Santa Rosa City Council
July 8, 2025

City of Santa Rosa
Active Transportation Plan
Appendix A:

Plan Review
ATTACHMENT 2

MEMORANDUM

To: Torina Wilson, City of Santa Rosa
From: Barry Bergman, WTrans; Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design Date: February 11, 2025
Re: Santa Rosa Active Transp ortation Plan – Plan Review

IIntroduction
This memorandum summarizes local and regional plans, policies, and standards that impact active transportation in the City of Santa Rosa. These planning studies and reports were reviewed to gain a better understanding of existing conditions in Santa Rosa as they pertain to active transportation; how the City is moving forward in light of evolving policies at the federal, state, and regional levels; and the direction being taken by the City through its most recent initiatives. This document provides a foundation for the development of the City of Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (ATP). It is divided into three sections:

Section 1 – Introduction: provides an overview of the memo and the information included.

Section 2 – Key Takeaways: includes a high-level summary of common themes identified within the plans reviewed.

Section 3 – Full Document Review: contains a complete summary of the 21 documents reviewed. Information is presented in individual tables for easy readability.

Key Takeaways
x The City is placing a growing emphasis on engagement of local stakeholders, with a focus on inclusion of disadvantaged communities.
x While safety has long been a priority for the City, the adoption of Vision Zero principles highlights a fundamental shift toward providing facilities that offer greater protection from vehicle traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists.
x Projects and programs are being designed to help achieve the City’s goals of increasing the use of active transportation and transit and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at the scale of citywide and neighborhood plans as well as the project level.
x The development of enhanced active transportation infrastructure is closely linked to land use plans, especially densification in the downtown area, SMART station areas, and along major transit corridors.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 2
FFull Document Review
The following section includes a summary of the plans reviewed. Information for each plan is organized into individual tables for easy readability.

DRAFT General Plan 2050 (Santa Rosa Forward) (2023)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
DRAFT General Plan 2050 (Santa Rosa Forward) City of Santa Rosa 2023 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Developed as the update for Plan 2035, Santa Rosa Forward emphasizes a more efficient growth pattern designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) with a multimodal transportation network to support the land use vision.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
To reduce VMT, Santa Rosa Forward promotes shifting short trips to non-vehicle transportation modes, including transit and active transportation. As a result, the Plan emphasizes the inclusion of facilities for these modes as part of incoming development projects, especially in high density areas where higher levels of usage would be anticipated. Use of these modes will also be incentivized through transportation demand management (TDM) programs.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The bicycle and pedestrian recommendations are incorporated into the Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Element as part of a system that de-emphasizes vehicle travel.

Standards N/A
Policies
The policies emphasize the establishment of an enhanced multimodal network that is supported by street design practices. Several policies are identified and supported by a set of actions. x Policy 3-1.2: Promote land use, transportation demand management (TDM), and street design practices that reduce VMT and dependence on single occupancy vehicle trips. x Policy 3-1.3: Improve infrastructure, sidewalk and bicycle linkages, and access to transit and active modes of transportation to better meet daily commuting needs and minimize VMT, especially in EPAs and Areas of Change.
x Policy 3-1.4: Reduce traffic volumes and speeds in neighborhoods. x Policy 3-2.1: Plan, build, and maintain a safe, complete, continuous, convenient, and attractive pedestrian, bicycle, and multiuse trail network in Santa Rosa that is equitably accessible for all ages and abilities.

Infrastructure The recommendations from the 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan are identified.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The bicycle and pedestrian policies have been more closely integrated into the overall future vision for Santa Rosa's growth and development than in the previous General Plan. Santa Rosa Forward policies support a multimodal system through support for designated active transportation facilities, reduced vehicle speeds through residential areas, and viable non-vehicle transportation options.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 3
LLocal Road Safety Plan (2022)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Local Road Safety Plan City of Santa Rosa 2022 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The LRSP presents recommendations to improve safety on the priority street segments as laid out in Santa Rosa’s Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. The collision histories were analyzed, and safety concerns identified for each of the study segments. The LRSP includes recommendations to address the identified safety issues.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
With the exception of Cleveland Avenue and the Roseland Creek Trail, the study segments all include transit service.

PLAN/ REPORT RRECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The LRSP focused on an analysis of key corridors identified in the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018 (BPMP). It describes the study segments and provides recommendations to improve safety along these segments as well as potential funding sources.

Standards The plan provides a list of the standards, guidelines, and designs considered to determine the best safety measures for each location.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure
Priority street segments:

1. Fourth Street from E street to Farmers Lane

2. Montgomery Drive from Alderbrook Drive to Hahman Drive

3. West College Avenue from Kowell Lane to Morgan Street

4. College Avenue from Morgan Street to Fourth Street

5. Stony Point Road from Third Street to Sebastopol Road

6. Roseland Creek Trail from Stony Point Road to Burbank Avenue

7. Dutton Avenue from College Avenue to Third Street

8. Cleveland Avenue from Industrial Drive to Guerneville Road

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The LRSP is closely tied to the City’s BPMP, as its study locations were identified through the development of BPMP priorities.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 4
SSanta Rosa Avenue Corridor Improvements (2022)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Improvements City of Santa Rosa 2022 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The project includes multimodal transportation improvements to the segment of Santa Rosa Avenue between Sonoma Avenue and Maple Avenue.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Santa Rosa Avenue is served by CityBus and Sonoma County Transit routes, so roadway designs must account for bus operations.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Santa Rosa Avenue is planned to have several pedestrian and bicycle improvements added while maintaining vehicle operations along the corridor.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
The project includes the following improvements:
x Add mid-block pedestrian refuge islands at some intersections to allow two-stage crossing. x Add bulb-outs at most painted or unpainted crosswalks. x Add more streetlights for pedestrians.
x Add benches along sidewalks.
x Provide bike racks for cyclists along Santa Rosa Avenue. x Provide buffered bike lanes.
x Use high-visibility green paint on bike lanes at vehicle conflict points such as intersections and driveways.
x Update sidewalks and ramps to conform to ADA standards. x Add bike boxes at some minor street approaches.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Example of pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along a high-volume commercial corridor.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 5
RRoseland Creek Community Plan (2021)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Roseland Creek Community Plan City of Santa Rosa 2021 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
A detailed one-page document illustrating the components of the Roseland Creek Park plan area, including trails and connections to paths and active transportation facilities adjacent to the park.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall One-page illustrated map
Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
Multiuse trails proposed along the south creek bank with connections to the west to Burbank Avenue and to the east and northeast to McMinn Avenue that includes a new pedestrian bridge over the creek.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x A multiuse trail is proposed along the south bank of the creek connecting to the west, east, and northeast. Refers to the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan for more information regarding this park plan.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 6
SStony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes (2021)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Stony Point Rooad Corridor Study for Active
TTransportation Modes City of Santa Rosa 2021 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The need for this corridor study was identified as a priority in the 2018 BPMP due to its inclusion in both the city’s pedestrian and bicycle HINs. The study segment extends from West Third Street to Sebastopol Road, a length of just under one-half mile. Stony Point Road is an important route for accessing SR 12, several shopping centers, and the Roseland neighborhood. The street has four travel lanes and bike lanes, and the study area includes a crossing of the Joe Rodota Trail, a major regional multiuse path. The segment of Stony Point Road that crosses SR 12 is under Caltrans jurisdiction, and District 4 staff was consulted regarding the proposed design. An extensive community engagement effort was conducted, including two workshops and two surveys that generated nearly 600 responses.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Proposed Class IV facilities would need to account for bus stop access along Stony Point Road.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
A primary goal of the project was to provide increased separation between bicyclists and vehicle traffic and reduce conflicts at intersections between turning vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. The report includes concept plans for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
x Class IV facilities from West Third Street to Sebastopol Road. x Realign the intersection of Stony Point Road at SR 12 eastbound ramps to eliminate pork chop island and facilitate crossing for Joe Rodota Trail users. x Explore a potential multiuse path along the west side of Stony Point Road from the SR 12 eastbound ramps to Sebastopol Road.
x Install raised crosswalks or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the entrance to the SR 12 West on-ramps.
x Provide enhanced bike lane striping to establish a clear path of travel for bicyclists through intersections.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The proposed infrastructure improvements would address pedestrian and bicyclist safety concerns along Stony Point Road, which was included in the high-injury network for bother user groups in the 2018 BPMP Update.
x The recommended improvements would improve access to numerous commercial sites and schools as well as enhance safety along the regional Joe Rodota Trail. x Improvements would provide substantial benefits to residents of an Equity Priority Community.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 7
DDowntown Station Area Specific Plan (2020)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2020 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) covers approximately 720 acres surrounding the Downtown SMART Station. The plan area is bounded by College Avenue to the north, Brookwood Avenue to the east, Sebastopol Road and State Route (SR) 12 to the south, and Dutton Avenue and Imwalle Gardens to the west. Included in the Downtown Station Area are Courthouse Square, the city’s central business district and an important regional jobs center, Santa Rosa Plaza, Sonoma County’s largest retail shopping destination, as well as other established neighborhoods, including Railroad Square, Maxwell Court, the Santa Rosa Arts District (SOFA), and several residential neighborhoods. The area is designated as a PDA.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TTOPICS
Higher intensity development focused on the vicinity of SMART station, Transit Center, and corridors with bus headways of 15 minutes or less.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The Santa Rosa DSASP builds on the 2018 BPMP Update and seeks to guide the intensification of an energetic commercial enterprise and innovative cultural center with a strong sense of place, enhanced connectivity, and increased residential and social options. The DSASP envisions a vibrant urban core centered around Courthouse Square and a network of pedestrian-friendly mixed-use village centers, each with its own character. To make this vision a reality, the DSASP offers strategies designed to remove barriers to development, meet the community’s housing and job needs, foster vibrant civic spaces, and enhance local quality of life.

Standards Design guidelines and standards are included in the plan document.

Policies
Policies relevant to active transportation include:
x Provide a well-connected street grid that optimizes multimodal access, connectivity, and safety for all users.
x Provide a comfortable, convenient bicycle and pedestrian network that is a viable, attractive alternative to the automobile.
x Strengthen east-west connections and links between Old Courthouse Square and Railroad Square.

Infrastructure
Map MOB-3 shows the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian network within the Specific Plan area and includes Classes I, II, III, and IV plus trail access points and trail bridges. Figure MOB -4 shows planned pedestrian improvements and connections.

Proposed bicycle facilities include the following:
x Class I: SMART trail gaps, Santa Rosa Creek.
x Class II: College Avenue, Third Street, Cleveland Avenue, Railroad Street, Olive Street, Sebastopol Avenue, Sebastopol Road, Davis Street, B Street, First Street, Second Street, E Street, Brookwood Avenue, and a new street near the SMART station.
x Class III: Seventh Street, Cherry Street, Sixth Street, Lincoln Street, Ripley Street, Morgan Street, Mendocino Avenue, D Street, Wilson Street.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x While the downtown area consists of a high-density, mixed-use land use pattern, connectivity and safety improvements are needed.
x The successful implementation of the plan hinges on the coordination between the intensification of land uses and the development of infrastructure that supports the use of non-vehicle transportation modes.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 8
CCommunity Empowerment Strategy (2020)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Community Empowerment Strategy City of Santa Rosa Police DDepartment 2020 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Part of an effort undertaken by the Santa Rosa Police Department in response to local protests and community dialogue following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, the strategy was developed as part of a Community Empowerment Plan. The strategy includes a vision, goals, and objectives intended to improve the relationship between the Police Department and local residents, especially Black, Latino, and indigenous communities.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RRECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Vision: “There is a trusting, open relationship of respect between the Santa Rosa Police Department and the community, and space for ongoing, inclusive, constructive dialogue is available. The following three goals were established to achieve this vision:

1. Increase constructive and inclusive dialogue between leaders from Black, indigenous, and Latino communities in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County.

2. Provide the community with opportunities to review and provide input on the Santa Rosa Police Department’s use of force and community policing policies.

3. Establish a feedback loop to gauge the effectiveness of efforts within and in the community and among City staff.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The Strategy was intended as a long-term, ongoing effort to enhance the relationship between law enforcement and residents, with some specific actions identified to help achieve that long-term vision.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 9
SSanta Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2018)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan City of Santa Rosa 2018 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The BPMP provided a vision and specific steps to create safer and more comfortable conditions for people to walk and bike in Santa Rosa. The Plan was built on an assessment of existing conditions, included an extensive outreach component, and was designed to support the City's General Plan and other policies.

TRANSIT RRELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENTT TOPICS
Transit is discussed as closely linked to the use of active transportation, including first-mile/last mile improvements and the provision of transit stop amenities. To implement improvements, coordination is required between the City and transit service providers, including Santa Rosa CityBus, Sonoma County Transit, SMART, and Golden Gate Transit. The combined use of bikes and transit was also addressed, including racks on buses, bike storage on train cars, and bike parking at rail stations.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Infrastructure project recommendations were provided for locations throughout the City and were prioritized based on numerous factors, including safety and equity. Noninfrastructure components were recommended to enhance safe bicycling and walking and encourage increased use of these modes.

Standards The BPMP included bicycle and pedestrian facility guidelines regarding the selection, appropriate application, and design of facilities.

Policies
x Policy 1: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian network and facility needs into all city planning documents and capital improvement projects.
x Policy 2: Coordinate with other agencies and stakeholders to incorporate Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update 2018 elements.
x Policy 3: Design a Low Stress Bikeway Network suitable for the “Interested but Concerned,” to include people of all ages and ability levels riding bicycles. x Policy 4: Design a connected, convenient, and comfortable pedestrian network to serve people of all ages and abilities.
x Policy 5: Design accessible, comfortable, and continuous off-street paths that contribute to the framework of Santa Rosa’s active transportation network. x Policy 6: Develop an easy to read, unified, and comprehensive wayfinding system for bicyclists, pedestrians, and trail users.
x Policy 7: Leverage existing funding to maximize project delivery. x Policy 8: Continue and enhance the City’s annual commitment of local funds for bicycle and pedestrian project implementation.
x Policy 9: Construct projects within the Plan Update 2018 utilizing all available internal and external resources.
x Policy 10: Ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians have accommodation in work zones. x Policy 11: Maintain designated facilities to be comfortable and free of hazards to bicycling and walking.
x Policy 12: Maintain bicycle parking.
x Policy 13: Educate pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and the public about roadway safety and the benefits of bicycling and walking.
x Policy 14: Encourage Santa Rosa Public Schools to participate in the Safe Routes to School program.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 10
x Policy 15: Support police enforcement activities targeted at both bicyclists and motorists that educate and reinforce proper and safe behaviors. x Policy 16: Increase bicycling and walking through targeted marketing and promotion. x Policy 17: Measure bicycling and walking activity through an annual count program. x Policy 18: Report annually on the implementation of this Plan Update 2018.

IInfrastructure
Bicycle projects:
x 39 miles Class I
x 49 miles Class II
x 2 miles buffered Class II
x 35 miles Class III
x 3 miles bicycle boulevards
x 2 miles Class IV
Pedestrian projects
x 70 crossing projects
x 21 miles of sidewalk
x Study corridors
x 11 priority corridors
Citywide projects
x Bicycle parking
x Wayfinding
x Pedestrian scale lighting
x Street furniture

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The BPMP represents a comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, including infrastructure, policy changes, educational and promotional campaigns, enforcement efforts, and an evaluation component to track progress in achieving the City's goals.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 11
RRoseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan (2016)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2016 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This plan was developed to support the goals, policies, and priorities identified in Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. The plan area is located in southwest Santa Rosa and is generally bounded by SR 12 to the north, Bellevue Avenue to the south, Highway 101 to the east, and Stony Point Road to the west. It includes the Roseland PDA and part of the Sebastopol Road PDA.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
A focus of the plan is to provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access to various land uses as well as transit services. The plan area includes the Southside Bus Transfer Center. At the times the plan was developed, 15 -minute service for CityBus routes was planned along Sebastopol Road.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The purpose of this Specific Plan is to support a unified, vital, healthy, and livable Roseland community. The area’s designation as a Priority Development Area supports walkable, bikeable, and transit-rich neighborhoods by increasing the number and proximity of residents to amenities, schools, parks, and jobs. The plan aims to do this by improving connectivity, concentrating areas of activity, and enhancing the physical environment. The Specific Plan is intended to guide private development and public investment over the next 20 to 25 years.

Standards N/A
Policies
x Engage plan area residents, property owners, and business owners to envision and plan for their community in the future through an innovative community engagement strategy. x Establish a land use and policy framework to guide future development in the area toward transit- supportive land uses.
x Improve connections, particularly for walking, biking and rolling, to the Southside Bus Transfer Center, to the Santa Rosa Downtown Station, and to Sebastopol Road, the main commercial area within the plan area.

Infrastructure
x Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network include continuous sidewalks, enhanced crossings at intersections, street lighting, and new pedestrian and bicycle routes. A key priority is to complete sidewalks in areas where gaps exist, where the City owns the right-of-way, and where completing the sidewalk will have the greatest benefit, such as near schools, parks, or services.

New bicycle facilities proposed.
x Class 1: Colgan Creek, Bellevue Avenue, Roseland Creek, SMART trail, Dutton Avenue, Rain Dance Way. x Class II: Stony Point Road, Burbank Avenue, West Avenue, Dutton Avenue, Dutton Meadow, Sebastopol Avenue, Barham Avenue, Hearn Avenue, Northpoint Parkway, Bellevue Avenue. x Class III: Liscum Street, Old Stony Point Road, Lazzini Avenue, Comalli Street, Hughes Avenue, Roseland Avenue, McMinn Avenue, Delport Avenue, South Avenue, Earle Street, Leo Drive, Baker Avenue, Blacksmith Way, Tuxhorn Drive, Pebblecreek Drive, Burgess Drive, Olive Street, Corby Avenue, Dowd Drive.

The Hearn Avenue overcrossing across Highway 101 was identified as a priority.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The plan would guide land development and transportation investments to encourage use of non-vehicle transportation modes.
x Elimination of facility gaps and construction of active transportation linkages was identified as a priority.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 12
JJennings Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Rail Crossing Final EIR (2015)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Jennings AAvenue PPedestrian and BBicycle Rail Crossing Final EIR City of Santa Rosa 2015 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document analyzes options for establishing a crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists along Jennings Avenue, across the SMART rail line. Without the implementation of the project, the nearest at -grade crossings would be at Guerneville Road to the north and College Avenue to the south, which could result in considerably longer trips for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling east-west through this area.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
The project would cross the SMART rail corridor.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The project would include minor improvements to Jennings Avenue to facilitate pedestrian and bicyclist access for an at-grade crossing of the SMART rail tracks.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
The following improvements would be constructed:
x Add ADA ramps, crossing arms, pedestrian gates, sidewalks, handrails, and fences. x If a new crossing is established at Jennings Avenue, one of the existing at-grade crossings at either Sixth Street, Seventh Street, or Eight Street would likely need to be eliminated to secure approval from the California Public Utilities Commission.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The SMART line currently acts as a barrier to circulation at many locations. The project as proposed would enhance east-west connectivity for bicyclists across the SMART tracks along Jennings Avenue.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 13
PPrinciples of Community Engagement (2014)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Principles of Community Engagement City of Santa Rosa 2014 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
These recommendations were developed by the Mayor’s Open Government Task Force. To accomplish the identified goals, recommendations included steps to develop a culture that values public engagement.

