October 20, 2022
Beatriz Guerrero Auna
Equity and Public Health Planner
Planning and Economic Development
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Re: General Plan Preferred Alternative
Dear Beatriz,
Thank you and the MIG team for opening the General Plan preferred alternative for public comment. Overall, we believe the plan represents an important step forward towards building a more affordable, resilient, and livable Santa Rosa. Please see our comments below to further strengthen the plan. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
Economics and Housing
• Hoen Avenue: We recommend including the area of Hoen Avenue between Farmers Lane and Summerfield Road as an “Area of Change”. This neighborhood will eventually surround the Southeast Greenway, a proposed project to transform a two-mile vacant corridor into a new 47-acre urban greenway, park, and open space in eastern Santa Rosa. To date, the Greenway Campaign has raised more than $1.5M in donations and public grants for acquisition of the vacant space. This corridor has the potential to significantly increase safe pedestrian and bike connections to Howarth, Spring Lake, and Trione-Annadel parks and should be evaluated for increased housing density.
• Santa Rosa Avenue: The defined Area of Change #16 along Santa Rosa Avenue south of Hearn is currently highly car dependent, disconnected from transit, bike and pedestrian transitways, and dominated by large lot sizes. The investment to transform this area is likely significantly higher than other identified Areas of Change given its distance from Santa Rosa’s downtown core and existing transit amenities. The Alternatives Summary map indicates an additional SMART station is planned for Bellevue Avenue, however this station is not shown on SMART’s website. We recommend re-evaluating whether transforming this area is realistic in the time horizon of the current General Plan update. We also recommend re-evaluating the area west of Highway 101 between Bellevue and Todd to include as a
potential Area of Change because it is an Equity Priority Area and could be more easily connected to Roseland, the West End downtown neighborhood, and existing SMART station. • North Santa Rosa SMART: At least one-half mile radius from the North Santa Rosa SMART station should be designated as an Area of Change on account of AB 2097 being signed into law and eliminating parking requirements within a half-mile of transit stations.
Efficient and Sustainable
• Protected bike lanes and carbon neutrality goals: The preferred alternative sets a carbon neutrality goal by 2030. Passenger cars and trucks remain Santa Rosa’s largest source of emissions, the sum of which has barely changed since 1990. According to the California Air Resources Control Board, electrification alone is insufficient to meet California’s emissions goals, so an overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled is also necessary. Today, just 1.6% of all trips in Santa Rosa are taken by bike, despite 25% of all trips being less than 2 miles. This is largely an infrastructure problem stemming from Santa Rosa’s near total lack of Class IV protected bike lanes. The preferred alternative identifies specific road widening and diet projects, and specific future rapid bus routes. For bikes, the preferred alternative only identifies intersections for safety improvements. These improvements are necessary but insufficient for inducing bike demand. To meet the city’s emissions targets, the General Plan should identify specific projects and pathways for connecting neighborhoods with commercial and recreational destinations via Class IV protected lanes.
Equity and Public Health
• Walking and cycling priorities: The preferred alternative identifies equity priority communities for safe, comfortable, convenient walking or wheeling (bikes, stroller, wheelchairs) yet identifies no Class IV protected bikeway projects (see above). • Small scale urban agriculture: Urban agriculture should not be “incentivized” over other land uses, especially housing. Discussions about creating incentives for urban agriculture should be held as part of a holistic look at available land for community spaces, such as parks and playgrounds.
Thank you for your leadership, and for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Adrian Covert Lauren Fuhry
Local Lead Local Lead
Santa Rosa YIMBY Santa Rosa YIMBY
www.generationhousing.org
20 October 2022
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
RE: Santa Rosa Forward Preferred Alternative
Dear Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Alvarez, City Council, and Staff:
We want to begin by expressing our appreciation for everyone who has helped shape this process to date. The culmination of study sessions, community workshops, and individual/organizational consultations has clearly played a major role in defining this transformative plan that will move Santa Rosa Forward.
