-want-walkable-bikeable-safer-streets Thankyou for having the Active Transportation Plan for discussion, I made some comments at the Smart Train Station when it was put up for discussion, and here are more in-depth comments Will it include the new legislation AB 413 – approved Oct 10,2023 – prohibit vehicles parking within 20’ or 15’ on the approach side to a cross walk – and the city removing those parking spaces https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB413 I have in the past asked about these “sight lines” – can a driver in a vehicle see a pedestrian waiting to cross the road at marked cross walks. On the Laguna Crossing going E on Cotati Ave a parked vehicle often blocks visibility of a pedestrian standing in the cross walk.
I do appreciate a lot of the Policys – but would suggest PdPg 163 Policy 2-3, Action 2-3.4 – having a pedestrian walk focused light that turns on, as well as Rapid Flashing Beacons, shining on any pedestrian in the cross walk, would be safer to make any pedestrian visible in the cross walk.
PdfPg 165 Policy 3-2 allow for existing designated residential roads to have “pop-up temporary Woonerf” Safe Street Design elements if it’s a local street and residents ask for it.
Add Policy (or include in Policy 3-2below) for Pedestrian/rolling Safe Street Design Speed (15mph), and a way for residents to request it for local streets.
Add Policy to develop “Rural Road standard” where pedestrian/rolling and bicycles/vehicles share the street and street edges are “swales” for stormwater on one or both sides. The street has “Woonerf” safety elements such as necked “one vehicle width” at a time road connections to other streets.
PdfPg 162 Policy 1-4 change “shall” to “should consider”, unless designated a Rural Road Standard.
Humans evolved to walk, and be healthy for it, however it takes time for new cities like Cotati to do low cost connectivity. If development options come up, some further useful future Class I connections, a) Add – Class 1Connector if development opportunity comes up - Class I connection from Cypress Ave (approx. sth of Mackinnon Ct) to Old Redwood Hwy /Eucalyptus). Facilitate walking/rolling connection to transit on ORH.
b) Add – Class 1 connector if development opportunity comes up – Class 1 connection from Tompkins Rd (off Richardson Ln) to Gilman Ranch Rd.
Public Comment
Some additional comments :
The “Road Safety in Cotati” PktPg 138 section, while useful overview in principle, seems to be so weak as to be only of “feel good” value. The statistical window was only five years 2015-2019, and I’ve counted two deaths on the roads since then, and two deaths in the decade before that window.
Consider deceased Augustus Station, who died in broad daylight walking his dog at the Myrtle/Macklin Stop Sign, 12:30pm Nov 16, 2020 . I don’t know anything other than what is available on the internet and he passed after the specified statistical window.
I would hope that Sacramento could come up with a better Vision Zero safety analysis methodology.
Perhaps like the road Pavement Condition Index, there could be a “Pavement Person , rolling or walking Safety Index” (PPSI) for each 50’ segment of the road way. This could be a paper analysis, based on the designated speed of that road segment, and what speeds vehicles are likely to be traveling based on the road design, and estimated traffic.
Sincerely Neil Hancock, Cotati Resident