TRANSIT RRELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENTT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Take the following steps to develop a culture that values public engagement:
x Genuinely engage and partner with neighborhoods, volunteers, businesses, institutions, and other organizations that support the community.
x Establish Santa Rosa as a leader in civic engagement with the goal of increasing Openness, Transparency, and Accountability.
x Close the communication loop - acknowledge the value of community input, wisdom, and participation.
x Increase opportunities for diverse community engagement and effective participation. x Build a strong civic infrastructure to educate people about how best to engage.

Consider the adoption of the following principles for the engagement process, which were developed for the City of Alexandria, VA:

1. Respect

2. Inclusiveness and Equity

3. Early Involvement

4. Easy Participation

5. Meaningful Engagement

6. Mutual Accountability

7. Transparency

8. Sustained Collaboration

9. Evaluation
Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Develop a culture of public engagement by considering the principles listed in this document.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 14
SSanta Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan (2013)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan City of Santa Rosa 2007,
uupdated
2013
Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Citywide Creek Master Plan presents a set of policies and recommendations for habitat preservation, enhancement, restoration projects, and other site-specific improvements to the nearly one hundred miles of creeks that flow through Santa Rosa. The Creek Master Plan requires that development adjacent to waterways be consistent with the Creek Master Plan to the extent feasible, including by enc ouraging creek-compatible land uses and creek access throughout the system, integrating development project features with creek improvements, allowing for future creek improvements to be made, and requiring development plans to be consistent with guidelines for site planning, grading, and other policies.

The Plan implements the General Plan and provides guidelines, policies, and criteria for the protection, care, management, restoration, and enhancement of waterways in Santa Rosa. The overall concept for a creek trail system is to create a continuous system of access along the creeks where feasible and provide connections from the creeks to major traffic generators and destinations for bicyclists and pedestrians.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMMENT TOPICS
Coordinate with transit agencies and other entities as needed to link creek trails and facilitate network connections.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Identifies and describes each creek and waterway within the City of Santa Rosa. Provides an existing conditions summary and narrative of recommendations, including for waterway and trail access as well as trail and access connections from adjacent transportation facilities (roadways, paths, trails).

Standards
Provides detailed creek design guidelines in Appendix A broken out by urban, rural, and natural reaches of the city’s creeks. Specific designs are identified for the following topics: site planning, grading, creek crossings, architecture, site furnishings, construction materials, pathways, logo and creek signage, trailheads and trailside parks, lighting, landscaping and plant materials, fencing, and irrigation.

Policies
x Develop multiuse trails along creeks where feasible within the urban growth boundary, including connections to regional networks.
x Provide public, neighborhood, and private access to creekside trails as appropriate. x Accommodate connections to regional trail systems that enhance or support the creek trail system network.
x Use on-street connectors such as existing sidewalks and bike lanes to link together Creekside trail segments where Class I facilities are not feasible. x Vary facility design based on context; the use of pervious surfaces for new facilities in environmentally sensitive locations could be considered as long as facilities are ADA- compliant.
x Enhance pedestrian activity and safety by designing streets, buildings, pathways, and trails to provide a visual connection with public spaces.
x Provide a signage program that clearly identifies the path system.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 15
IInfrastructure
x Appendix F includes a table of all potential projects identified in the Plan, 99 of which are for alternative modes.
x Additional details provided for the approved design concept plan for the Pierson Reach of Santa Rosa Creek and bike pathway, the Roseland Creek Restoration Plan for a one-mile reach of Roseland Creek from McMinn Avenue to Stony Point Road, the Upper Colgan Creek Restoration Plan, and the Lower Colgan Creek Restoration Conceptual Plan.

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The plan includes comprehensive creek design guidelines for pathways and trails and recommended active transportation enhancements.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 16
NNorth Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan (2012)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2012 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This Specific Plan is designed to support rail transit by increasing the number of residents and employees within walking distance of the Santa Rosa North SMART station by improving pedestrian, bicycle, auto, and transit connections, increasing residential density, promoting economic development, and enhancing aesthetics and quality of life. The plan area includes Coddingtown Mall, a major shopping area and the location of one of the city’s primary bus transfer facilities. The Specific Plan is intended to guide private development and public investment over the next 20 to 25 years.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
SMART, Coddingtown Transit Hub

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The plan provides a framework for land use intensification to support the SMART rail service (which was still in development at that time). This included the enhancement of multimodal transportation options and reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The development of the plan included an extensive community engagement process.

Standards Public Realm Design Standards and Guidelines are provided in Chapter 7 Policies
The plan includes the following goals:
x Provide multimodal access to the SMART station.
x Provide parking appropriate to transit-oriented development. x Provide multimodal connections throughout the project area. Integrate the Coddingtown Mall property into the adjacent multimodal transportation network. x Complete specific roadway improvements in the project area to enhance safety and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists.
x Improve intersections to remove obstacles to multimodal traffic flow. x Establish a network of multiuse paths for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the project area.
x Expand transit use throughout the project area and provide a seamless connection to the SMART station.

To support these goals, the plan includes numerous policies, some of which set forth recommendations for specific streets.

Infrastructure
Figure 2.5 shows the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian network within the Specific Plan area and includes Classes I, II, III, and a bicycle boulevard.

Proposed bicycle facilities
x Class I: SMART path, Coffey Lane, Frances Street connection, Paulin Creek. x Class II: Cleveland Avenue, Range Avenue, Frances Street, Dutton Avenue, College Avenue, Guerneville Road, Edwards Avenue, Elliott Avenue, Coffey Lane, Ridgway Avenue. x Class III: Clover Drive, Armory Drive, Hardies Lane, Ridgway Avenue. Bicycle boulevard proposed along Jennings Avenue.

Sidewalk gaps to be addressed were identified along portions of Jennings Avenue, College Avenue, Edwards Avenue.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 17

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x While less dense than downtown Santa Rosa, the North Santa Rosa station area includes a wide variety of land uses within walking, biking, or rolling distance, notably Coddingtown Mall, Santa Rosa Junior College, and Santa Rosa High School. Enhanced bicycle network connectivity, elimination of sidewalk gaps, and convenient linkages across Highway 101 are critical needs.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 18
SStreetlight Design Standards (2011)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Streetlight Design Standards City of Santa Rosa 2011 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document provides the definitions of various road types and determines the minimum standards for each type.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Standards
x Every intersection is required to have at least one streetlight. x Defines minimum lighting requirements.
x What type of poles should be installed by road type.
x How to install streetlights.
x Design standards for streetlights.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Streetlighting required at intersections where pedestrian/bicyclist crossings would be expected to occur.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 19
SSanta Rosa General Plan 2035 (2009)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 City of Santa Rosa 2009 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
General Plan 2035 provides a long-range vision for the City and serves as the guiding document for the City's future growth and development. The Transportation Element addresses the need for multimodal transportation facilities to serve the planned level and pattern of growth for the City.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Increased densification of land uses is encouraged in the vicinity of rail stations, resulting in short trip distances that encourage bicycling and walking.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall The Transportation Element identifies the need for a multimodal system and references recommendations from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to help achieve that vision.

Standards N/A
Policies
The following policies regarding bicyclists and pedestrians were included:
x T-J-1 Pursue implementation of walking and bicycling facilities as envisioned in the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
x T-J-2 Provide street lighting that is attractive, functional, and appropriate to the character and scale of the neighborhood or district, and that contributes to vehicular and pedestrian safety.
x T-J-3 Strengthen and expand east-west linkages across the Highway 101 corridor. x T-J-4 Provide street trees to enhance the city’s livability and to provide identity to neighborhoods and districts.
x T-J-5 Support Safe Routes to School by pursuing available grants for this program and ensuring that approaches to schools are safe for cyclists and pedestrians by providing needed amenities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, and traffic calming on streets near schools.
x T-K-1 Link the various citywide pedestrian paths, including street sidewalks, downtown walkways, pedestrian areas in shopping centers and work complexes, park pathways, and other creekside and open space pathways.
x T-K-2 Allow the sharing or parallel development of pedestrian walkways with bicycle paths, where this can be safely done, in order to maximize the use of public rights-of- way.
x T-K-
3 Orient building plans and pedestrian facilities to allow for easy pedestrian access from street sidewalks, transit stops, and other pedestrian facilities, in addition to access from parking lots.
x T-K-4 Require construction of attractive pedestrian walkways and areas in new residential, commercial, office, and industrial developments. Provide landscaping or other appropriate buffers between sidewalks and heavily traveled vehicular traffic lanes, as well as through and to parking lots. Include pedestrian amenities to encourage and facilitate walking.
x T-K-5 Ensure provision of safe pedestrian access for students of new and existing school sites throughout the city.
x T-K-6 Integrate multi-use paths into all creek corridors, railroad rights-of-way, and park designs.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 20
x T-L-1 Provide bicycle lanes along all regional/arterial streets and high volume transitional/collector streets.
x T-L-2 Provide bicycle lanes on major access routes to all schools and parks. x T-L-3 Improve bicycle networks by finishing incomplete or disconnected bicycle routes. x T-L-4 Maintain all roadways and bicycle-related facilities so they provide safe and comfortable conditions for bicyclists.
x T-L-5 Consider bicycle operating characteristics and safety needs in the design for roadways, intersections, and traffic control systems.
x T-L-6 Promote and facilitate the use of bicycles with other transportation modes. x T-L-7 As part of the city’s Capital Improvement Program, or street and intersection projects constructed by private developers, install and construct bicycle facilities including: Class I paths, Class II lanes, Class III route signs; signal detectors; and/or other facilities. Implementation shall occur as opportunities arise throughout the entire bikeway network.
x T-L-8 Require new development to dedicate land and/or construct/install bicycle facilities, and provide bicycle parking as specified in the Zoning Code, where a rough proportionality to demand from the project is established. Facilities such as showers and bicycle storage shall also be considered.
x T-L-9 Maintain and update, as appropriate, the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
x T-G-7 Provide bikeways along scenic roads, where right-of-way exists or where its acquisition will not jeopardize roadway character.

IInfrastructure The project recommendations from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan were identified.

KKEY TAKEAWAYS
x The General Plan serves as the City's guiding policy document, including multimodal circulation as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and policies. As the vision for the City evolves with each future iteration of the General Plan, the policies pertaining to bicyclists and pedestrians will evolve to support it.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 21
TTraffic Standards (2008)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Traffic Standards City of Santa Rosa 2008 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document defines standards for roadway signage, markings, and equipment in addition to those set forth in the California MUTCD.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall N/A
Standards x Defines sign shapes, colors, font, and format. x Determines when a median island sign is required.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Includes requirements for some signs, signals, and pull boxes in addition to those in the MUTCD.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 22
PPublic Storm Drain Standards (2005)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Public Storm Drain Standards City of Santa Rosa 2005 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Defines minimum standards for drainage for projects in the public right-of-way and requirements of private property owners.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall N/A
Standards
x Minimum water depth.
x Maximum gap indicated for drainage gates to prevent bicycle wheels from being caught. x Sidewalk drains must be maintained by the property owner.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Consider the Public Storm Drain Standards when developing and implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 23
SStreet Design and Construction Standards (2004)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Street Design and Construction Standards City of Santa Rosa 2004 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document provides the definitions of various road types and determines the minimum standards for road types.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Standards
Standards relevant to active transportation facilities:
x A bike lane will be at minimum four feet wide from the edge of the gutter to the center of the bike lane stripe.
x Bike loop detection is required at intersections that have vehicle detection. x Sidewalks are required along most roads, except for rural/hillside and interim roads.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Sidewalks are required on most new roads.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 24
33575 Mendocino Avenue Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) (2000)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
3575 Mendocino AAvenue PProject Sustainable
Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) City of Santa Rosa 2000 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The SCEA was prepared to help streamline CEQA review for the project, which would result in the redevelopment of a 13.3-acre site that was severely damaged by the 2017 Tubbs Fire. The site would include up to 532 multi- family residential units, including 162 senior affordable units, serving an estimated population of up to 1,383 residents if fully built out and occupied. The project would be designed as a transit village, with access to bus service along Mendocino Avenue as well as Bicentennial Way, which meets the criteria for a high-quality transit corridor. The local Santa Rosa CityBus and Sonoma County Transit routes could be used to access the regional SMART rail system.

Future project residents would have access to the city’s existing bicycle facilities network, including bike lanes on Mendocino Avenue to connect to downtown Santa Rosa and continue north into Sonoma County along Old Redwood Highway. The project would include modifications of the Mendocino A venue/Fountaingrove Parkway intersection and the project frontage along Mendocino Avenue to make it more pedestrian-oriented. The project site would include an interior pedestrian network of sidewalks and crosswalks, which would be integrated into the surrounding area. The project would include 160 secure indoor bicycle parking spaces with additional bicycle parking provided near the building entrances.

The project is located within the Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Priority Development Area and is located approximately 0.2 miles from the Bicentennial Way Transit Facility.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Improvements along Mendocino Avenue would provide connectivity between the project and the Bicentennial Way Transit Facility.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Up to 532 multi-family residences, including 162 senior affordable units Transit-oriented design to encourage the use of non-vehicle transportation Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
Internal project pedestrian network
Pedestrian facilities along Mendocino Avenue
Secure bicycle parking for residents, additional bicycle parking for visitors

KEY TAKEAAWAYS
x The project design would support active transportation and transit by tying into existing facilities and the larger network. It is noted that the proposed senior units have been completed and are currently occupied.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 25
PPark and Landscape Construction Standards (1997)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Park and Landscape Construction Standards City of Santa Rosa 1997 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The standards and requirements for landscaping on public property including parks, roadways, and parkways.

TRANSIT RELATED/ OORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENTT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall N/A
Standards
x Defines where trees should be located, type of tree, size of the tree plot, and tree planting method.
x Defines the required amount of water for trees.
x Requires that only one species of tree, the theme tree, be planted along major and scenic roads.
x Collector and local street trees may be impeded by utilities so smaller trees may be used.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Consider the Park and Landscape Construction Standards when developing and implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 26
CConstruction Specifications for Public Improvements (1979)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Construction Specifications for Public Improvements City of Santa Rosa 1979 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document provides direction regarding construction materials and procedures for facilities including streets, sidewalks, curbs, pedestrian ramps, and street trees.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall N/A
Standards
Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Consider the Construction Specifications for Public Improvements documents when developing and implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 27
SSpectrum of Community Engagement

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Spectrum of Community Engagement City of Santa Rosa N/A

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Spectrum of Community Engagement is a model that lays out the range of approaches for public engagement in the planning process. It includes examples of outreach strategies that are appropriate to achieve each type of engagement, ranging from providing local stakeholders with project information to placing the final decision-making authority in the hands of the public.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall No single strategy was recommended, to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The Spectrum of Community Engagement should be referenced to inform the appropriate level of engagement.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 28
SSonoma County Vision Zero Action Plan (2022)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Sonoma County Vision Zero Action Plan
Sonoma County Transportation
AAuthority (SCTA) and Sonoma
County Department of Health
SServices (DHS)
2022 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Vision Zero Action Plan was a countywide effort to commit to the elimination of traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries. While it addresses all modes of transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle safety was emphasized as data revealed that while eight percent of all trips in the county are made on foot or bicycle, these modes account for 19 percent of traffic deaths. Through this effort, a Vision Zero Data Dashboard was developed for ongoing tracking of injury collisions. The plan includes the following goals: 1) create safer speeds, 2) eliminate impaired driving, 3) create a culture of safety, 4) build and maintain safe streets for all, 5) make vehicles safer and reduce private vehicle use, 6) improve data for effective decision - making. A countywide high-injury network (HIN) was identified based on the collision history, though it was noted that the methodology was different from what was used to develop the City of Santa Rosa’s HIN in its 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The VZAP also identified a set of High-Injury Intersections.

Partnerships were emphasized in the development of the plan and its future implementation. The Vision Zero Advisory Committee leading this effort included participation from all 11 jurisdictions in the county, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, Sonoma County Regional Parks, Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, and local health professionals. The plan was adopted by the Santa Rosa City Council in 2022.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Partners should include Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), Petaluma Transit, and Golden Gate Transit.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 29
Overall

11. CCreate Safer Speeds
Actions
x Review speeds and posted limits on the HIN, set context appropriate speeds, and implement speed mitigation measures based on findings and legislative authority.

Supporting Action
x Develop and adopt a process to reduce speed limits to 25 MPH or below on County and local roads where appropriate, such as areas around schools, parks, senior centers, and transit stations (AB 43).

22. Eliminate Impaired Driving
Actions
x Continue and expand law enforcement engagement with businesses around Responsible Beverage Service.
x Encourage safe wine, beer, and cannabis tourism by promoting ride share services, designated driver services, and walking wine tours.

Supporting Action
x Support diversion programs like the Driving Under the Influence Program and DUI Court that focus on education and treatment over punishment.
x Support community-based drug and alcohol problem assessment and treatment programs such as Turning Point.
x Expand and promote publicly subsidized transport services to include more night-time hours.

3. Create a Culture of Safety
Action
x Support Safe Routes to School program and school districts to promote safe, active transportation through education, school policies, and pick-up/ drop-off procedures. x Work with media partners to more accurately report traffic crashes, to avoid victim-blaming, and to report crashes in the context of Vision Zero.
x Partner with youth organizations to create peer-to-peer anti-distraction messaging campaigns.

Supporting Actions
x Develop comprehensive engagement strategies that prioritize Equity Priority Communities (EPCs), create personal connections to Vision Zero, and encourage drivers to safely share the road with other users.
x Promote educational campaigns for vehicle fleet operators focused on discouraging distracted driving and encouraging safely sharing the road with people walking, biking and rolling. x Develop a network of "civic partners" who pledge to support Vision Zero through the dissemination of safety and educational information to their networks.

4. Build and Maintain Safe Streets for All
Actions
x Implement low-cost quick-build projects to rapidly implement bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements along the HIN.
x Complete Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs).
x Seek sustainable funding sources for projects designed to meet Vision Zero safety goals and prioritize projects in EPCs.
x Improve routine facility maintenance particularly along the HIN. x Identify and implement road safety improvements through routine resurfacing processes.

Supporting Action.
x Close gaps in bicycle and pedestrian networks and design facilities for all ages and all abilities January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 30

55. MMake Vehicles Safer and Reduce Private Vehicle Use Actions
x Promote land use, TDM, and street design policies that reduce VMT (vehicle miles traveled ) and dependence on single-occupancy vehicle trips.
x Adopt guidelines for incorporating safety features in specifications for new fleet vehicle purchases and retrofit large fleet vehicles with side guards.

Supporting Action
x Advocate for an automated mobility policy framework that advances Vision Zero safety goals.

66. Improve Data for Effective Decision-Making
Actions
x Enhance training for law enforcement personnel responsible for crash reporting to address the unique attributes required to accurately report circumstances of crashes involving bicyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable road users.
x Use hospital trauma, health center, and Portrait of Sonoma County data to develop a more comprehensive understanding of crashes and contributing factors.