We are pleased with the overall direction of the Preferred Alternative. The focus on building new housing developments in Downtown, around neighborhood shopping centers and along key arterial routes is a clear reflection of the community feedback that called for a blend of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. We are excited as well to see the strong emphasis and plan for creating several high frequency bus routes along key corridors. This is critically needed if we wish to realize a community that offers a robust multimodal transport system citywide. We’re similarly pleased to see plans for establishing a SMART station at Bellevue Avenue incorporated into the document.
Providing additional transit stops along the SMART corridor is central to inducing more demand for its services, supports the spirit of the landmark Transit Oriented Communities (“TOC”) Policy approved recently by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and would be central to driving mixed-use development along Santa Rosa Avenue – an arterial corridor ripe for redevelopment. Taken together, these actions help increase the likelihood of our community securing carbon neutrality by 2030 as established in the Preferred Alternative Summary.
While this is a strong representation of community input, we do have some additional comments to offer that might aid in strengthening this important planning document.
Prioritize Bicycle and P edestrian I nfrastructure
We recommend being more explicit about plans, funded or unfunded, approved or not, that aim to achieve the longstanding goal of establishing complete streets in several key areas of our community. Specifically, we request the City provide more explicit narrative language or graphic illustrations that demonstrate planning for bicycle infrastructure beyond what is included in the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan.
Perhaps consider creating an online mapping tool that allows community members to toggle overlays. Protected bike lanes (and safer bicycle infrastructure generally) are key to inducing more multimodal transit. We strongly encourage collaborating with the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition and other community organizations to better define this vision.
Hoen Avenue
We recommend considering the area around Hoen Avenue and Summerfield as a potential “Area of Change”. This recommendation is contingent, however, on whether 427 Mendocino Ave
Suite 100
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 900-4364
[email protected]
www.generationhousing.org
a functional multiuse path is developed along the Southeast Greenway that can safely connect people to other transit options.
North Santa Rosa SMART Station
With the advent of AB 2097 and the TOC Policy, we recommend that a one-half mile radius around this station be designated as an Area of Change. These policies are designed to boost the overall housing supply and increase residential densities in transit-rich areas. If the zoning designations for parcels within this radius are not zoned at a minimum of Medium Density (30 du/ac), we recommend revising the zoning designations to comply with the TOC Policy. Furthermore, upon annexation, we recommend designating the following parcels for Medium/High Density: 036-111-016, 036-111-009, 036-111-010 (or corner of Lance Dr. and Guerneville Rd.). These parcels offer a unique opportunity to design diverse new blocks of housing that offer for rent and for sale options accessible to low- and moderate-income earners in the community.
We look forward to the next steps in the process, when we can dive more deeply into discussions of how land use policy and simple policy solutions, such as adopting a unit equivalency definition similar to the County of Sonoma’s can help realize our housing goals and our shared vision of a more vibrant, equitable, and sustainable community.
Thank you for your leadership, and please do not hesitate to direct questions to our Policy Director Calum Weeks at [email protected].
In partnership,
Jen Klose
Executive Director | Generation Housing
10/14/22, 12:19 PM Correo: Guerrero Auna, Beatriz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGI1NjJhYTUxLTc4YzMtNDI0Zi1iNDE1LTlmNzRiNjRmNmU0MAAQAEk4oD6Cv8tGtsnhiovDRww%3D 1/1 [EXTERNAL] Questions re General Plan Preferred Alternative Adrian Covert
Vie 14/10/2022 10:52
Para: Guerrero Auna, Beatriz <[email protected]>;Dan Amsden <[email protected]> Dan and Beatrice,
We had a workshop last night to discuss the preferred alterna ve and had the below ques ons we wanted to pose you before forming our comments. Apologies for taking this down to the wire, but if you could answer at your earliest convenience it would be a big help. Thanks!
Best,
Adrian
Economics and Housing
· Why wasn’t the area around Hoen Ave iden fied as a development corridor? We thought it was a good candidate seeing as it was close to a commercial area on Hoen, far enough from the WUI, and will connect (eventually) to the Southeast Greenway.
·
Why is does the #16 (Santa Rosa Ave) priority development corridor extend south of Hearn? The en re area is a car centric stroad with enormous lot sizes. It’s not walkable and won’t be any me soon, but at least north of Hearn is rela vely close to downtown and flat. But most of the people living here will be car dependent. We shouldn’t be planning around a hypothe cal south santa rosa smart train (unless there’s funding for it we’re not aware of). · The focus around the hypothe cal south SMART train is par cularly strange given there seems to be a lack of priori za on around the exis ng north santa rosa smart train, especially in light of AB 2097 exemp ng all developments within a half mile from parking minimums. Will the general plan be adjusted to reflect that change? · Does “area of change” have a specific meaning?
Efficient and Sustainable
Achieveing carbon neutrality by 2030 isn’t possible so long as bikes con nue making up just 1.6% of all trips (much lower than comparable San Luis Obispo or Davis, let alone Amsterdam). However, the increased bike connec ons appear to be just for intersec ons. Increased safety at intersec ons is necessary but insufficient for inducing the bike demand needed to achieve the carbon neutrality goal . We need protected corridors to connect residen al neighborhoods and commercial centers, parks, and SMART. The preferred alterna ve iden fies specific roads for expansions and diets, as well as future rapid bus routes. Yet protected bike lanes con nue to be overlooked. Why?
Equity and Health
Just poin ng out you again include “Equity priority communi es for safe, comfy, convenient walking or wheeling (bikes, stroller, wheelchair)” but provide no protected bike lane goals.
When you say “Incen vize” small-scale urban agriculture, what does that mean?
Thanks!
10/24/22, 2:58 PM Correo: Guerrero Auna, Beatriz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGI1NjJhYTUxLTc4YzMtNDI0Zi1iNDE1LTlmNzRiNjRmNmU0MAAQAP0suC7z6aNHo6LlIwWZNOk%3D 1/2 [EXTERNAL] Comments on Santa Rosa's Preferred Alternative General Plan mark
Jue 20/10/2022 23:51
Para: Guerrero Auna, Beatriz <[email protected]> Dear Beatriz,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Santa Rosa's Preferred Alternative General Plan. On the whole I like it, especially the emphasis on developing housing in the downtown area. I was also very pleased to see “achieving carbon neutrality by the year 2030” listed as a goal.
I noted a few important items that are lacking in the plan:
1. The “Areas of Change” should be prioritized by level of investment. By far, Santa Rosa will get the most relief from the housing crisis and the greatest decrease in greenhouse emissions by developing the downtown core. The reason for this is that area has particularly good public transit infrastructure for Sonoma County, AND its street layout would accommodate the greatest walkability and housing density. In contrast, areas like #17 on Hearn Avenue are hopelessly rural/suburban, and would require huge investment to make them viable in the long run. In short, the General Plan should be heavily weighted towards investment and density in the downtown core. That will pay the greatest dividends – environmentally (CO2 reduction), socially (housing), and financially (property & sales tax revenue per acre).
2. The plan needs to recognize the important role that Low Stress Protected Bike Lanes will play in equity, safety, and carbon reduction. The problem with current bike lanes is that they have no barrier between cars and bicycles. The odds of surviving a collision with a car going even 35 mph are very slim, and most people (about 90% of us) rightfully do not want to use this type of lane. That is why Santa Rosa needs to prioritize the construction of low stress protected bike lanes (Class IV) instead of the near useless Class II. The strategy of building protected bike lanes has paid off handsomely for cities such as Copenhagen, where 62% of trips use bicycles instead of cars. Our streets should be multi-modal and serve all citizens, not just the ones who can afford a car and are not too young or old to drive. When cycling is safe and low stress it becomes an option for all age groups and abilities.