Supporting Actions
x Use regional data sources such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional HIN and Regional Safety Data System, and Caltrans District 4 location-based needs identified by their active transportation planning efforts to inform safety project development and funding decisions.
x Provide annual citation data for infractions that potentially lead to severe injuries and deaths, such as impaired driving, speeding, and failure to yield. x Maintain and update the Sonoma County Vision Zero Data Dashboard for all crash and safety data on the Vision Zero website.

SStandards N/A
PPolicies
The following core principles were identified:
x Saving Lives: Human life and health should be the highest priority within all aspects of transportation systems.
x Prevention: Traffic deaths and severe injuries are preventable. x Safe Streets: Human error is inevitable, and transportation systems should be designed to anticipate error, so the consequence is not severe injury or death. x Equity: All people have the right to travel safely through our community and we must work to eliminate disparities in transportation safety based on income, race, ability, age, language spoken, and vehicle access.

Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The Vision Zero approach marks a notable shift in how transportation safety should be addressed, focusing on the elimination of all traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries. x Broad-based inclusive stakeholder engagement should be a part of Vision Zero implementation. x Safety improvements should be prioritized along HIN (but different from City’s HIN), including speed reduction measures.
x Enforcement efforts should address key priorities and include training for improved data reporting. x Education campaigns should be developed for users of all transportation modes. x The Vision Zero Data Dashboard and other data should be used as tools for agency staff and residents to track progress toward eliminating traffic fatalities and severe-injury collisions.

January 8, 2024
City of Santa Rosa | 31
HHighway 101 Overcrossing ISMND and Fact Sheet (2021)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Highway 101 Overcrossing ISMND and fact sheet Caltrans 2021 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Analyzed options for a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing of Highway 101 between College Avenue and Steele Lane.

Both of these roadways are multilane arterials with interchanges, creating intimidating conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. The project would create a more direct and comfortable route to several destinations expected to generate high demand for pedestrian and bicycle trips, including Santa Rose Junior College, Santa Rosa High School, Ridgway High School, Coddingtown Mall, and the North Santa Rosa SMART station. There would be substantial benefits to residents of disadvantaged communities, as 50 percent of the neighborhoods within a one-mile radius of the project are designated as Equity Priority Communities.

TRANSIT RELATED/ OORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENTT TOPICS
SMART station access

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Two “Build” Alternatives were analyzed. The alternative with the endpoints at Edwards Avenue and Elliott Avenue was selected as the preferred alternative.

The project is expected to reduce pedestrian-vehicle and bicycle-vehicle conflicts, as it would enable pedestrians and bicyclists to avoid the at-grade freeway ramp crossings at College Avenue and Steele Lane.

It was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
The preferred alternative is for a pedestrian/bicyclist bridge over Highway 101 connecting Edwards Avenue on the west side of Highway 101 and Elliott Avenue on the east side. The project would include an 8-foot-wide section for bicyclists and a 5-foot-wide section for pedestrians, potentially separated by a barrier.

KEY TAKEAAWAYS
x The project would provide substantial safety benefits to users and create more direct access for pedestrians and bicyclists between transit stops, schools, shopping, and other destinations.

Appendix B:

Existing
Conditions Memo
City of Santa Rosa
Active Transportation Plan

MEMORANDUM

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | i
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner; City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernández; Alta Planning + Design
CC: Charlie Simpson, Jesús Contreras; Alta Planning + Design Date: April 17, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Active Transportation Pl an - Existing Conditions Memo (FINAL)

Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Background and Description ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Memo Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Community Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Demographics .................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 5 Land Use/Destinations .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Commute Profile ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Employment .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Equity Profile ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Equity Priority Communities ................................................................................................... .............................................. 15 Environmental Health – CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ........................................................................................................................ 17 Public Health – Healthy Places Index .......................................................................................... .......................................... 22 Heat Vulnerability Analysis.................................................................................................... ................................................ 27 Environmental and Public Health Index ................................................................................................................................ 27 Transportation Profile ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Walking Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Transit Network ..................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Network Comfort .............................................................................................................................................................. 58 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress ............................................................................................... ................................................. 58 Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress .......................................................................................................................................... 67

MEMORANDUM

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | ii
Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 74 Collision Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Collision Hot Spots ........................................................................................................... ..................................................... 79 Collisions Involving People Walking ...................................................................................................................................... 82 Collisions Involving People Biking ............................................................................................ ............................................. 87 Active-Trip Potential .......................................................................................................................................................... 92 Key Findings .................................................................................................................. ........................................................ 92 Plan Review ....................................................................................................................................................................... 98 Key Findings .................................................................................................................. ........................................................ 99 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................................... 100 Appendix A: Plan Review ..................................................................................................................................................... 100 Appendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology ............................................................................... ................................ 122 Appendix C: Active-Trip Potential Methodology ................................................................................................................. 136 Appendix D: Collision Severity Index Methodology ............................................................................................................ 141

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 1
Introduction
Project Background and Description
The Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan is focused on improving the active transportation network in the City of Santa Rosa to ensure residents and visitors of all ages and abilities can move about the city with ease and comfort. Improvements to the active transportation network will focus on providing more comfortable and safe facilities for people walking, biking, and rolling (i.e., wheeled mobility devices used by people with disabilities, strollers, scooters, skateboards, and so on). This plan takes a multipronged approach to identify community infrastructure and programmatic and policy recommendations that can support the City’s increased need for a more connected, comfortable, and safe active transportation network. A map of the project study area is included in FFigure 1.1
Memo Overview
This memo summarizes the existing conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling in Santa Rosa based on information derived from sources including past planning documents and geospatial data. This section provides an overview of the memo as well as general findings concerning active transportation in the city. These findings will be combined with outcomes from the public engagement process to develop community-driven and data- informed recommendations in the final Active Transportation Plan.

The memo is organized into the following sections:
● Community Overview: Summary of demographic, income, and land use data ● Equity Profile: Analysis of equity/environmental justice metrics (CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Equity Priority Communities) and health analysis metrics (Healthy Places Index, heat vulnerability) ● Transportation Profile: Overview of existing pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and roadway networks ● Network Comfort: Analysis of the potential stress experienced by people walking, biking, and rolling along city roadways
● Collision Analysis: Overview of collision data, highlighting trends from the five most recent years of available collision data
● Active Trip Potential: Analysis of locations where vehicle trips are short enough to convert to active trips ● Plan Review: Summary of local and regional plans, policies, and standards that impact active transportation in the City of Santa Rosa
The memo also includes supplementary documents included in the appendices below:
● Appendix A: Plan Review: Full summary details from the plans reviewed for this memo ● Appendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology: Full methodology for the Level of Traffic Stress analysis ● Appendix C: Active Trip Potential Methodology: Full methodology for the Active-Trip Potential analysis ● Appendix D: Collision Severity Index Methodology: Full methodology for the Collision Severity Index analysis

1 The parks layer for all maps does not differentiate between ownership and maintenance. Parks are shown as reference only.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 2
Figure 1. Project Study Area

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 3
Summary of Findings
Conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling vary significantly across the city based on equity, health, and transportation safety metrics. The greatest concentration of equity and health deficiencies, as detailed by the analyses completed, is located south of State Route 12 (SR 12) and west of Petaluma Hill Road, which primarily includes the Roseland neighborhood. Other areas that show equity and health deficiencies include central/western portions of the city along either side of Highway 101 and SR 12, including the areas near the Santa Rosa North Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) station, north of Santa Rosa Junior College, and the South Park and West End neighborhoods. A range of environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators show these portions of Santa Rosa to consistently rank as the highest need for mobility investments (see Equity Profile).

These neighborhoods also have higher percentages of the Hispanic population and lower incomes compared to the rest of the city (see IIncome section and related figure). Additional details about environmental and health burdens across the city can be found in the Equity Profile section.

Santa Rosa is located at the junction between Highway 101 and SR 12 and along the SMART rail corridor. While these highways and rail corridor provide regional access for people driving and taking rail transit to the larger region, they act as barriers for people walking, biking, and rolling across the city. Arterials such as Fourth Street, Santa Rosa Avenue, and Sebastopol Road also serve as barriers for people walking, biking, and rolling as they often exhibit wide rights-of-way, high posted speed limits, long crossing distances, and disconnected bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which usually do not provide much separation between vehicles and people walking, biking, and rolling. Many of these arterials are considered high stress for people not traveling by vehicle given the roadway characteristics (see NNetwork Comfort section for more information).

Overall, the bicycle network consists mainly of shared use paths and bicycle lanes. While the network covers many areas of the city, many facilities are disconnected, few opportunities exist for people biking to cross Highway 101 and SR 12, and the southeastern quadrant of the city has few facilities for traveling north across SR 12 into downtown. While the shared use path network is extensive and includes local and regional facilities such as the Prince Memorial Greenway, the Joe Rodota Trail, and the SMART pathway, the network is not fully connected, and on-road facilities leading to them are not connected. This makes it difficult for people to access various parts of the city and neighboring jurisdictions using these low-stress facilities.

The pedestrian network shows a well-connected and dense street grid in the city’s downtown where most streets have complete sidewalks (i.e., on both sides). The streets surrounding the city’s central core become more curvilinear and disconnected, and some streets have incomplete sidewalk networks (i.e., sidewalks on only one side or none). Marked crosswalks exist at almost half (48%) of intersections along major arterials and at about one quarter (24%) of intersections along local roadways. Similar to sidewalks, the marked crosswalks are more prevalent in the city’s downtown and are more dispersed in the outer neighborhoods. Marked crosswalks along major arterials typically require the user to cross multiple lanes of traffic, and the distances between crosswalks become longer outside the grid-based downtown.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 4
Using collision data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the years from 2017 through 2021, a few patterns emerged:2,3
x People walking, biking, and rolling experience a higher rate of collisions resulting in serious injuries or fatalities than people driving.
x Roadways along commercial and mixed-use land use designations experienced higher rates of collisions compared to roadways located within other land uses categories. x The highest number of bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatality (KSI collisions) occurred along arterials, on road segments with speed limits of over 35 miles per hour (MPH), and where roadways intersect with Highway 101 and SR 12.

Next Steps
Findings from the analyses conducted as part of this memo will be used in conjunction with public feedback to inform the development of recommendations in further phases of the Active Transportation Plan.

2 2022 collision figures were not included as part of this analysis as they remained provisional at the time of the completion of this analysis. 3 The Alta team conducted QA/QC of the TIMS data as part of this project. Data points that were misplaced along Highway 101 were relocated to the correct location, which was listed in the collision details.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 5
Community Overview
Santa Rosa is the fifth largest city in the Bay Area and the most populous city in Sonoma County with 177,181 people and covers an area of 41 square miles.4 The city sits on the territorial traditional land of the Pomo people.5 The city is located 55 miles north of San Francisco and approximately 20 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Santa Rosa has a Mediterranean climate, with hot summers and mild winters. Summer temperatures can reach up to the high 90s, while winter lows drop into the mid-40s. These mostly moderate temperatures year-round provide comfortable environments for walking, biking, and rolling. Additionally, the surrounding area is home to over 100 wineries and vineyards, and various regional parks and recreational facilities. Santa Rosa is also home to the Santa Rosa Junior College, which serves Sonoma County and attracts young professional talent. The city has a diverse workforce with the largest private employment sectors being trade and transportation, professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. The city also serves as a retail and commercial center for a five-county area that includes Sonoma County, portions of the Napa Valley, and surrounding agriculture and timber communities. As of 2022, the three largest employers in Santa Rosa are the County of Sonoma, Kaiser Permanente, and Santa Rosa Junior College.6
For planning purposes, the City officially recognizes four geographical quadrants—northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast. The four quadrants primarily align with Highway 101, which runs north-south, and SR 12, which runs east-west through the city. Ridges and valleys characterize the eastern, southeastern, and northeastern edges of the city. The remainder of the city is relatively flat, specifically, the downtown and the area surrounding the Santa Rosa Junior College, which are also the city’s more densely populated areas (i.e., around the core).

Demographics
Age and Sex
In 2022 the city had an estimated population of 177,181 people, almost evenly split with 51% women and 49% men.7 Santa Rosa (median age 40) has a slightly younger population than Sonoma County (median age 43) and a slightly older population than the state (median age 37).8 Figure 2 through FFigure 4 provide a breakdown of the city, Sonoma County, and California populations by age and sex.

4 American Community Survey. 5-Year Estimate (2018–2022). 5 Santa Rosa Junior College, Native American Center: LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT | NAC (santarosa.edu) 6 City of Santa Rosa, CA – Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022. 7 American Community Survey. 5-Year Estimate (2018–2022). 8 Ibid.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 6
Figure 2. Age and Sex – Santa Rosa
Figure 3. Age and Sex – Sonoma County
Figure 4. Age and Sex – California
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
5-19
20-34
35-54
55-64
65-84
Over 85
Percent of Population
Age Group
Female Male
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
5-19
20-34
35-54
55-64
65-84
Over 85
Percent of Population
Age Group
Female Male
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
Under 5
5-19
20-34
35-54
55-64
65-84
Over 85
Percent of Population
Age Group
Female Male
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 7
Race and Ethnicity
Approximately half of Santa Rosa residents self-identify as White (50.8%), and about one-third (34.3%) identify as Hispanic/Latino. These figures are similar to those from Sonoma County (58% and 29%, respectively), but contrast those from the state of California where only about one-third (35%) of people identify as White and 40% are of Hispanic background. F
Figuree 55 presents a racial profile of the city. Tablee 1 compares the racial/ethnic breakdown of city residents to the county and state.

Figure 5. City of Santa Rosa Race/Ethnicity
Table 1. City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, and California Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Santa Rosa Sonoma County California
African American or Black 2.1% 1.5% 5.3%
American Indian 0.8% 0.6% 0.3%
Asian 5.1% 4.5% 14.9%
Hispanic 34.3% 28.9% 39.7%
Native Hawaiian 1.0% 0.3% 0.3%
Two or More Races 4.9% 5.0% 3.8%
Some Other Race 1.0% 0.6% 0.4%
White 50.8% 58.6% 35.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2018–2022) White

50.8%
Hispanic

34.3%
Asian

5.1%
Two or More Races

4.9%
Black

2.1%
Native Hawaiian
1%
Some Other Race
1%
American Indian

0.8%
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 8
Language
Similar to figures for race and ethnicity, a slightly greater share of Santa Rosa residents speak Spanish at home (25%) compared to Sonoma County (20%). However, the proportion of Santa Rosa residents who speak Spanish at home is smaller than the state (28%). FFiguree 6 presents a breakdown of languages spoken at home in Santa Rosa.

Tablee 22 compares the language spoken at home by city residents to the county and state.

Figure 6. City of Santa Rosa Languages Spoken at Home
Table 2. City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, and California Languages Spoken at Home Language Spoken at Home Santa Rosa Sonoma County California Asian Languages 3% 2% 10%
English 68% 74% 56%
Other Indo-European Languages 3% 3% 5%
Other Languages 1% 0.6% 1%
Spanish 25% 20% 28%
Income
The median household income (MHI) for city residents is approximately $92,604, which is lower than the MHI for Sonoma County ($99,266) and slightly higher than the MHI for California ($91,905).9 Additionally, 10% of Santa Rosa residents live below the poverty line, compared to 8.9% of the county and 12.1% of the state.10 Figuree 7 shows the MHI across the city, broken down by census tract. Households making less than $75,000 tend to be concentrated along Highway 101 and SR 12, including the downtown, West Junior College neighborhood, the Roseland neighborhood, the South Park neighborhood, and the area between the SMART station and Highway 101.
9 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2018–2022). 10 Ibid. Following the Office of Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau measures poverty by using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.

English
68%
Spanish
25%
Other Indo-European
languages
3%
Asian Languages
3%
Other languages
1%
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 9 Figure 7. Median Household Income

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 10
The census tracts with the lowest MHI (shown on the map in red)—below $30,000—include a small area in the Roseland neighborhood southwest of the Highway 101 and SR 12 interchange and the area immediately southeast of the Highway 101 and SR 12 interchange just west of the South Park neighborhood.

Land Use/Destinations
Planning for land uses and transportation together helps create safer, more walkable environments. Designating local land uses with mobility in mind can create more access to destinations and resources, as well as support the local economy. Diverse land uses with higher density encourage walking, biking, and rolling trips because destinations are closer together and easier to access. Conversely, segregated land uses that are low density and further apart tend to promote driving trips.

Santa Rosa features a range of land uses, though most areas are designated for low-density residential uses, as shown in FFigure 8 (beige color). Most of the planned development areas (dark blue) are also low-density residential. The areas surrounding Santa Rosa’s SMART stations also have medium- and high-density commercial and residential mixed uses. Additionally, mixed-use commercial centers, office parks, public/institutional uses, and medium- to higher-density housing are located along many of the major roadways such as Highway 101, SR 12, College Avenue (just north of downtown), Mendocino Avenue (West Junior College neighborhood), and Sebastopol Road (Roseland neighborhood). The sites along the highways include several essential destinations such as Santa Rosa Junior College, Kaiser Permanente Santa Rosa Medical Center, and Coddingtown Shopping Center.

In addition to commercial and residential uses, Santa Rosa’s open spaces are scattered across the residential neighborhoods and along local creeks. Industrial uses are also spread throughout the city with the highest concentration in the neighborhoods of Roseland and Piner-Olivet, and along the SMART rail corridor north of the station area. FFigure 8 on the next page provides a general summary of the existing land use throughout the city.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 11 Figure 8. City of Santa Rosa Existing Land Use Map

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 12
Commute Profile
The 2022 National Household Travel Survey dataset was used to provide insight into personal and household travel behavior across the city.11 The data spans from 2017 to 2022, which includes the 2020 pandemic and the major changes in travel patterns it created. It is important to note that these numbers capture a unique point in time and may not reflect the trends in travel patterns before the pandemic or those that may follow. This data focuses primarily on detailed commute data rather than recreational data; however, the data showed that approximately 44% of all trips completed in Santa Rosa were completed through active transportation modes.

According to the National Household Travel Survey, 28% of transportation trips in Santa Rosa were commute-related trips in 2022.12 Of these trips, 71.5% were completed driving alone, and 14.9% were via carpool.13 Across the city, transit use accounts for approximately 1.2% of all commute trips; however, non-White residents use public transit at a significantly higher rate than White residents. Overall, people walking (2.2%) and people biking (1.8%) account for around 4% of total commute trips. However, non-White residents walk and bike to work at higher rates than White residents in Santa Rosa. TTable 3 provides a complete breakdown of commute modes by race/ethnicity.