I also want to point out that half of all car trips in the United States are less than three miles long.
Protected bikeways are probably the most cost effective strategy of reducing Vehicle Miles Driven -- and cutting greenhouse gas pollution. They don’t require new streets or expensive infrastructure, just a reshuffling of priorities. We should recognize that equitable clean transit, free and open to all, is more important than providing car storage.
3. Finally, I want to take issue with OSC-C-3 -- “Preserve and enhance agriculture within the Planning Area as a component of the economy and as a part of Santa Rosa’s environmental quality. ” Agriculture is fine in places with low infrastructure investment, but it makes no sense to prioritize agricultural uses over housing. Our goal of reducing carbon emissions will be best served by unencumbered infill development. Santa Rosa is currently a city of 178,000 with a serious housing shortage. It is about time we stopped acting like we are still a rural community of ranches and orchards.
10/24/22, 2:58 PM Correo: Guerrero Auna, Beatriz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGI1NjJhYTUxLTc4YzMtNDI0Zi1iNDE1LTlmNzRiNjRmNmU0MAAQAP0suC7z6aNHo6LlIwWZNOk%3D 2/2 Thank you for your time and consideration
Mark Franaszek
10/14/22, 12:20 PM Correo: Guerrero Auna, Beatriz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGI1NjJhYTUxLTc4YzMtNDI0Zi1iNDE1LTlmNzRiNjRmNmU0MAAQAIa6ap%2B31TtIkLBz2XjVqHM%3D 1/2 FW: [EXTERNAL] SR General Plan Update
Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Vie 14/10/2022 12:17
Para: Andrea Howard <[email protected]>;Charlie Knox <[email protected]>;Lyle, Amy <[email protected]>;Guerrero Auna, Beatriz <[email protected]> CC: Adams, Nancy <[email protected]>;Sprinkle, Rob <[email protected]> Hi All,
Please see comments below from Michael Lipelt regarding bike infrastructure needs as it relates to the GP update.
Thanks,
Jess
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 |
[email protected]
From: Michael Lipelt
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 2:42 PM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] SR General Plan Update
Hi Jessica,
Thank you for answering my ques ons about the SR Forward Plan.
I am a volunteer board member on the Sonoma County Bicycle Coali on with a strong interest in mobility in the form of ac ve transporta on.
You indicated that the General Plan Update uses broad language with regard to bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. You noted that I could send you important, more specific language that describes needs and wants of the Santa Rosa Bike/Ped Community that you could discuss with traffic planners to poten ally use in their specific language that is consistent with the SR General Plan Update.
I have informed the founders of Bikeable Santa Rosa to a end the Saturday mee ng to perhaps ask ques ons and add context to the vision of a livable community that will adapt to the challenges of Climate Change moving forward.
As you imagine Santa Rosa with more urban housing and pods in various neighborhoods it’s impera ve that we create a vibrant, livable city centered around ac ve transpira on mobility.
Only 2-5% of Santa Rosa ci zens use exis ng bike paths. Surveys reveal that 50% of the respondents said they would ride their bikes or walk to work, shop and other services if they felt safe. 60% of vehicle trips in Santa Rosa are 5 miles or less. We can do much be er than this.
Imagine:
Safe, protected bike/ped networks connec ng neighborhoods in Santa Rosa to their daily needs.
Providing separated, Class 4, bike networks star ng with 2 north-south and 2 east-west to connect to downtown. Build it and they will come.
Small bike/ped improvement projects need to be done in the context of connec ng to networks Bike security infrastructure once one reaches their des na on.
We can learn from other ci es in the US and in par cular Europe about ac ve transporta on (Bike/Ped et al) for more livable ci es that are less vehicle centric.
City Thread ( a consul ng firm involved with ac ve transporta on) in Boulder Colorado has expedited Bike/Ped projects in Aus n, New Orleans, Denver, Providence and Pi sburgh.
Looking forward to con nual engagement in the General Plan Update, With gra tude,
10/14/22, 12:20 PM Correo: Guerrero Auna, Beatriz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGI1NjJhYTUxLTc4YzMtNDI0Zi1iNDE1LTlmNzRiNjRmNmU0MAAQAIa6ap%2B31TtIkLBz2XjVqHM%3D 2/2
Dr. Michael Lipelt
From: Collin Thoma
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Study Session 3.1 Santa Rosa Forward Preferred Alternatives Date: Monday, October 24, 2022 4:42:43 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Santa Rosa Forward Alternatives.pdf
Dear City Council,
My name is Collin Thoma and I am the Systems Change Advocate with Disability Services and Legal Center and have submitted comments on agenda items 3.1
Thank You,
Collin Thoma
Systems Change Advocate
Disability Services & Legal Center (DSLC)
521 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707)636-3076
Santa Rosa Forward Alternatives
Dear Santa Rosa City Council,
My name is Collin Thoma and I am the Systems Change Advocate with Disability Services and Legal Center (DSLC). My comments today are in regards to the Santa Rosa Preferred Alternatives, through a Disability focused point of view. While I think each individual alterative are good, Alterative 4 Equity and Health lays the best ground work for making the city acesaaible. I would also recommend combining different aspects from each of the alternatives into the alternative 4. This will give Santa Rosa the best chance to transform into a city that has a wide variety of housing, multi modal transportation and is equitable.
I like that the 4th alterative has a complete and acesaaible pedestrian and bicycle network incorporating but the features from alternative two would create a more multi modal city. This is because it would alleviate a concern that I have with the 2nd alternative. Which is public transportation it seems like it still may be limited in the southern portion of the city which has been identified as an equity priority area. It would also allow for people with different levels of mobility to walk, bike, or roll instead of using public transportation of if public transit is not available. Having multiple transit options, especially the option to walk, bike or roll is important for people with disabilities as they may drive or choose not to drive due to their disability. It will also be important for parks and open spaces to be acesaaible as well for all mobility levels.
The fourth alternative also mentions affordable housing which is extremely important to have. The lack of affordable housing is a massive barrier that prevents people with disabilities from obtaining housing. Many people with disabilities rely on Social Security Insurance (SSI) and/or other public benefits. These benefits typically pay anywhere from several hundred dollars or up to around a thousand dollars less then the average rent in the city. Furthermore, some people could even have less money for rent it they need to pay for assistive technology, medical services, or supportive services in addition to everyday costs. It is also very important that housing is built to be acesaaible to all levels of mobility. Like affordable housing this is a huge barrier that prevents people with disabilities from obtaining housing. An easy way to build affordable housing is by using the Visibility Design method. Visibility requires a zero-step entrance with a slope no greater the 1:12 and 32-inch width doorways and pathways. In addition, a bathroom with grab bars big enough for a mobility device, climate controls and light switches low enough to be pressed by a mobility device user. Earlier this year Petaluma adopted it Visibility ordinance and is a great example. One of the many strengths of its ordinance is the width measurements are several greater inches then the minimum 32 inches. Finally, for the distribution of housing while I think alternative one has the best layout its important to be aware of the fire danger. Thus, the features from the 3rd alternative should be incorporated in how housing is distributed to limit developments in areas of the city with extremely high fire danger.
A way to do this is to develop lots of mixed-use housing in downtown area and where buildings are developed for business and industrial use. It would also be good to see homes and neighborhoods to be designed to be more fire resistant. Furthermore, it is very important that a study is done to make sure the roads can support the increase in population during an evacuation.
Thank you for taking time to review my comments on the preferred alternatives plans for Santa Rosa Forward. This project presents a great opportunity to create a city that is more affordable and much more acesaaible for people with disabilities and for abled body people.
Sincerely,
Collin Thoma
Systems Change Advocate
Disability Services & Legal Center (DSLC)
521 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707)636-3076