Table 3. City of Santa Rosa Commute to Work by Race/Ethnicity Race Drive Alone Carpool Transit Walk Bike/Taxi/
Motorcycle14
Work from
Home
African American or
Black 71.1% 3.0% 6.0% 0.3% 2.7% 17.0%
American Indian 76.1% 12.7% 0.0% 3.5% 1.4% 6.3%
Asian 79.0 % 9.1% 1.4% 1.5% 2.6% 6.3%
Hispanic 68.5% 22.0% 0.9% 2.3% 1.9% 4.3%
Native Hawaiian 63.5% 27.4% 4.0% 0.0% 1.8% 3.3%
Two or More Races 75.1% 11.8% 0.4% 1.1% 4.0% 7.7%
Some Other Race 63.5 % 28.9% 1.6% 3.1% 1.8% 1.1%
White 75.4% 4.1% 1.4% 2.2% 0.9% 16.0%
Total Average 71.5% 14.9% 1.9% 1.8% 2.1% 7.8%

11 Federal Highway Administration. 2020. 2020 NextGen NHTS National Passenger OD Data, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

Available online: https://nhts.ornl.gov/od/.
12 National Household Travel Survey, 2022.
13 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2018–2022). 14 NOTE: The numbers presented in this table have been aggregated for bike, taxi, and motorcycle as the American Community Survey combines these commute-to-work categories when presented by race/ethnicity.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 13
Employment
Santa Rosa has many employment opportunities, with two major employment hubs (depicted in red in FFigure 9) centered in downtown and along Highway 101 north of downtown in the West Junior College neighborhood. The downtown area offers a dense mix of restaurants, shops, and services centered around the Old Courthouse Square and the Santa Rosa Plaza shopping mall. As noted in the latest data (2021) from the US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, there are 69,552 jobs in the City of Santa Rosa and 63% of residents are employed.15 Of all the people employed in the city, 37% (26,343) live in the city and 63% (43,209) commute into the city. Additionally, 48% (48,298) of employed residents commuted to a job outside the city.16 The city’s largest employment sectors are healthcare and social assistance, accounting for 23% of all jobs, followed by retail trade, which accounts for 13% of all jobs. There are two primary locations for the healthcare and social assistance jobs; one is at Providence Hospital just east of downtown, and the other is Kaiser Permanente where Mendocino Avenue meets Highway 101. Overall, the concentration of retail and trade employment centers coincides with the healthcare and social assistance centers.

15 U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-household Dynamics. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/, 2021. 16 Ibid.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 14 Figure 9. City of Santa Rosa Employment Hubs (All Jobs/Square Mile)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 15
Equity Profile
This section identifies the areas and populations in the city that may benefit the most from improvements in the active transportation network due to disproportionate societal, environmental, health, and economic burdens.

When distributed equitably, active transportation improvements can help address these burdens and begin to rectify decades of historical disinvestment. Improving infrastructure and access for people walking, biking, and rolling can help improve safety, connectivity, air quality, and public health for communities that often rely on active modes of transportation to get around.

Equity Priority Communities
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) identified Equity Priority Communities (EPCs) as a strategy to make decisions on investments that meaningfully reverse the disparities in access to transportation, housing, and other community services.17 EPCs include census tracts that have significant concentrations of underserved populations, such as households with low incomes and people of color. TTable 4 shows the combination of factors and thresholds that were considered to help define
these areas.

Table 4. Contributing Variables for the MTC EPC
Demographic Variables
Threshold
(by
concentration)
People of Color 70%
Low-Income 28%
Limited English Proficiency 12%
Seniors 75 Years and Over 8%
Zero-Vehicle Households 15%
Single Parent Families 18%
People with a Disability 12%
Rent Burdened Households 14%

Figure 10 shows Santa Rosa’s EPCs (depicted in
yellow and orange), which are concentrated along
Highway 101 and SR 12. However, the largest
concentration of EPCs is located in the Roseland
neighborhood in the Southwest quadrant of the city. F
Figure 10 also shows the City of Santa Rosa’s designated Equity Priority Areas (EPAs) (the red dashed areas on the map) in relation to EPCs. While most of the City’s EPAs overlap with EPCs, EPAs show a smaller, more concentrated area separated by Highway 101 and includes the South Park neighborhood.

17 MTC Equity Priority Communities are available online: Equity Priority Communities | Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ca.gov) Santa Rosa Equity Priority Areas
The City of Santa Rosa further defined Equity Priority Areas (EPAs) as part of the General Plan Forward, an update of the 2035 General Plan. City staff and local advocates recognized that the data gathered and thresholds created for determining EPCs didn’t capture the entire picture and often left out many residents who should still receive priority treatment to undo past harms. To accomplish this work, the City used Census data based on income, race, age, disability, citizenship status, occupation, language, housing status, LGBTQ+, and legal status to further define areas within city limits where these populations were concentrated.

These defined areas are identified as
Equity Priority Areas (EPAs).

It is important to note that the thresholds defined for EPAs were modified from those set by MTC to establish the EPCs. For instance, while the MTC Equity Priority Communities definition uses a threshold of 70% for people-of-color and a 28% threshold for low-income residents, the City’s EPAs use a threshold of 45 .5%
and 12.6%, respectively. Identification of the EPAs became the basis of goals, policies, and actions in the General Plan to address historically disenfranchised communities, ensuring that no Santa Rosa citizen is left behind.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 16 Figure 10. City of Santa Rosa Equity Priority Communities

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 17
Environmental Health – CalEnviroScreen 4.0
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CES)18 examines census tracts based on the combined indicators for 1) pollution burden (i.e., exposures and environmental effects) and 2) population characteristics (i.e., sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors). Pollution burden and population characteristics consist of 21 statewide environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators ranging from low educational attainment to existing ozone levels (more information on each indicator is available from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). The CES results show the communities most affected by and vulnerable to the effects of pollution. Census tracts that score in the top 25th percentile are considered the most disadvantaged statewide and have been targeted for greenhouse gas reduction funding through Senate Bill (SB) 535.19 The California Environmental Protection Agency designates these top-scoring census tracts as disadvantaged communities as defined by SB 535.

Overall CES Score
According to the overall CES scores (FFigure 11), census tracts located primarily in the Roseland neighborhood, south of SR 12 and west of Petaluma Hill Road, score in the top 60th percentile, indicating these areas are more burdened by and vulnerable to pollution compared to other areas of the city. The census tract immediately south and west of Highway 101 and SR 12 interchange in the Roseland neighborhood scores in the top 25 th percentile and
is designated as a disadvantaged community. FFigure 12 and FFigure 13 show the separate pollution burden and population characteristics scores, respectively.

Pollution Burden
Pollution Burden scores are derived from eight indicators of pollution exposure and five indicators of environmental effects (adverse environmental conditions caused by pollutants). The indicators of pollution exposure include:
● Ozone concentrations in air
● PM 2.5 concentrations in air
● Diesel particulate matter emissions
● Drinking water contaminants
● Children’s lead risk from housing
● Use of certain high-hazard, high-volatility
pesticides
● Toxic releases from facilities
● Traffic Impacts

The indicators of environmental effects include:
● Location of Toxic cleanup sites
● Groundwater threats from leaking
underground storage sites and cleanups
● Hazardous waste facilities and generators
● Impaired water bodies
● Solid waste sites and facilities

Additional Information about these indicators can be found under the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Indicators Overview page.

18 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 available online: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 19 Senate Bill 535 establishes minimum funding requirements and definitions for disadvantaged communities.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 18
As shown in Figure 12, the census tract with the highest pollution burden (78%) is located southeast of the Highway 101 and SR 12 interchange west of Petaluma Hill Road. This census tract was also one of the highest scoring for the CES overall. Other areas of the city with relatively high pollution burden (over 50th percentile) are located in the Roseland neighborhood and east of Highway 101 near Santa Rosa Junior College. The proximity to Highway 101 and SR 12 likely explains CalEnviroScreen’s finding that traffic and diesel particulate matter are the highest pollutants in these locations.

Population Characteristics (Pollution Vulnerability)
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 also uses a combined index for summarizing population characteristics that result in increased vulnerability to pollution.20 These population characteristics include the following indicators:
● High incidence of asthma
● High incidence of cardiovascular disease
● Low birth weight of infants
● Low educational attainment
● Housing burden21
● Linguistic isolation22
● Poverty23
● High unemployment rates

Similar to the CES overall score (FFigure 11) and the pollution burden scores (FFigure 12), the areas along Highway 101 and SR 12 (west of Farmers Lane) had relatively high (above 50%) scores for population characteristics that resulted in increased vulnerability to pollution (FFigure 13). The census tract experiencing the highest pollution vulnerability (87%) is located southeast of the Highway 101 and SR 12 interchange west of Petaluma Hill Road.

This census tract was also one of the highest scoring for the CES overall and pollution burden scores. The other highest scoring census tracts (most vulnerable to pollution) are also located in the Roseland neighborhood and just north of the Santa Rosa North SMART station.

20 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 available online: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 21 Based on data from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. This indicator identifies the percentage of households in a census tract that are both low income (making less than 80% of their county’s median family income) and severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50% of their income for housing costs). 22 Based on data from the American Community Survey. Identifies percentage of limited English-speaking households, which are households where no one over age 14 speaks English well.
23 Based on data from the American Community Survey. Identifies the percentage of the population with incomes less than two times the federal poverty level.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions DRAFT 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 19 Figure 11. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Overall Score

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 20 Figure 12. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Pollution Burden

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 21 Figure 13. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Pollution Vulnerability Based on Population Characteristics

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 22
Public Health – Healthy Places Index
The Healthy Places Index (HPI), developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California, provides valuable insights into specific public policy and health considerations. The overall index is a composite of 25 individual metrics, which cover economics, education, social, transportation, healthcare access, neighborhood composition, housing, and environmental factors.24 Census tracts that score in the bottom 25th percentile are typically considered the unhealthiest at the statewide level.

Overall HPI Score
Overall HPI scores for the city are shown in FFigure 14. Lower HPI scores (depicted by red on the map) signify higher levels of health vulnerability. Two significant metrics related to public health and transportation include park access (FFigure 15) and retail density (FFigure 16). Parks are important community assets and provide outdoor open space and places for recreation and exercise. Retail density is measured by the number of retail, entertainment, and education jobs per acre. Access to jobs, schools, and shops can improve residents’ health and quality of life by lowering household costs, encouraging active modes of travel, and supporting community connections. These metrics are explained in greater detail in the following sections.

The most health-vulnerable tracts, or those that score within the bottom 25th percentile of HPI overall, are located south of SR 12 (Roseland and South Park neighborhoods) and west of Highway 101, north of Guerneville Road. According to the HPI, these census tracts experience worse health conditions, more limited transportation options, and greater housing burdens than 75% of all census tracts in California. Additionally, there are many areas in the northeastern part of the city in the hillside neighborhoods that also score in the bottom 25th percentile of HPI overall. However, areas in the northeastern quadrant of the city, such as near Howarth Park and Fountaingrove Lake, score lower on the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 analyses, indicating they are less burdened/vulnerable to pollution compared to other parts of the city.

Park Access
Parks are distributed throughout the city including small City-owned neighborhood parks and larger community parks, regional parks, a state park, and open space areas owned by various agencies. The Healthy Places Index defines park access as the percentage of the population living within ½ mile of a park, beach, or open space that is larger than 1 acre.25 FFigure 15 displays access to parks for Santa Rosa residents.26 The areas with relatively limited park access (below the 30th percentile) are south of SR 12 (Roseland and South Park neighborhoods), west of Highway 101 (north of Guerneville Road), and in the hillside residential areas located in the northeastern quadrant of the city. It is important to note that, while the northeastern areas of the city have limited access to parks, they do not have the same socioeconomic burdens that other areas of the city with limited park access experience.

24 Healthy Places Index 3.0, Public Health Alliance of Southern California. https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/ 25 Ibid.
26 Healthy Places Index 3.0, Public Health Alliance of Southern California. https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/ Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 23
Retail Density
The Healthy Places Index defines retail density as the number of retail, entertainment, and education jobs per acre.27 As noted in FFigure 16, retail density (areas in grey) is concentrated in the central core of the city along Highway 101.

The area extending from the Memorial Hospital Neighborhood to the Lincoln Manor Association and the North Junior College Neighborhood Association have the highest retail density according to the HPI data. Conversely, areas with less retail density tend to be primarily residential and/or contain a narrow set of jobs and services. The retail density map shows similar results to the employment hubs identified in FFigure 9; however, the retail density results specifically show areas with a diverse range of jobs and services that might be useful for residents to meet their daily needs. For example, the area of the Roseland neighborhood south of Sebastopol Road and west of Stony Point Road has a relatively high job density (FFigure 9), but scores as the least accessible (below 20%) in terms of retail density (FFigure 16). These results are likely caused by the low concentration of retail and social services even as the area is home to job centers such as Kaiser Pharmacy Mercury Way Medical Office Building and the Robert L. Stevens School.

27 Healthy Places Index 3.0, Public Health Alliance of Southern California. https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/ Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 24 Figure 14. Healthy Places Index – Overall Score

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 25 Figure 15. Healthy Places Index – Park Access

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 26 Figure 16. Healthy Places Index – Retail Density

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 27
Heat Vulnerability Analysis
Heat Health Action Index
The Heat Health Action Index is composed of several variables that represent heat vulnerability, a metric that indicates the relative effects of social vulnerability factors (e.g., race, education, age, income, and transportation), health factors (e.g., physical disability, asthma, and heart health), and environmental factors (e.g., land development, ozone, particulate matter, tree canopy, and urban heat islands) to gauge how vulnerable communities may be to relative changes in temperature and increases in the number of heat events. People with limited vehicle access who must walk, bike, or take transit tend to be more vulnerable to high temperatures; therefore, the availability or lack of shade can be a major factor in opting to walk, bike, or access transit.

The Heat Health Action Index is based on a score of 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating less heat vulnerability.

The average summer temperature in California is projected to increase by 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.28 As the average temperature increases, the frequency and severity of extreme heat events—periods of relatively hotter and more humid conditions that impact the social, health, and environmental factors listed in the preceding paragraph—will also increase in frequency and severity. FFigure 117 shows the Heat Health Action Index for Santa Rosa. Areas with higher heat vulnerability (depicted by red on the map) include:
● Neighborhoods immediately west of Highway 101 between Hearn Avenue and Piner Road. ● The downtown area east of Highway 101 between College Avenue and Sonoma Avenue. ● Northern portions of the Roseland Neighborhood.

Environmental and Public Health Index
As shown in the previous sections (CalEnviroScreen and HPI), environmental and public health burdens can diminish the conditions that promote active transportation. Environmental burdens may impact safety on roadways while public health burdens may reduce access to active transportation. For example, residents living near a freeway and with limited access to open space may take fewer active trips due to unsafe conditions and a lack of destinations. Therefore, bridging residents to local destinations with adequate active transportation facilities can help reduce environmental and public health burdens.

Figure 18 includes a bivariate analysis illustrating the relationship between the level of environmental burdens and the level of public health burdens in the same location. Areas of the city showcased in the darkest red indicate higher environmental burdens and public health burdens. Areas with a lighter red indicate a higher environmental burden and areas with a darker blue color indicate a higher public health burden. The areas of the city along either side of Highway 101 and in the Roseland neighborhood west of Stony Point Road experience high environmental burdens and medium public health burdens (depicted by a lighter red color on the map). The area around Coffey Park, north of Piner Road and west of Highway 101, experiences both a high environmental and public health burden. The areas on the eastern side of the city along SR 12 experience a high public health burden but have a low environmental burden.

28 California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment - Summary Report (2018).

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 28 Figure 17. Heat Health Action Index

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 29 Figure 18. Environmental and Health Index

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 1
Transportation Profile
Located in the northern Bay Area, Santa Rosa is a major employment hub in Sonoma County. The city is set at the junction between Highway 101 and SR 12, just northwest of the City of Sonoma (FFigure 19). Although Highway 101 provides direct access for residents into San Francisco, it also bisects the city creating accessibility barriers between the eastern and western portions of the city. Similarly, SR 12 provides connections between the Sonoma County coastal communities and Napa County but splits the city creating access barriers between the northern and southern parts of the city. The SMART railroad tracks which run north-south, also serve as barriers for people walking, biking, and rolling from eastern to western parts of the city.

Figure 19 shows the major streets and highways that form the street network in the city. The city’s arterials have a wide range of street characteristics, from two-lane roadways to wide multilane roadways, however, they often carry higher motor vehicle volumes and speeds compared to local roadways.

Santa Rosa also benefits from various local and regional shared use paths, such as the Prince Memorial Greenway, the Joe Rodota Trail, and the SMART pathway. The Santa Rosa Creek Trail runs from downtown Santa Rosa west to Fulton Road, where it continues west into unincorporated Sonoma County. The Joe Rodota Trail connects downtown Santa Rosa west to the neighboring City of Sebastopol. The SMART pathway includes 28 miles of constructed shared use path, with plans to complete a shared use path along the entire SMART trail corridor.

Within the City of Santa Rosa, the SMART pathway runs from Bellevue Avenue in the southern part of the city to Guerneville Road at the Santa Rosa North SMART station. Although extensive, some of these shared use paths are interrupted by large roads creating gaps in the network. Examples include along Joe Rodota Trail at Dutton Avenue and Stony Point Road and along SMART trail at Sebastopol Avenue. Furthermore, while there is a concentration of shared use paths on the western sides of the city, eastern parts of the city do not include extensive separated facilities for people walking, biking, and rolling.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 30
Figure 19. Map of Existing Streets and Highway Network

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 31
Walking Facilities
Sidewalks/Shared Use Paths
Santa Rosa has over 360 miles of completed
sidewalks (see TTablee 5) and 32 miles of existing
shared use paths, creating many opportunities for
people walking to make trips on foot. However,
there are over 200 miles of roadways with
incomplete walking networks, where sidewalks are
largely absent from one or both sides of the
street. F
Figuree 200 through Figuree 255 show the city’s
existing pedestrian network that includes sidewalks
and shared use paths. The pedestrian network
shows a well-connected and dense street grid in
the city’s downtown where most streets have
complete sidewalks (both sides). The dense street
grid extends to the Santa Rosa Junior College but
is cut off on the west by the highways and the
city’s eastern hillside. Streets surrounding the
central core of the city become more curvilinear
and disconnected and typically have missing or
incomplete sidewalks. The Roseland
neighborhood, southwest of SR 12, tends to be
more industrial with larger blocks, with some
incomplete sidewalks.

Table 5. Existing Pedestrian Network 29
Facility Miles*
Class I Shared use Paths 72
Existing 32
Proposed 40
Sidewalks 563
Incomplete (both sides) 98
Incomplete (one side) 104
Complete (both sides) 361
Total 635
*Excludes freeways and on/off-ramps
29 These figures do not account for existing facilities along private roadways.

Sidewalks along 4th Street in Downtown Santa Rosa.

SMART path (shared use path) in Santa Rosa.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 32 Figure 20. Existing Pedestrian Network (citywide)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 33
Figure 21. Existing Pedestrian Network Downtown

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 34
Figure 22. Existing Pedestrian Network (Northwest)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 35 Figure 23. Existing Pedestrian Network (Northeast)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 36 Figure 24. Existing Pedestrian Network (Southwest)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 37
Figure 25. Existing Pedestrian Network (Southeast)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 38
Intersections/Crosswalks
Alta obtained data on crosswalk presence as well as sidewalk presence and width from a third-party vendor that uses aerial imagery to derive existing facilities data.30 Generally, Alta found that the presence of crosswalks and sidewalks was highly accurate. Alta spot-checked the data by using the Measure function in ArcGIS Pro against aerial imagery. The data showed that curb ramps are present throughout the city both at minor and major intersections. Crosswalk markings (TTablee 6) exist at approximately 48% of intersections along collectors and arterials but are less common at intersections between local roads. However, crosswalks are often present at intersections between local roads near schools and parks. Figuree 26 through FFiguree 31 identify the locations that feature marked crosswalks.

Table 6. Existing Crosswalks
Intersections Percentage with One or
More Marked Crosswalks
All Intersections (3,846 total intersections) 24%
Intersection with Collector/Arterial (1,533 total intersections) 48% 30 https://www.ecopiatech.com/
High-visibility crosswalk with curb ramps in Downtown Santa Rosa.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 39 Figure 26. Marked Crosswalks (citywide)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 40 Figure 27. Marked Crosswalks (Downtown)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 41
Figure 28. Marked Crosswalks (Northwest)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 42 Figure 29. Marked Crosswalks (Northeast)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 43 Figure 30. Marked Crosswalks (Southwest)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 44 Figure 31. Marked Crosswalks (Southeast)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 45
Bicycle Facilities
As of the writing of this memo, Santa Rosa has 110 miles of bicycle facilities as shown in TTablee 7, FFiguree 32 through FFigure 38, with plans to build 130 more miles of bicycle facilities.31 Most existing bicycle facilities include bike lanes (Class II) with 68 miles and shared use paths (Class I) with 32 miles. Many of the shared use paths and bike lanes stretch along cross-city corridors working in conjunction to provide connections between the downtown and the Santa Rosa Junior College. However, many of the bike lanes are along multilane arterials such as Stony Point Road, may feel uncomfortable to most people based on posted speeds and lack of separation.

From the 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the City proposed 40 miles of new shared use paths. Some of these new trails will run along Santa Rosa Creek and the SMART rail line.

Table 7. Existing Bike Facilities by Class
Bike Facility Classification Existing Facilities (Mi.) Proposed Facilities (Mi.) Shared Use Path Class I 31.9 40.0
Bike Lane Class II 68.4 45.0
Buffered Bike Lane Class IIB 5.8 1.0
Bike Route Class III 1.1 40.0
Bicycle Boulevard Class IIIB 1.9 2.0
Separated Bike Lane Class IV 0.8 2.0
Total 109.9 130.0
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000) defines four types of bicycle facilities: Class I bike paths (shared use paths), Class II bicycle lanes, Class III bicycle routes, and Class IV separated bikeways (separated bike lanes). In addition to these four types, this plan recognizes two additional types of bicycle facilities: Class IIB buffered bike lanes (described below as part of Class II) and Class IIIB bicycle boulevards. Each of these bicycle facility types are described below.

Classs II –– Bikee Pathh (Sharedd Usee Path))
Class I facilities are dedicated paths for walking,
biking, and rolling that might parallel streets but
are completely separated from the roadway by at
least five feet. Since Class I facilities are shared
between people walking, biking, and rolling, this
plan uses the term “shared use path” instead of
“bike path” to describe Class I facilities. This
terminology is consistent with the Federal Highway
Administration, American Association of State
31 Proposed facilities are from the 2018 Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

The Prince Memorial Greenway is an example of a Class I shared use path in Santa Rosa.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 46
Transportation Officials, and National Association of City Transportation Officials.

CClasss III –– Bikee Lanee
Class II bike lanes are striped lanes for bicyclists
located against the curb or next to a parking lane.

This includes buffered bike lanes (referred to in this
plan as Class IIB buffered bike lanes) which include a
striped “buffer” area of paint either between the
bicycle lane and the travel lane, between the bicycle
lane and parked cars, or both.

Classs IIII –– Bikee Route
Class III bike routes are signed routes for bicyclists, where lanes are shared with motorists. These routes
are typically placed on local roads with low vehicle
volumes and speeds.

Class II bike lane on Third Street in downtown Santa Rosa.

Class III bike route on Sonoma Avenue in Santa Rosa.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 47
CClasss IIIBB –– Bikee Boulevardd
Class IIIB bike boulevards are signed routes for
bicyclists, where lanes are shared with motorists.

What separates bike boulevards from a Class III bike
route is the inclusion of traffic-calming features or
other treatments to prioritize bicyclist comfort and
deliberately slow vehicles down or reduce vehicle
volumes.

Classs IVV –– Separatedd Bikewayy (Separatedd Bikee Lane)) Separated bike lanes provide a physical vertical
barrier between the bicycle space and motor vehicle
lanes. The barrier could include bollards, flex posts,
curbs, planted medians, or parked cars.

The city’s first Class IV separated bike lane is on Armory Drive between Ridgeway Avenue and Elliott Avenue.

Class IIIB bike boulevard roadway marking on the Humboldt Street Bike Boulevard in Santa Rosa. The street also includes speed humps as traffic calming.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 48
Figure 32. Existing Bicycle Facilities

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 49

Figure 33. Existing Bicycle Facilities (Downtown)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 50

Figure 34. Existing Bicycle Facilities (Northwest)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 51

Figure 35. Existing Bicycle Facilities (Northeast)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 52

Figure 36. Existing Bicycle Facilities (Southwest)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 53

Figure 37. Existing Bicycle Facilities (Southeast)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 54
Figure 38. Bicycle Facilities – includes Ex isting, Planned (Budgeted or in Design), and Previously Proposed Bicycle Facilities (2018 BMP)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 55
Transit Network
Santa Rosa is linked to Sonoma County and the greater Bay Area through Sonoma County Transit, SMART Rail, and Golden Gate Transit. There are also regional connections via Amtrak and Greyhound services. Additionally, there are direct transit routes to Bay Area airports via airport transit services. Locally, Santa Rosa CityBus operates on fixed routes with connections to all the aforementioned transit providers. The local CityBus network includes 13 bus routes that extend throughout the city (see FFigure 39). Most bus routes connect to the downtown and all buses are equipped with two or three front-mounted bike racks. Local bus lines, including local neighborhood lines and cross-city routes, connect riders to five major transfer points each located within one of the city’s four quadrants and downtown:
x Coddingtown Transit Hub & Shopping Center,
x Westside Transfer Center, Santa Rosa Plaza,
x Montgomery Village Transit Hub, and
x Transit Mall.

In particular, the Downtown Transit Mall station connects to the Sonoma County Transit as well as regional bus service like Greyhound, Mendocino Transit Authority, Golden Gate Transit, and SMART Train. Sonoma County Transit also provides connections to Sonoma, Sebastopol, Petaluma, Cloverdale, Windsor, Healdsburg, the Sonoma Airport and to Cal State Sonoma. SMART Train connects to San Rafael, Mendocino Transit Authority connects to Fort Bragg and the western coast, and Golden Gate Transit connects to San Francisco. A map of existing bus routes can be seen in FFigure 39. Additional details on the busiest bus stops in the city are included in Table 8 and FFigure 40.

Table 8. Busiest Bus Stops Citywide (by average daily boardings/alightings) Bus Stop Name
Average Daily
Boardings
Average Daily
Alightings
Transit Mall 963 743
Coddingtown Transit Hub 251 170
Sonoma Avenue at Farmers Lane (Bus Stop 80439) 85 52
Sonoma Avenue at Farmers Lane (Bus Stop 80407) 66 76
Sebastopol Road at Stony Point Road 62 22
Santa Rosa Junior College Campus 61 20
Finley Avenue at Wright Road 48 45
Hearn Avenue at Burbank Avenue 41 35
1700 Fulton Road Piner High School 39 29
Sebastopol Road at West Avenue 37 40
Sonoma Avenue at Carley Drive 34 9
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 56 Figure 39. Map of Transit Routes

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 57 Figure 40. Map of Average Daily Boardings and Alightings at Bus Stops

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 58
Network Comfort
Level of comfort is an important consideration for where people walk, bike, or roll. Comfort can impact a user’s willingness to travel, perceived distances, and perceived safety. To understand the level of comfort for different users and abilities, Alta conducted level of traffic stress (LTS) assessments that separately measured the pedestrian and bicycle comfort of each street and trail (Class I shared use paths) in the city. For these analyses, Alta divided each roadway into segments of no more than 120 feet. LTS scores were determined by characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect a user’s perception of safety and comfort. These analyses helped identify segments that represent the highest barriers to walking, biking, and rolling based on users’ ability and comfort level.

The following section provides a summary of the findings for each analysis. Additional details on the methodologies used to calculate these analyses can be found in AAppendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology and AAppendix C: Active-Trip Potential Methodology.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
The bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS) methodology used for this project is adapted from the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity32 and from research by Peter Furth.33 BLTS was determined by roadway factors including posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, as well as the presence and type of bicycle facility. AAppendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology includes a detailed description of the BLTS methodology. The combination of these criteria classifies a road segment into one of four levels of traffic stress as shown in FFigure 41. SR 12, a limited access highway, was not scored because biking is either not permitted or highly discouraged in these areas.

As noted in AAppendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology, there are various factors that influence the BLTS scores of a particular corridor. These include the presence (or lack thereof) of bicycle facilities, posted speed limits, presence, and width of on-street parking adjacent to bicycle facilities, number of travel lanes of the corridor, and the presence of trails. For example, the BLTS score of a corridor which includes an existing Class II bike lanes can be negatively influenced by the higher number of travel lanes (5 lanes) and higher posted speed limit (40 MPH). This is the case of Sebastopol Road (west of Stony Point Road). Similarly, a corridor with no bicycle facilities and lower posted speed limits (25 MPH), may receive a higher (LTS 1 or 2) BLTS score. This is the case of the segment of Benton Street between Ripley Street and Mendocino Avenue.

32 Mineta Institute. Mekuria M., Furth P., Nixon H. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. 2012. https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/Low- Stress-Bicycling-and-Network-Connectivity.
33 Furth, P. Level of Traffic Stress. 2012. https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/level-of-traffic-stress/ Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 59
Figure 41. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Findings
The BLTS analysis results showed that most major roadways in Santa Rosa, shown in orange and red (LTS 3 and 4 respectively) in FFigure 42 through FFigure 47, represent high-stress environments for people biking, despite the presence of Class II bike lanes on many roadways. For example, Sebastopol Road, West Third Street, and West College Avenue, all arterial streets with existing Class II bike lanes, include posted speed limits over 35 MPH which negate the presence of the bicycle facility and contribute to higher stress for most people biking.

Local roads provide more comfortable travel within neighborhoods (LTS 1 and 2), shown in blue and teal, while shared use paths such as the Joe Rodota Trail and Santa Rosa Creek Trail, provide separation and low-stress east- west connections along the SR 12 corridor. The lack of connected low-stress corridors in other parts of the city means that many trips require traveling on high-stress streets or stitching together indirect routes on low-stress streets. This increases travel times and may inhibit bicycling.

Compared to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018 BLTS analysis, some corridors, like Montecito Avenue, Parker Hill Road, Jennings Avenue, Spencer Avenue, and San Miguel Avenue, have shifted from a LTS 4 to LTS 1 or 2. However, the majority of roadways with high-stress scores (BLTS 3 and BLTS 4) remain unchanged. It is important to note that some score changes may be the result of the implementation of improved facilities. These changes may also be attributed to the use of an updated methodology which included additional inputs to further refine the results and to the availability of more robust and complete data sets available for this analysis.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 60
Considerations
As previously noted, BLTS scores provide a data driven outlook of existing roadway conditions for people bicycling. To improve the BLTS scores a jurisdiction may consider the implementation of buffers or physical barriers to create more separation between traffic lanes and bike lanes, the reduction of speed limits, or elimination of on-street parking, whenever feasible. For example, the BLTS score for roadways like Guerneville Road (BLTS 4 corridor – west of Highway 101) may be improved by the implementation of buffer areas with vertical delineators to create more separation between motorists and people biking. Similarly, corridors with Class II bike lanes with lower BLTS scores (BLTS 3 or 4) may improve their scores by ensuring that the bike lane is at least six feet wide and reducing roadway speeds to no more than 25 MPH when a parking lane is present or 30 MPH when a parking lane is not present. Finally, shared streets with no dedicated bicycle facilities can also achieve an LTS 1 when the speed limit does not exceed 25 MPH. Additional information on thresholds can be found in AAppendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology..

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 61
Figure 42. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 62

Figure 43. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Downtown

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 63

Figure 44. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Northwest

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 64

Figure 45. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Northeast

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 65

Figure 46. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Southwest

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 66

Figure 47. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Southeast

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 67
Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
The pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) methodology used for this analysis was adapted from the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Analysis Procedures Manual34 and was intended as a companion for the BLTS analysis. PLTS was determined by characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect the perception of safety and comfort for a person walking, including sidewalk presence and width, sidewalk buffer width and type, posted speed limit, and number of travel lanes. AAppendix C: Active-Trip Potential Methodology includes a more detailed description of the PLTS methodology. PLTS scores classify road segments into one of four levels of traffic stress, and while similar to BLTS scores, PLTS considers the level of attention required in addition to the user experience as shown in FFigure 48.

Figure 48. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
Findings
Similar to the results from the BLTS analysis, the PLTS analysis showed that most major roadways also represent high- stress environments for people walking and rolling, as shown in FFigure 48 through FFigure 54. While many of these roadways include six-foot sidewalks on both sides, their lack of a buffer (space between people walking and motorists), faster speeds (i.e., posted speed limits over 30 MPH), and wider roadway widths (three to four lanes total in some segments) detract from their LTS score. Some specific examples of higher-stress roadways include Montgomery Drive, Sonoma Avenue, Santa Rosa Avenue, and Mendocino Avenue. On the other hand, the Joe Rodota Trail, Santa Rosa Creek Trail, and Brush Creek Trail provide low-stress connections between some city neighborhoods. It Is important to note that throughout various parts of the city, major roads are often the only connection to destinations. Stressful conditions experienced along these roads act as a barrier to walking and rolling, hindering connectivity within and across neighborhoods of the city. Full results of the PLTS analysis are shown in F Figure 49.

34 Oregon Department of Transportation. 2020. Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2. Transportation Development Division Planning Section:

Transportation Planning Analysis Unit. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Planning/Pages/APM.aspx

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 68 Figure 49. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 69

Figure 50. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress – Downtown

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 70

Figure 51. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress – Northwest

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 71

Figure 52. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Northeast

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 72

Figure 53. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Southwest

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 73

Figure 54. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Southeast

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 74
Collision Analysis
To understand areas of the city with high incidence of bicycle and pedestrian collisions, Alta completed a collision analysis using data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the years 2017 to 2021.35,36 The data and analysis only represent collisions resulting in injuries. From this analysis, the following patterns emerged:
x People walking, biking, and rolling experience a higher rate of collisions resulting in serious injuries or fatalities than people driving.
x Roadways along commercial and mixed-use land use designations experienced higher rates of collisions compared to roadways located within other land use categories. x The highest number of bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatality (KSI collisions) occurred along arterials, road segments with speed limits of over 35 MPH, and where roadways intersect with Highway 101 and SR 12.

The sections that follow provide additional details on overall trends and break down the collision data for people walking, biking, and rolling.

Collision Trends
Between 2017 and 2021, there were 3,313 reported collisions on Santa Rosa roadways. Although the overall number of collisions is decreasing across all modes as noted in FFigure 55, people walking, biking, and rolling continue to be overrepresented in the percentage of collisions resulting in fatal or severe injuries (killed or severe injury, referred to as “KSI”) as noted in FFigure 57. As noted, a greater share of bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions (20% and 9%, respectively) resulted in KSI compared to the share of KSI for motor vehicles (6%) During the same period, KSI collisions involving motor vehicles remained relatively consistent at around 30, except for a spike in 2018 (FFigure 56). While the number of pedestrian-related KSIs spiked in 2019, the overall trend has decreased at a faster rate than that for bicycle-related and driving-related KSIs. FFigure 58 shows a map of collisions involving people walking, biking, and rolling between 2017 and 2021. The results show a concentration of bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions in the downtown area, the area surrounding Santa Rosa Junior College, and along major arterials.

35 Please note that 2022 collision figures were not included as part of this analysis as they remained provisional at the time of the completion of this analysis.
36 The Alta team conducted QA/QC of the TIMS data as part of this project. Data points that were misplaced along Highway 101 were relocated to the correct location which was listed in the collision details.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 75
Figure 55. Collisions By Mode – All Injuries (2017–2021) Figure 56. Collisions by Mode – Killed or Severely Injured (2017–2021) 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Motor Vehicle Collisions
Bike & Ped Collisions
Pedestrians Motor Vehicles Bicyclists
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Motor Vehicle Collisions
Bike & Ped Collisions
Pedestrians Motor Vehicles Bicyclists
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 76
Figure 57. KSI Collisions Compared to All Injury Collisions for People Walking, Biking, and Driving (2017–2021) FFiguree 644 and Figuree 688 in the subsequent sections provide a visual summary of pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved collisions and aggregate the data by severity and posted speed limits. The data show that 57% of bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions occurred along corridors compared to 43% at intersections. Most bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions occurred on roads with speeds under 44 MPH, however, a higher proportion of KSI collisions occurred on higher-speed roads. The most common collision type for people walking, biking, and rolling (all severities, including KSI) included:
x People walking in the crosswalk (57%)
x Bicyclist right-of-way (People driving failed to yield to bicyclists) (66%) x Most bicyclist-involved collisions (54%) occurred along roadways with posted speeds under 34 MPH Additional details on collisions involving people walking, biking, and rolling are provided in the sections below.

Collisions by Time of Day
Figuree 59 and FFiguree 60 show the distribution of bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions throughout the day for weekdays and weekends. During weekdays, collisions involving people walking, biking, and rolling occurred most often during the afternoon peak commute hours of 3 to 5 PM. The 5 PM hour had the most recorded KSIs of any other time of day throughout the week. The data also indicated that the morning commute (5 to 8 AM) and midday lunch break (11 AM to 1 PM) also experience peaks, although not as high. This follows expected traffic patterns where the highest traffic is generally influenced by morning and evening commutes.

Over the weekend, most collisions occurred in the evening (3 to 7 PM). This weekend peak may account for recreational bicyclists and visitors who may prefer to ride their bicycles after peak temperatures.

These trends coincide with those of other similar jurisdictions where bicyclist-involved collisions during the weekdays primarily involve people commuting to work while collisions on the weekends primarily involve people enjoying recreational bike rides.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pedestrians Motor Vehicles Bicyclists
KSI Other
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 77
Figure 58. Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions by Severity (2017–2021)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 78
Figure 59. Bike and Pedestrian Collisions by Time of Day (Weekday) Figure 60. Bike and Pedestrian Collisions by Time of Day (Weekend) Collisions by Type of Injury
Figure 61 shows the overall types of injuries experienced by people walking, biking, and rolling for the five-year period. As noted, more than half (53%) of collisions resulted in some form of visible injury while 16% resulted in KSI with 3% of those resulting in fatalities.
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 KSI Other
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
KSI Other
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 79
Figure 61. Collisions Involving People Walking and People Biking by Type of Injury (2017–2021) Collision Hot Spots
From 2017 to 2021, bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions in Santa Rosa were concentrated around commercial and educational land uses, and at intersections along major roadways as shown in TTablee 9.

Table 9. Top Intersections by Number of Collisions for People Walking and Biking (All Severities) Intersection Name
Collisions
Involving
People
Walking
Intersection Name Collisions Involving
People Biking
SR 12 and Stony Point Road 6 Guerneville Road and Range Avenue 4 Steele Lane and Highway 101 5 Sebastopol Road and Stony Point Road 3 College Avenue and Highway 101 4 Joe Rodota Trail and Stony Point Road 3 Sebastopol Road and Dutton Avenue 2 Steele Lane and Highway 101 3 Steven Gables Drive and Fulton Road 2 Colgan Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue 2 Pacific Avenue and Mendocino Avenue 2 Milicent Way and Santa Rosa Avenue 2 Third Street and B Street 2 Fourth Street and Brookwood Avenue 2 The downtown area and the area surrounding the Santa Rosa Junior College and High School—specifically, Third Street, College Avenue, and Mendocino Avenue—were corridors experiencing a high number of bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions between 2017 and 2021. Other corridors that accounted for a high number of bicycle and pedestrian-related collisions included: Santa Rosa Avenue, Mendocino Avenue, Guerneville Road, Steele Lane, Sebastopol Road, Third Street, Fulton Road, and S Wright Road. It is important to note that numerous severe- injury and fatal collisions (KSI) occurred at freeway on- and off-ramps. Bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions that resulted in KSI primarily occurred where highways intersected with major arterials: Steele Lane/Highway 101, College Avenue/Highway 101, Hearn Avenue/Highway 101, and Stony Point Road/SR 12.

Killed 3%
Severely Injured 13%
Visible Injury 37%
Complaint of Pain 47%
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 80
High-Injury Network
As part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018, the City identified six roadway segments as High- Injury Bicycle Corridors (TTable 10) and 12 roadway segments as High-Injury Pedestrian Corridors (TTable 11). These corridors were identified by the number of collisions resulting in severe-injury (KSI) collisions.

Table 10. Top Corridors by Number of KSI Collisions for People Biking (2018 plan) Street Segment Limits KSI Collisions
Sebastopol Road Mattson Road to Dutton Avenue 6
Mendocino Avenue Elliot Avenue to 10th Street 5
Guerneville Road/Steele Lane Dutton Avenue to Rowe Drive 5 Stony Point Road College Avenue to Campbell Drive 5
Santa Rosa Avenue Petaluma Hill Road to Colgan Avenue 3 Montgomery Drive Farmers Lane to Mission Boulevard 3

Table 11. Top Corridors by Number of KSI Collisions for People Walking (2018 plan) Street Segment Limits KSI Collisions
Mendocino Avenue McConnel Avenue to Fourth Street 9
Guerneville Road/Steele Lane Coffey Lane to Mendocino Avenue 8 Stony Point Road Glenbrook Drive to Sebastopol Road 5
Range Avenue Bicentennial Way to Guerneville Road 5
College Avenue Link Lane to Mendocino Avenue 5
Santa Rosa Avenue Court Road to Bellevue Avenue 4
Fourth Street Mendocino Avenue to College Avenue 4
Santa Rosa Avenue Charles Street to Mill Street 3
Third Street Gate Way to Stony Point Road 3
Piner Road Bay Village Circle to Coffey Lane 3
Farmers Lane Long Drive to Sonoma Avenue 3
Third Street Highway 101 to E Street 3

The results from the updated collision analysis (2017–2021 data) indicated that many of the 2018 high-injury corridors continue to experience a high number of KSI collisions for people walking, biking, and rolling. Table 12 provides the top eight corridors by number of KSI collisions for people walking, biking, and rolling during the 2017–2021 period. It is important to note that a number of these collisions occurred at on- and off-ramps for Highway 101 and SR 12 at Steele Lane, College Avenue, Stony Point Road, and Brookwood Avenue.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 81
Table 12. Top Eight Corridors by Number of KSI Collisions for People Walking and Biking (2017–2021) Corridor Segments Segment Limits
Segment
Length
(Miles)
KSI Collisions
Santa Rosa Avenue Highway 101 to Bellevue Avenue 2.0 9 Steele Lane Coffey Lane to Mendocino Avenue 1.2 5
Sonoma Highway (SR 12) Middle Rincon Road to Brand Road 2.6 4 Stony Point Road West Third Street to Sebastopol Road 0.2 3 College Avenue Clover Drive to Humboldt Street 2.0 3
Sebastopol Road McMinn Avenue to Boyd Street 0.7 3
Sebastopol Road Corporate Center Parkway to Hampton Way 2.0 3 Range Avenue Edwards Avenue to Guerneville Road 0.3 2

The intersections experiencing the highest number of KSI collisions between 2017 and 2021 are shown in Table 13, which indicates that Steele Lane and Santa Rosa Avenue continue to be dangerous roadways. Overall, the 2017–2021 bicyclist- and pedestrian-involved collisions primarily occurred along the 2018 high-injury network and at on- and off-ramps for Highway 101 and SR 12.

Table 13. Top Intersections by Number of KSI Collisions for People Walking and Biking (2017–2021)
Intersection KSI Collisions
Steele Lane and Highway 101 4
Santa Rosa Avenue and Baker Avenue 3
SR 12 and Middle Rincon Road 2
Sebastopol Road and Dutton Avenue 2

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 82
Collisions Involving People Walking
Time of Day
As noted in FFiguree 62, most pedestrian-involved collisions during weekdays occur within commuting hours (6-8 AM and 3-5 PM), which may imply that most of these collisions may involve people walking to and from work or school. On weekends (FFiguree 63), the highest number of pedestrian-involved collisions occur in the period between 5 PM and 9 PM. It is important to note that during the fall and winter months (October through February), this peak extends into darker portions of the night, which may explain the higher number of collisions and KSIs. These night-time collisions could be the result of many factors including a lack of pedestrian-scale lighting.

Figure 62. Collisions Involving People Walking by Time of Day (Weekday) 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
KSI Other
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 83
Figure 63. Collisions Involving People Walking by Time of Day (Weekend) Type of Collisions
FFigure 64 provides a visual summary of pedestrian collisions and aggregates the types by severity and posted speed limit of the roadway where the incident was registered. As noted, there were 226 people injured while walking with 20% of those resulting in a serious injury or death (KSI). Most pedestrian-involved collisions (62%) occurred along roadway segments, compared to 38% at intersections. Pedestrians were most often injured while crossing in crosswalks (57%), which was most severe on roadways with posted speed limits of 35 to 44 MPH.

Roadway shoulders were the most dangerous places for pedestrians, especially along roadways with posted speed limits of 45 MPH or greater where 75% of all pedestrian-related collisions resulted in KSI. Although there were more collisions along lower-speed roadways, collisions that occurred along higher-speed roadways resulted in the most severe injuries.

Pedestrians walking along roadways may be an indication of existing gaps in the pedestrian network. Working to close these gaps may help address the numbers and severity of collisions. Additionally, improving the visibility of pedestrians (e.g., better lighting), implementing traffic-calming infrastructure, and enhancing pedestrian crossings (e.g., upgrading crossing to high-visibility crosswalks) can improve the safety of pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk.

Collision Severity Index
Using pedestrian collision data from 2017 to 2021, the pedestrian Collision Severity Index map (FFiguree 65) provides a summarized view of roadway segments that experienced the most severe pedestrian-related collisions.

The segments with the most severe pedestrian-involved collisions included the following intersections:
● Cleveland Avenue
● West Steele Lane
● Santa Rosa Avenue
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 KSI Other
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 84
● Stony Point Road
● Sebastopol Road
● Portions of SR 12

Roadways in downtown between B Street through Brookwood Avenue and Fifth Street through Third Street were also highlighted as roadways experiencing severe pedestrian-involved collisions.

Similarly, the intersections that experienced the most severe pedestrian-involved collisions included:
● West Steele Lane and Highway 101
● Sebastopol Road and Dutton Avenue
● West Steele Lane and Range Avenue
● Stony Point Road and Hearn Avenue

It is important to highlight that many collisions occurred at on- and off-ramps for Highway 101 and SR 12 at Steele Lane, College Avenue, Stony Point Road, and Brookwood Avenue.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 85 Figure 64. Collision Tree for People Walking

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 86 Figure 65. Pedestrian Collision Severity (2013-2021)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 87
Collisions Involving People Biking
Time of Day
As noted in Figuree 66, most bicyclist-involved collisions occur between the hours of 12 PM and 5 PM on weekdays. This peak coincides with peak lunch and afternoon commute hours. This period also registered most KSIs (50%) for people biking. Similarly, on weekends (FFiguree 67), there is also an afternoon peak from 4 PM to 6 PM. These weekend peaks may account for recreational bicyclists and visitors who may prefer to ride their bicycles after peak temperatures. These trends coincide with those of other similar jurisdictions where bicyclist- involved collisions during the weekdays primarily involve people commuting to work while collisions on the weekends primarily involve people enjoying recreational bike rides.

Figure 66. Collisions Involving People Biking by Time of Day (Weekday) Figure 67. Collisions Involving People Biking by Time of Day (Weekend) 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 KSI Other
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
KSI Other
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 88
Type of Collisions
FFigure 68 provides a visual summary of bicyclist-involved collision data and aggregates the various types of collisions by severity and speed limit of the roadway where the incident was registered. As noted, there were 210 people injured while biking with 10% of those ending seriously injured or killed (KSI). Over half (53%) of all bicyclist-involved collisions occurred along street segments, compared to 47% at intersections.

Bicyclist-involved collisions occurring along street segments resulted in more severe injuries along roadways with posted speed limits of 35 MPH or greater. The most common type of bicyclist-involved collisions included Angled Paths or broadside collisions which accounted for over 65% of all bicyclist-involved collisions. Of these, the grand majority of KSIs (75%) occurred along higher-speed roadways (45+ MPH posted speed limits).

It is important to note that while the majority of KSIs occurred along higher-speed roadways (45+ MPH posted speed limit), most collisions (53%) occurred at intersections or along roadway segments with posted speed limits under 35 MPH.

Increasing the separation between bicycles and motor vehicles can help improve safety for cyclists along higher- speed roadways. Additionally, improving intersection conditions for bikes and improving transitions between different types of bicycle facilities can help reduce the Opposite Direction and Angled Path collisions.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 89

Figure 68. Collision Tree for People Biking

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 90
Collision Severity Index
Using bicycle collision data from 2017 – 2021, the bicycle Collision Severity Index map (FFigure 69) analyzes roadway segments to understand which corridors, mile for mile, are experiencing the most severe bicyclist- involved collisions. The segments with the most severe bicyclist-involved collisions included:
● Santa Rosa Avenue
● Sebastopol Road
● Guerneville Road
● Cleveland Avenue

Similarly, the intersections with the most severe bicyclist-related collisions included the following:
● Sebastopol Road and Stony Point Road
● Colgan Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue
● Guerneville Road and Mendocino Avenue

Similar to the results for pedestrian-involved collisions, roadways in downtown between B Street through Brookwood Avenue and Fifth Street through Third Street were also highlighted as roadways with a concentration of severe bicyclist-involved collisions.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 91 Figure 69. Bicycle Collision Severity (2013-2021)

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 92
Active-Trip Potential
Sustainable and active transportation is a key part of a climate strategy that involves reducing carbon emissions from transportation. Active modes often fill first- and last-mile gaps for transit trips and on their own may provide more flexibility for short trips that are not well-served by transit. Understanding demand for active transportation can help the City of Santa Rosa guide growth and development to support sustainable transportation by identifying areas where latent demand for active transportation may exist.

Active-trip potential measures the proportion of all trips that may reasonably be made by active modes—like walking, biking, rolling, or e-micromobility—in a particular area. As trip dist ance is an important factor in mode choice, for this analysis Alta made assumptions about reasonable distances for vehicle trips that could be replaced by walking, biking, rolling and e-micromobility, based on trip distances from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey:
● Less than 1 mile – Walking
● 1 – 3 miles – Biking
● 3 – 5 miles – e-bikes or scooters

To this end, a neighborhood with high active-trip potential reflected a relatively larger percentage of trips beginning in that area that were under five miles. A neighborhood with lower active-trip potential reflected a greater percentage of longer trips beginning in that area. Areas of the city with a higher proportion of short trips are areas with the highest potential to convert vehicle trips to active trips. This analysis assumes that supportive infrastructure may encourage more people to convert short motor vehicle trips to active trips.

Alta completed this analysis using data from Replica Places in spring 2023. Alta accessed data on motor vehicle trips under five miles. This data is summarized to the origin block group. In addition, Alta accessed origin- destination data of vehicle trips under five miles to create the Flowmap (see below) of potential active-trip flows.

Key Findings
Alta created a Flowmap that visualizes potential active trips by origin-destination pair, represented as block group centroids. FFigure 70 shows a screenshot for reference. The Flowmap shows the volume of vehicle trips by origin and destination that are short enough to convert to active trips (under five miles). Thicker lines represent more trips between the origin and destination pair.

The analysis showed that there are particularly high numbers of short trips in and around the areas of Santa Rosa Junior College, Santa Rosa High School, Coddingtown Mall, and Franklin Park. There are also many short trips between the college and downtown Santa Rosa and between the Coddingtown Mall area and the Jennings Park area. The analysis also showed a high number of trips between the Coddingtown Mall area and the industrial and agricultural areas near Fulton and Woolsey outside of the city limits. These trips may be accommodated by active trips (i.e., walking, biking, or rolling) instead of by car.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 93

Figure 70. A screenshot of the Flowmap Developed for the City of Santa Rosa

Active-trip potential measures the proportion of all trips that are short enough (less than five miles) to be made by walking, biking, rolling or micromobility modes. Across Santa Rosa, 42% of vehicle trips that start, stop, or pass through the city are considered short enough to easily shift to active trips. As shown in Figure 71, areas of high active-trip potential are concentrated in central Santa Rosa, and active-trip potential steadily declines as the distance from downtown increases and destinations get farther apart. Active-trip potential for walking, biking, rolling, and e-bike/micromobility trips are shown in FFigure 72 through FFigure 74. These areas of high active-trip potential indicate a potential need for more connected walking, biking, and rolling facilities, which would elevate the importance of any gap in those facilities in these locations.

The analysis also indicated that SR 12 and Highway 101 act as barriers to active-trip potential, with the area southeast of the interchange having lower active-trip potential despite relative proximity to downtown. This would be expected, as any trip crossing a freeway would likely be longer due to the limited crossing opportunities and longer distances between freeway exits.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 94 Figure 71. Active-Trip Potential

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 95 Figure 72. Bike Trip Potential

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 96 Figure 73. Walk-Trip Potential

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 97 Figure 74. E-Bike Trip Potential

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 98
Plan Review
This section summarizes local and regional plans, policies, and standards that impact active transportation in the City of Santa Rosa. These planning studies and reports were reviewed to gain a better understanding of existing conditions in Santa Rosa as they pertain to active transportation; how the City is moving forward in light of evolving policies at the federal, state, and regional levels; and the direction being taken by the City through its most recent initiatives. The plans and studies reviewed are listed in Table 14. Key takeaways from each of these plans are described in the following section, and a full document review is included in AAppendix A: Plan Review.

Table 14. Plans Reviewed by Jurisdiction (organized by year) Jurisdiction Year Plan
Local Plans
City of Santa Rosa 2023 Draft General Plan 2050
City of Santa Rosa 2022 Local Road Safety Plan
City of Santa Rosa 2022 Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Improvement City of Santa Rosa 2021 Roseland Creek Community Plan
City of Santa Rosa 2021 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes City of Santa Rosa 2020 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2020 Community Empowerment Strategy
City of Santa Rosa 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan City of Santa Rosa 2016 Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2015 Jennings Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Rail Crossing Final EIR City of Santa Rosa 2014 Principles of Community Engagement City of Santa Rosa 2013 Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan City of Santa Rosa 2012 North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2011 Streetlight Design Standards
City of Santa Rosa 2009 General Plan 2035
City of Santa Rosa 2008 Traffic Standards
City of Santa Rosa 2005 Public Storm Drain Standards
City of Santa Rosa 2004 Street Design and Construction Standards City of Santa Rosa 2000 3575 Mendocino Avenue Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) City of Santa Rosa 1997 Park and Landscape Construction Standards City of Santa Rosa 1979 Construction Specifications for Public Improvements City of Santa Rosa n/a Spectrum of Community Engagement Regional Plans
Sonoma County 2022 Sonoma County Vision Zero Action Plan (SCTA and Sonoma County Health) Caltrans 2021 Highway 101 Overcrossing ISMND and Fact Sheet Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 99
Key Findings
Since adoption of the 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the City of Santa Rosa has adopted and/or installed several projects that add new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or which upgrade existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be more protected and comfortable. However, there are many projects in the 2018 Plan which have not been completed or which have been found to not be feasible due to concerns with right-of-way, lack of funding, or lack of community support.

The City has demonstrated a shift wherein projects and programs are being designed to help achieve the City’s goals of increasing the use of active transportation and transit and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at the scale of citywide and neighborhood plans as well as the project level. The City can use the Active Transportation Plan process to outline a comprehensive and complete network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are built for all ages and abilities. The development of enhanced active transportation infrastructure is closely linked to land use plans, especially densification in the downtown area, SMART station areas, and along major transit corridors.

Further, the City is placing a growing emphasis on the engagement of local stakeholders, with a focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged communities to ensure that transportation improvements benefit all members of the community, especially those who rely on active and public transportation in their daily lives. While safety has long been a priority for the City, the adoption of Vision Zero principles highlights a fundamental shift toward providing facilities that offer greater protection from vehicle traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 100
Appendices
Appendix A: Plan Review
The following section includes a summary of the plans reviewed. Information for each plan is organized into individual tables for easy readability.

DRAFT General Plan 2050 (Santa Rosa Forward) (2023)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
DDRAFT General Plan 2050 (Santa Rosa Forward) City of Santa Rosa 2023 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Developed as the update for Plan 2035, Santa Rosa Forward emphasizes a more efficient growth pattern designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) with a multimodal transportation network to support the land use vision.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
To reduce VMT, Santa Rosa Forward promotes shifting short trips to non-vehicle transportation modes, including transit and active transportation. As a result, the Plan emphasizes the inclusion of facilities for these modes as part of incoming development projects, especially in high density areas where higher levels of usage would be anticipated. Use of these modes will also be incentivized through transportation demand management (TDM) programs.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The bicycle and pedestrian recommendations are incorporated into the Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Element as part of a system that de-emphasizes vehicle travel.

Standards N/A
Policies
The policies emphasize the establishment of an enhanced multimodal network that is supported by street design practices. Several policies are identified and supported by a set of actions. x Policy 3-1.2: Promote land use, transportation demand management (TDM), and street design practices that reduce VMT and dependence on single occupancy vehicle trips. x Policy 3-1.3: Improve infrastructure, sidewalk and bicycle linkages, and access to transit and active modes of transportation to better meet daily commuting needs and minimize VMT, especially in EPAs and Areas of Change.
x Policy 3-1.4: Reduce traffic volumes and speeds in neighborhoods. x Policy 3-2.1: Plan, build, and maintain a safe, complete, continuous, convenient, and attractive pedestrian, bicycle, and multiuse trail network in Santa Rosa that is equitably accessible for all ages and abilities.

Infrastructure The recommendations from the 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan are identified.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The bicycle and pedestrian policies have been more closely integrated into the overall future vision for Santa Rosa's growth and development than in the previous General Plan. Santa Rosa Forward policies support a multimodal system through support for designated active transportation facilities, reduced vehicle speeds through residential areas, and viable non-vehicle transportation options.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 101
Local Road Safety Plan (2022)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
LLocal Road Safety Plan City of Santa Rosa 2022 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The LRSP presents recommendations to improve safety on the priority street segments as laid out in Santa Rosa’s Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. The collision histories were analyzed, and safety concerns identified for each of the study segments. The LRSP includes recommendations to address the identified safety issues.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
With the exception of Cleveland Avenue and the Roseland Creek Trail, the study segments all include transit service.

PLAN/ REPORT RRECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The LRSP focused on an analysis of key corridors identified in the City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018 (BPMP). It describes the study segments and provides recommendations to improve safety along these segments as well as potential funding sources.

Standards The plan provides a list of the standards, guidelines, and designs considered to determine the best safety measures for each location.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure
Priority street segments:

1. Fourth Street from E street to Farmers Lane

2. Montgomery Drive from Alderbrook Drive to Hahman Drive

3. West College Avenue from Kowell Lane to Morgan Street

4. College Avenue from Morgan Street to Fourth Street

5. Stony Point Road from Third Street to Sebastopol Road

6. Roseland Creek Trail from Stony Point Road to Burbank Avenue

7. Dutton Avenue from College Avenue to Third Street

8. Cleveland Avenue from Industrial Drive to Guerneville Road

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The LRSP is closely tied to the City’s BPMP, as its study locations were identified through the development of BPMP priorities.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 102
Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Improvements (2022)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
SSanta Rosa AAvenue Corridor Improvements City of Santa Rosa 2022 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The project includes multimodal transportation improvements to the segment of Santa Rosa Avenue between Sonoma Avenue and Maple Avenue.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Santa Rosa Avenue is served by CityBus and Sonoma County Transit routes, so roadway designs must account for bus operations.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Santa Rosa Avenue is planned to have several pedestrian and bicycle improvements added while maintaining vehicle operations along the corridor.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
The project includes the following improvements:
x Add mid-block pedestrian refuge islands at some intersections to allow two-stage crossing. x Add bulb-outs at most painted or unpainted crosswalks. x Add more streetlights for pedestrians.
x Add benches along sidewalks.
x Provide bike racks for cyclists along Santa Rosa Avenue. x Provide buffered bike lanes.
x Use high-visibility green paint on bike lanes at vehicle conflict points such as intersections and driveways.
x Update sidewalks and ramps to conform to ADA standards. x Add bike boxes at some minor street approaches.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Example of pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along a high-volume commercial corridor.

Roseland Creek Community Plan (2021)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Roseland Creek Community Plan City of Santa Rosa 2021 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
A detailed one-page document illustrating the components of the Roseland Creek Park plan area, including trails and connections to paths and active transportation facilities adjacent to the park.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 103
OOverall One-page illustrated map
SStandards N/A
PPolicies N/A
IInfrastructure Multiuse trails proposed along the south creek bank with connections to the west to Burbank Avenue and to the east and northeast to McMinn Avenue that includes a new pedestrian bridge over the creek.

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x A multiuse trail is proposed along the south bank of the creek connecting to the west, east, and northeast.

Refers to the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan for more information regarding this park plan.

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes (2021)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
SStony Point Rooadd Corridor Study for Active Transportation MModes CCity of Santa Rosa 2021 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The need for this corridor study was identified as a priority in the 2018 BPMP due to its inclusion in both the city’s pedestrian and bicycle HINs. The study segment extends from West Third Street to Sebastopol Road, a length of just under one-half mile. Stony Point Road is an important route for accessing SR 12, several shopping centers, and the Roseland neighborhood. The street has four travel lanes and bike lanes, and the study area includes a crossing of the Joe Rodota Trail, a major regional multiuse path. The segment of Stony Point Road that crosses SR 12 is under Caltrans jurisdiction, and District 4 staff was consulted regarding the proposed design. An extensive community engagement effort was conducted, including two workshops and two surveys that generated nearly 600 responses.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Proposed Class IV facilities would need to account for bus stop access along Stony Point Road.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
A primary goal of the project was to provide increased separation between bicyclists and vehicle traffic and reduce conflicts at intersections between turning vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. The report includes concept plans for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
x Class IV facilities from West Third Street to Sebastopol Road. x Realign the intersection of Stony Point Road at SR 12 eastbound ramps to eliminate pork chop island and facilitate crossing for Joe Rodota Trail users.
x Explore a potential multiuse path along the west side of Stony Point Road from the SR 12 eastbound ramps to Sebastopol Road.
x Install raised crosswalks or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the entrance to the SR 12 West on-ramps.
x Provide enhanced bike lane striping to establish a clear path of travel for bicyclists through intersections.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The proposed infrastructure improvements would address pedestrian and bicyclist safety concerns along Stony Point Road, which was included in the high-injury network for bother user groups in the 2018 BPMP Update.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 104
x The recommended improvements would improve access to numerous commercial sites and schools as well as enhance safety along the regional Joe Rodota Trail.
x Improvements would provide substantial benefits to residents of an Equity Priority Community.

Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (2020)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
DDowntown Station Area Specific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2020 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) covers approximately 720 acres surrounding the Downtown SMART Station. The plan area is bounded by College Avenue to the north, Brookwood Avenue to the east, Sebastopol Road and State Route (SR) 12 to the south, and Dutton Avenue and Imwalle Gardens to the west. Included in the Downtown Station Area are Courthouse Square, the city’s central business district and an important regional jobs center, Santa Rosa Plaza, Sonoma County’s largest retail shopping destination, as well as other established neighborhoods, including Railroad Square, Maxwell Court, the Santa Rosa Arts District (SOFA), and several residential neighborhoods. The area is designated as a PDA.

TRANSIT RRELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
Higher intensity development focused on the vicinity of SMART station, Transit Center, and corridors with bus headways of 15 minutes or less.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The Santa Rosa DSASP builds on the 2018 BPMP Update and seeks to guide the intensification of an energetic commercial enterprise and innovative cultural center with a strong sense of place, enhanced connectivity, and increased residential and social options. The DSASP envisions a vibrant urban core centered around Courthouse Square and a network of pedestrian-friendly mixed-use village centers, each with its own character. To make this vision a reality, the DSASP offers strategies designed to remove barriers to development, meet the community’s housing and job needs, foster vibrant civic spaces, and enhance local quality of life.

Standards Design guidelines and standards are included in the plan document.

Policies
Policies relevant to active transportation include:
x Provide a well-connected street grid that optimizes multimodal access, connectivity, and safety for all users.
x Provide a comfortable, convenient bicycle and pedestrian network that is a viable, attractive alternative to the automobile.
x Strengthen east-west connections and links between Old Courthouse Square and Railroad Square.

Infrastructure
Map MOB-3 shows the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian network within the Specific Plan area and includes Classes I, II, III, and IV plus trail access points and trail bridges. Figure MOB-4 shows planned pedestrian improvements and connections.

Proposed bicycle facilities include the following:
x Class I: SMART trail gaps, Santa Rosa Creek.
x Class II: College Avenue, Third Street, Cleveland Avenue, Railroad Street, Olive Street, Sebastopol Avenue, Sebastopol Road, Davis Street, B Street, First Street, Second Street, E Street, Brookwood Avenue, and a new street near the SMART station.
x Class III: Seventh Street, Cherry Street, Sixth Street, Lincoln Street, Ripley Street, Morgan Street, Mendocino Avenue, D Street, Wilson Street.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 105

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x While the downtown area consists of a high-density, mixed-use land use pattern, connectivity and safety improvements are needed.
x The successful implementation of the plan hinges on the coordination between the intensification of land uses and the development of infrastructure that supports the use of non-vehicle transportation modes.

Community Empowerment Strategy (2020)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
CCommunity Empowerment Strategy City of Santa Rosa Police DDepartment 2020 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Part of an effort undertaken by the Santa Rosa Police Department in response to local protests and community dialogue following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, the strategy was developed as part of a Community Empowerment Plan.

The strategy includes a vision, goals, and objectives intended to improve the relationship between the Police Department and local residents, especially Black, Latino, and indigenous communities.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RRECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Vision: “There is a trusting, open relationship of respect between the Santa Rosa Police Department and the community, and space for ongoing, inclusive, constructive dialogue is available. The following three goals were established to achieve this vision:

1. Increase constructive and inclusive dialogue between leaders from Black, indigenous, and Latino communities in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County.

2. Provide the community with opportunities to review and provide input on the Santa Rosa Police Department’s use of force and community policing policies.

3. Establish a feedback loop to gauge the effectiveness of efforts within and in the community and among City staff.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The Strategy was intended as a long-term, ongoing effort to enhance the relationship between law enforcement and residents, with some specific actions identified to help achieve that long-term vision.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 106
Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2018)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan CCity of Santa Rosa 2018 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The BPMP provided a vision and specific steps to create safer and more comfortable conditions for people to walk and bike in Santa Rosa. The Plan was built on an assessment of existing conditions, included an extensive outreach component, and was designed to support the City's General Plan and other policies.

TRANSIT RRELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENTT TOPICS
Transit is discussed as closely linked to the use of active transportation, including first-mile/last mile improvements and the provision of transit stop amenities. To implement improvements, coordination is required between the City and transit service providers, including Santa Rosa CityBus, Sonoma County Transit, SMART, and Golden Gate Transit. The combined use of bikes and transit was also addressed, including racks on buses, bike storage on train cars, and bike parking at rail stations.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Infrastructure project recommendations were provided for locations throughout the City and were prioritized based on numerous factors, including safety and equity. Noninfrastructure components were recommended to enhance safe bicycling and walking and encourage increased use of these modes.

Standards The BPMP included bicycle and pedestrian facility guidelines regarding the selection, appropriate application, and design of facilities.

Policies
x Policy 1: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian network and facility needs into all city planning documents and capital improvement projects.
x Policy 2: Coordinate with other agencies and stakeholders to incorporate Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update 2018 elements.
x Policy 3: Design a Low Stress Bikeway Network suitable for the “Interested but Concerned,” to include people of all ages and ability levels riding bicycles. x Policy 4: Design a connected, convenient, and comfortable pedestrian network to serve people of all ages and abilities.
x Policy 5: Design accessible, comfortable, and continuous off-street paths that contribute to the framework of Santa Rosa’s active transportation network. x Policy 6: Develop an easy to read, unified, and comprehensive wayfinding system for bicyclists, pedestrians, and trail users.
x Policy 7: Leverage existing funding to maximize project delivery. x Policy 8: Continue and enhance the City’s annual commitment of local funds for bicycle and pedestrian project implementation.
x Policy 9: Construct projects within the Plan Update 2018 utilizing all available internal and external resources.
x Policy 10: Ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians have accommodation in work zones. x Policy 11: Maintain designated facilities to be comfortable and free of hazards to bicycling and walking.
x Policy 12: Maintain bicycle parking.
x Policy 13: Educate pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and the public about roadway safety and the benefits of bicycling and walking.
x Policy 14: Encourage Santa Rosa Public Schools to participate in the Safe Routes to School program.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 107
x Policy 15: Support police enforcement activities targeted at both bicyclists and motorists that educate and reinforce proper and safe behaviors.
x Policy 16: Increase bicycling and walking through targeted marketing and promotion. x Policy 17: Measure bicycling and walking activity through an annual count program. x Policy 18: Report annually on the implementation of this Plan Update 2018.

IInfrastructure
Bicycle projects:
x 39 miles Class I
x 49 miles Class II
x 2 miles buffered Class II
x 35 miles Class III
x 3 miles bicycle boulevards
x 2 miles Class IV
Pedestrian projects
x 70 crossing projects
x 21 miles of sidewalk
x Study corridors
x 11 priority corridors
Citywide projects
x Bicycle parking
x Wayfinding
x Pedestrian scale lighting
x Street furniture

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The BPMP represents a comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, including infrastructure, policy changes, educational and promotional campaigns, enforcement efforts, and an evaluation component to track progress in achieving the City's goals.

Roseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan (2016)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
RRoseland Area/Sebastopol Road Specific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2016 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This plan was developed to support the goals, policies, and priorities identified in Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. The plan area is located in southwest Santa Rosa and is generally bounded by SR 12 to the north, Bellevue Avenue to the south, Highway 101 to the east, and Stony Point Road to the west. It includes the Roseland PDA and part of the Sebastopol Road PDA.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
A focus of the plan is to provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access to various land uses as well as transit services.

The plan area includes the Southside Bus Transfer Center. At the times the plan was developed, 15-minute service for CityBus routes was planned along Sebastopol Road.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The purpose of this Specific Plan is to support a unified, vital, healthy, and livable Roseland community.

The area’s designation as a Priority Development Area supports walkable, bikeable, and transit -rich neighborhoods by increasing the number and proximity of residents to amenities, schools, parks, and jobs. The plan aims to do this by improving connectivity, concentrating areas of activity, and enhancing Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 108
the physical environment. The Specific Plan is intended to guide private development and public investment over the next 20 to 25 years.

SStandards N/A
PPolicies
x Engage plan area residents, property owners, and business owners to envision and plan for their community in the future through an innovative community engagement strategy. x Establish a land use and policy framework to guide future development in the area toward transit- supportive land uses.
x Improve connections, particularly for walking, biking and rolling, to the Southside Bus Transfer Center, to the Santa Rosa Downtown Station, and to Sebastopol Road, the main commercial area within the plan area.

Infrastructure
x Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network include continuous sidewalks, enhanced crossings at intersections, street lighting, and new pedestrian and bicycle routes. A key priority is to complete sidewalks in areas where gaps exist, where the City owns the right-of-way, and where completing the sidewalk will have the greatest benefit, such as near schools, parks, or services.

New bicycle facilities proposed.
x Class 1: Colgan Creek, Bellevue Avenue, Roseland Creek, SMART trail, Dutton Avenue, Rain Dance Way.
x Class II: Stony Point Road, Burbank Avenue, West Avenue, Dutton Avenue, Dutton Meadow, Sebastopol Avenue, Barham Avenue, Hearn Avenue, Northpoint Parkway, Bellevue Avenue. x Class III: Liscum Street, Old Stony Point Road, Lazzini Avenue, Comalli Street, Hughes Avenue, Roseland Avenue, McMinn Avenue, Delport Avenue, South Avenue, Earle Street, Leo Drive, Baker Avenue, Blacksmith Way, Tuxhorn Drive, Pebblecreek Drive, Burgess Drive, Olive Street, Corby Avenue, Dowd Drive.

The Hearn Avenue overcrossing across Highway 101 was identified as a priority.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The plan would guide land development and transportation investments to encourage use of non-vehicle transportation modes.
x Elimination of facility gaps and construction of active transportation linkages was identified as a priority.

Jennings Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Rail Crossing Final EIR (2015)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Jennings Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Rail Crossing
Final EIR City of Santa Rosa 2015 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document analyzes options for establishing a crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists along Jennings Avenue, across the SMART rail line. Without the implementation of the project, the nearest at-grade crossings would be at Guerneville Road to the north and College Avenue to the south, which could result in considerably longer trips for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling east-west through this area.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
The project would cross the SMART rail corridor.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 109
OOverall
The project would include minor improvements to Jennings Avenue to facilitate pedestrian and bicyclist access for an at-grade crossing of the SMART rail tracks.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
The following improvements would be constructed:
x Add ADA ramps, crossing arms, pedestrian gates, sidewalks, handrails, and fences. x If a new crossing is established at Jennings Avenue, one of the existing at-grade crossings at either Sixth Street, Seventh Street, or Eight Street would likely need to be eliminated to secure approval from the California Public Utilities Commission.

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The SMART line currently acts as a barrier to circulation at many locations. The project as proposed would enhance east-west connectivity for bicyclists across the SMART tracks along Jennings Avenue.

Principles of Community Engagement (2014)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Principles of Community Engagement City of Santa Rosa 2014 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
These recommendations were developed by the Mayor’s Open Government Task Force. To accomplish the identified goals, recommendations included steps to develop a culture that values public engagement.

TRANSIT RRELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENTT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Take the following steps to develop a culture that values public engagement:
x Genuinely engage and partner with neighborhoods, volunteers, businesses, institutions, and other organizations that support the community.
x Establish Santa Rosa as a leader in civic engagement with the goal of increasing Openness, Transparency, and Accountability.
x Close the communication loop - acknowledge the value of community input, wisdom, and participation.
x Increase opportunities for diverse community engagement and effective participation. x Build a strong civic infrastructure to educate people about how best to engage.

Consider the adoption of the following principles for the engagement process, which were developed for the City of Alexandria, VA:

1. Respect

2. Inclusiveness and Equity

3. Early Involvement

4. Easy Participation

5. Meaningful Engagement

6. Mutual Accountability

7. Transparency

8. Sustained Collaboration

9. Evaluation
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 110
SStandards N/A
PPolicies N/A
IInfrastructure N/A

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Develop a culture of public engagement by considering the principles listed in this document.

Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan (2013)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan City of Santa Rosa 2007, uupdated 2013 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Citywide Creek Master Plan presents a set of policies and recommendations for habitat preservation, enhancement, restoration projects, and other site-specific improvements to the nearly one hundred miles of creeks that flow through Santa Rosa. The Creek Master Plan requires that development adjacent to waterways be consistent with the Creek Master Plan to the extent feasible, including by encouraging creek-compatible land uses and creek access throughout the system, integrating development project features with creek improvements, allowing for future creek improvements to be made, and requiring development plans to be consistent with guidelines for site planning, grading, and other policies.

The Plan implements the General Plan and provides guidelines, policies, and criteria for the protection, care, management, restoration, and enhancement of waterways in Santa Rosa. The overall concept for a creek trail system is to create a continuous system of access along the creeks where feasible and provide connections from the creeks to major traffic generators and destinations for bicyclists and pedestrians.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMMENT TOPICS
Coordinate with transit agencies and other entities as needed to link creek trails and facilitate network connections.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Identifies and describes each creek and waterway within the City of Santa Rosa. Provides an existing conditions summary and narrative of recommendations, including for waterway and trail access as well as trail and access connections from adjacent transportation facilities (roadways, paths, trails).

Standards
Provides detailed creek design guidelines in Appendix A broken out by urban, rural, and natural reaches of the city’s creeks. Specific designs are identified for the following topics: site planning, grading, creek crossings, architecture, site furnishings, construction materials, pathways, logo and creek signage, trailheads and trailside parks, lighting, landscaping and plant materials, fencing, and irrigation.

Policies
x Develop multiuse trails along creeks where feasible within the urban growth boundary, including connections to regional networks.
x Provide public, neighborhood, and private access to creekside trails as appropriate. x Accommodate connections to regional trail systems that enhance or support the creek trail system network.
x Use on-street connectors such as existing sidewalks and bike lanes to link together Creekside trail segments where Class I facilities are not feasible.
x Vary facility design based on context; the use of pervious surfaces for new facilities in environmentally sensitive locations could be considered as long as facilities are ADA-compliant. x Enhance pedestrian activity and safety by designing streets, buildings, pathways, and trails to provide a visual connection with public spaces.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 111
x Provide a signage program that clearly identifies the path system.

IInfrastructure
x Appendix F includes a table of all potential projects identified in the Plan, 99 of which are for alternative modes.
x Additional details provided for the approved design concept plan for the Pierson Reach of Santa Rosa Creek and bike pathway, the Roseland Creek Restoration Plan for a one-mile reach of Roseland Creek from McMinn Avenue to Stony Point Road, the Upper Colgan Creek Restoration Plan, and the Lower Colgan Creek Restoration Conceptual Plan.

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The plan includes comprehensive creek design guidelines for pathways and trails and recommended active transportation enhancements.

North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan (2012)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
NNorth Santa Rosa Station Area SSpecific Plan City of Santa Rosa 2012 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This Specific Plan is designed to support rail transit by increasing the number of residents and employees within walking distance of the Santa Rosa North SMART station by improving pedestrian, bicycle, auto, and transit connections, increasing residential density, promoting economic development, and enhancing aesthetics and quality of life. The plan area includes Coddingtown Mall, a major shopping area and the location of one of the city’s primary bus transfer facilities. The Specific Plan is intended to guide private development and public investment over the next 20 to 25 years.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOPICS
SMART, Coddingtown Transit Hub

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
The plan provides a framework for land use intensification to support the SMART rail service (which was still in development at that time). This included the enhancement of multimodal transportation options and reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The development of the plan included an extensive community engagement process.

Standards Public Realm Design Standards and Guidelines are provided in Chapter 7 Policies
The plan includes the following goals:
x Provide multimodal access to the SMART station.
x Provide parking appropriate to transit-oriented development. x Provide multimodal connections throughout the project area. Integrate the Coddingtown Mall property into the adjacent multimodal transportation network. x Complete specific roadway improvements in the project area to enhance safety and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists.
x Improve intersections to remove obstacles to multimodal traffic flow. x Establish a network of multiuse paths for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the project area. x Expand transit use throughout the project area and provide a seamless connection to the SMART station.

To support these goals, the plan includes numerous policies, some of which set forth recommendations for specific streets.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 112
IInfrastructure
Figure 2.5 shows the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian network within the Specific Plan area and includes Classes I, II, III, and a bicycle boulevard.

Proposed bicycle facilities
x Class I: SMART path, Coffey Lane, Frances Street connection, Paulin Creek. x Class II: Cleveland Avenue, Range Avenue, Frances Street, Dutton Avenue, College Avenue, Guerneville Road, Edwards Avenue, Elliott Avenue, Coffey Lane, Ridgway Avenue. x Class III: Clover Drive, Armory Drive, Hardies Lane, Ridgway Avenue. Bicycle boulevard proposed along Jennings Avenue.

Sidewalk gaps to be addressed were identified along portions of Jennings Avenue, College Avenue, Edwards Avenue.

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x While less dense than downtown Santa Rosa, the North Santa Rosa station area includes a wide variety of land uses within walking, biking, or rolling distance, notably Coddingtown Mall, Santa Rosa Junior College, and Santa Rosa High School. Enhanced bicycle network connectivity, elimination of sidewalk gaps, and convenient linkages across Highway 101 are critical needs.

Streetlight Design Standards (2011)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
SStreetlight Design Standards CCity of Santa Rosa 22011 SSonoma

HHIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document provides the definitions of various road types and determines the minimum standards for each type.

TTRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNTT TOPICS
N/A

PPLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
OOverall
SStandards
x Every intersection is required to have at least one streetlight. x Defines minimum lighting requirements.
x What type of poles should be installed by road type.
x How to install streetlights.
x Design standards for streetlights.

PPolicies N/A
IInfrastructure N/A

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Streetlighting required at intersections where pedestrian/bicyclist crossings would be expected to occur.

Santa Rosa General Plan 2035 (2009)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
SSanta Rosa General Plan 2035 CCity of Santa Rosa 22009 SSonoma Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 113

HHIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
General Plan 2035 provides a long-range vision for the City and serves as the guiding document for the City's future growth and development. The Transportation Element addresses the need for multimodal transportation facilities to serve the planned level and pattern of growth for the City.

TTRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNTT TOPICS
Increased densification of land uses is encouraged in the vicinity of rail stations, resulting in short trip distances that encourage bicycling and walking.

PPLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
OOverall The Transportation Element identifies the need for a multimodal system and references recommendations from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to help achieve that vision.

SStandards N/A
PPolicies
The following policies regarding bicyclists and pedestrians were included:
x T-J-1 Pursue implementation of walking and bicycling facilities as envisioned in the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
x T-J-2 Provide street lighting that is attractive, functional, and appropriate to the character and scale of the neighborhood or district, and that contributes to vehicular and pedestrian safety. x T-J-3 Strengthen and expand east-west linkages across the Highway 101 corridor. x T-J-4 Provide street trees to enhance the city’s livability and to provide identity to neighborhoods and districts.
x T-J-5 Support Safe Routes to School by pursuing available grants for this program and ensuring that approaches to schools are safe for cyclists and pedestrians by providing needed amenities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, and traffic calming on streets near schools. x T-K-1 Link the various citywide pedestrian paths, including street sidewalks, downtown walkways, pedestrian areas in shopping centers and work complexes, park pathways, and other creekside and open space pathways.
x T-K-2 Allow the sharing or parallel development of pedestrian walkways with bicycle paths, where this can be safely done, in order to maximize the use of public rights-of-way. x T-K-3 Orient building plans and pedestrian facilities to allow for easy pedestrian access from street sidewalks, transit stops, and other pedestrian facilities, in addition to access from parking lots.
x T-K-4 Require construction of attractive pedestrian walkways and areas in new residential, commercial, office, and industrial developments. Provide landscaping or other appropriate buffers between sidewalks and heavily traveled vehicular traffic lanes, as well as through and to parking lots. Include pedestrian amenities to encourage and facilitate walking. x T-K-5 Ensure provision of safe pedestrian access for students of new and existing school sites throughout the city.
x T-K-6 Integrate multi-use paths into all creek corridors, railroad rights-of- way, and park designs. x T-L-1 Provide bicycle lanes along all regional/arterial streets and high volume transitional/collector streets.
x T-L-2 Provide bicycle lanes on major access routes to all schools and parks. x T-L-3 Improve bicycle networks by finishing incomplete or disconnected bicycle routes. x T-L-4 Maintain all roadways and bicycle-related facilities so they provide safe and comfortable conditions for bicyclists.
x T-L-5 Consider bicycle operating characteristics and safety needs in the design for roadways, intersections, and traffic control systems.
x T-L-6 Promote and facilitate the use of bicycles with other transportation modes. x T-L-7 As part of the city’s Capital Improvement Program, or street and intersection projects constructed by private developers, install and construct bicycle facilities including: Class I paths, Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 114
Class II lanes, Class III route signs; signal detectors; and/or other facilities. Implementation shall occur as opportunities arise throughout the entire bikeway network. x T-L-8 Require new development to dedicate land and/or construct/install bicycle facilities, and provide bicycle parking as specified in the Zoning Code, where a rough proportionality to demand from the project is established. Facilities such as showers and bicycle storage shall also be considered.
x T-L-9 Maintain and update, as appropriate, the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. x T-G-7 Provide bikeways along scenic roads, where right-of-way exists or where its acquisition will not jeopardize roadway character.

IInfrastructure The project recommendations from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan were identified. x KEY TAKEAWAYS
x The General Plan serves as the City's guiding policy document, including multimodal circulation as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and policies. As the vision for the City evolves with each future iteration of the General Plan, the policies pertaining to bicyclists and pedestrians will evolve to support it.

Traffic Standards (2008)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
TTraffic Standards City of Santa Rosa 2008 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document defines standards for roadway signage, markings, and equipment in addition to those set forth in the California MUTCD.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall N/A
Standards x Defines sign shapes, colors, font, and format. x Determines when a median island sign is required.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Includes requirements for some signs, signals, and pull boxes in addition to those in the MUTCD.

Public Storm Drain Standards (2005)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Public Storm Drain Standards City of Santa Rosa 2005 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Defines minimum standards for drainage for projects in the public right-of-way and requirements of private property owners.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 115

TTRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNTT TOPICS
N/A

PPLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
OOverall N/A
SStandards
x Minimum water depth.
x Maximum gap indicated for drainage gates to prevent bicycle wheels from being caught. x Sidewalk drains must be maintained by the property owner.

PPolicies N/A
IInfrastructure N/A

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Consider the Public Storm Drain Standards when developing and implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Street Design and Construction Standards (2004)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
SStreet Design and Construction Standards City of Santa Rosa 2004 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document provides the definitions of various road types and determines the minimum standards for road types.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Standards
Standards relevant to active transportation facilities:
x A bike lane will be at minimum four feet wide from the edge of the gutter to the center of the bike lane stripe.
x Bike loop detection is required at intersections that have vehicle detection. x Sidewalks are required along most roads, except for rural/hillside and interim roads.

Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Sidewalks are required on most new roads.
3575 Mendocino Avenue Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) (2000)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 116
33575 Mendocino AAvenue PProject Sustainable Communities EEnvironmental Assessment ((SCEA) CCity of Santa Rosa 22000 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The SCEA was prepared to help streamline CEQA review for the project, which would result in the redevelopment of a

13.3-acre site that was severely damaged by the 2017 Tubbs Fire. The site would include up to 532 multi-family residential units, including 162 senior affordable units, serving an estimated population of up to 1,383 residents if fully built out and occupied. The project would be designed as a transit village, with access to bus service along Mendocino Avenue as well as Bicentennial Way, which meets the criteria for a high-quality transit corridor. The local Santa Rosa CityBus and Sonoma County Transit routes could be used to access the regional SMART rail system.

Future project residents would have access to the city’s existing bicycle facilities network, including bike lanes on Mendocino Avenue to connect to downtown Santa Rosa and continue north into Sonoma County along Old Redwood Highway. The project would include modifications of the Mendocino Avenue/Fountaingrove Parkway intersection and the project frontage along Mendocino Avenue to make it more pedestrian-oriented. The project site would include an interior pedestrian network of sidewalks and crosswalks, which would be integrated into the surrounding area. The project would include 160 secure indoor bicycle parking spaces with additional bicycle parking provided near the building entrances.

The project is located within the Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Priority Development Area and is located approximately 0.2 miles from the Bicentennial Way Transit Facility.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Improvements along Mendocino Avenue would provide connectivity between the project and the Bicentennial Way Transit Facility.

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Up to 532 multi-family residences, including 162 senior affordable units Transit-oriented design to encourage the use of non-vehicle transportation Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
Internal project pedestrian network
Pedestrian facilities along Mendocino Avenue
Secure bicycle parking for residents, additional bicycle parking for visitors

KEY TAKEAAWAYS
x The project design would support active transportation and transit by tying into existing facilities and the larger network. It is noted that the proposed senior units have been completed and are currently occupied.

Park and Landscape Construction Standards (1997)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Park and Landscape Construction Standards City of Santa Rosa 1997 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 117
The standards and requirements for landscaping on public property including parks, roadways, and parkways.

TTRANSIT RELATED/ OORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNTT TOPICS
N/A

PPLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
OOverall N/A
SStandards
x Defines where trees should be located, type of tree, size of the tree plot, and tree planting method. x Defines the required amount of water for trees.
x Requires that only one species of tree, the theme tree, be planted along major and scenic roads. x Collector and local street trees may be impeded by utilities so smaller trees may be used.

PPolicies N/A
IInfrastructure N/A

KKEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Consider the Park and Landscape Construction Standards when developing and implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Construction Specifications for Public Improvements (1979)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
CConstruction Specifications for Public IImprovements City of Santa Rosa 1979 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This document provides direction regarding construction materials and procedures for facilities including streets, sidewalks, curbs, pedestrian ramps, and street trees.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall N/A
Standards
Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x Consider the Construction Specifications for Public Improvements documents when developing and implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Spectrum of Community Engagement

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 118
SSpectrum of Community Engagement City of Santa Rosa N/A

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Spectrum of Community Engagement is a model that lays out the range of approaches for public engagement in the planning process. It includes examples of outreach strategies that are appropriate to achieve each type of engagement, ranging from providing local stakeholders with project information to placing the final decision-making authority in the hands of the public.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
N/A

PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall No single strategy was recommended, to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The Spectrum of Community Engagement should be referenced to inform the appropriate level of engagement.

Sonoma County Vision Zero Action Plan (2022)

PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR COUNTY
Sonoma County Vision Zero Action Plan
Sonoma County Transportation
AAuthority (SCTA) and Sonoma
County Department of Health
SServices (DHS)
2022 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Vision Zero Action Plan was a countywide effort to commit to the elimination of traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries. While it addresses all modes of transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle safety was emphasized as data revealed that while eight percent of all trips in the county are made on foot or bicycle, these modes account for 19 percent of traffic deaths. Through this effort, a Vision Zero Data Dashboard was developed for ongoing tracking of injury collisions.

The plan includes the following goals: 1) create safer speeds, 2) eliminate impaired driving, 3) create a culture of safety, 4) build and maintain safe streets for all, 5) make vehicles safer and reduce private vehicle use, 6) improve data for effective decision-making. A countywide high-injury network (HIN) was identified based on the collision history, though it was noted that the methodology was different from what was used to develop the City of Santa Rosa’s HIN in its 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The VZAP also identified a set of High-Injury Intersections.

Partnerships were emphasized in the development of the plan and its future implementation. The Vision Zero Advisory Committee leading this effort included participation from all 11 jurisdictions in the county, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, Sonoma County Regional Parks, Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, and local health professionals. The plan was adopted by the Santa Rosa City Council in 2022.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
Partners should include Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), Petaluma Transit, and Golden Gate Transit.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 119

PPLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall

11. CCreate Safer Speeds
Actions
x Review speeds and posted limits on the HIN, set context appropriate speeds, and implement speed mitigation measures based on findings and legislative authority.

Supporting Action
x Develop and adopt a process to reduce speed limits to 25 MPH or below on County and local roads where appropriate, such as areas around schools, parks, senior centers, and transit stations (AB 43).

22. Eliminate Impaired Driving
Actions
x Continue and expand law enforcement engagement with businesses around Responsible Beverage Service.
x Encourage safe wine, beer, and cannabis tourism by promoting ride share services, designated driver services, and walking wine tours.

Supporting Action
x Support diversion programs like the Driving Under the Influence Program and DUI Court that focus on education and treatment over punishment.
x Support community-based drug and alcohol problem assessment and treatment programs such as Turning Point.
x Expand and promote publicly subsidized transport services to include more night-time hours.

3. Create a Culture of Safety
Action
x Support Safe Routes to School program and school districts to promote safe, active transportation through education, school policies, and pick-up/ drop-off procedures. x Work with media partners to more accurately report traffic crashes, to avoid victim-blaming, and to report crashes in the context of Vision Zero.
x Partner with youth organizations to create peer-to-peer anti-distraction messaging campaigns.

Supporting Actions
x Develop comprehensive engagement strategies that prioritize Equity Priority Communities (EPCs), create personal connections to Vision Zero, and encourage drivers to safely share the road with other users.
x Promote educational campaigns for vehicle fleet operators focused on discouraging distracted driving and encouraging safely sharing the road with people walking, biking and rolling. x Develop a network of "civic partners" who pledge to support Vision Zero through the dissemination of safety and educational information to their networks.

4. Build and Maintain Safe Streets for All
Actions
x Implement low-cost quick-build projects to rapidly implement bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements along the HIN.
x Complete Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs).
x Seek sustainable funding sources for projects designed to meet Vision Zero safety goals and prioritize projects in EPCs.
x Improve routine facility maintenance particularly along the HIN. x Identify and implement road safety improvements through routine resurfacing processes.

Supporting Action.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 120
x Close gaps in bicycle and pedestrian networks and design facilities for all ages and all abilities

55. Make Vehicles Safer and Reduce Private Vehicle Use
Actions
x Promote land use, TDM, and street design policies that reduce VMT (vehicle miles traveled ) and dependence on single-occupancy vehicle trips.
x Adopt guidelines for incorporating safety features in specifications for new fleet vehicle purchases and retrofit large fleet vehicles with side guards.

Supporting Action
x Advocate for an automated mobility policy framework that advances Vision Zero safety goals.

6. Improve Data for Effective Decision-Making
Actions
x Enhance training for law enforcement personnel responsible for crash reporting to address the unique attributes required to accurately report circumstances of crashes involving bicyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable road users.
x Use hospital trauma, health center, and Portrait of Sonoma County data to develop a more comprehensive understanding of crashes and contributing factors.

Supporting Actions
x Use regional data sources such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional HIN and Regional Safety Data System, and Caltrans District 4 location-based needs identified by their active transportation planning efforts to inform safety project development and funding decisions.
x Provide annual citation data for infractions that potentially lead to severe injuries and deaths, such as impaired driving, speeding, and failure to yield. x Maintain and update the Sonoma County Vision Zero Data Dashboard for all crash and safety data on the Vision Zero website.

SStandards N/A
PPolicies
The following core principles were identified:
x Saving Lives: Human life and health should be the highest priority within all aspects of transportaƟon systems.
x PrevenƟon: Traffic deaths and severe injuries are preventable. x Safe Streets: Human error is inevitable, and transportaƟon systems should be designed to anƟcipate error, so the consequence is not severe injury or death. x Equity: All people have the right to travel safely through our community and we must work to eliminate dispariƟes in transportaƟon safety based on income, race, ability, age, language spoken, and vehicle access.

Infrastructure N/A

KEY TTAKEAWAYS
x The Vision Zero approach marks a notable shift in how transportation safety should be addressed, focusing on the elimination of all traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries. x Broad-based inclusive stakeholder engagement should be a part of Vision Zero implementation. x Safety improvements should be prioritized along HIN (but different from City’s HIN), including speed reduction measures.
x Enforcement efforts should address key priorities and include training for improved data reporting. x Education campaigns should be developed for users of all transportation modes.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 121
x The Vision Zero Data Dashboard and other data should be used as tools for agency staff and residents to track progress toward eliminating traffic fatalities and severe-injury collisions.

Highway 101 Overcrossing ISMND and Fact Sheet (2021)

PPLAN NAME AAGENCY YYEAR CCOUNTY
HHighway 101 Overcrossing ISMND and fact sheet Caltrans 2021 Sonoma

HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Analyzed options for a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing of Highway 101 between College Avenue and Steele Lane. Both of these roadways are multilane arterials with interchanges, creating intimidating conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The project would create a more direct and comfortable route to several destinations expected to generate high demand for pedestrian and bicycle trips, including Santa Rose Junior College, Santa Rosa High School, Ridgway High School, Coddingtown Mall, and the North Santa Rosa SMART station. There would be substantial benefits to residents of disadvantaged communities, as 50 percent of the neighborhoods within a one-mile radius of the project are designated as Equity Priority Communities.

TRANSIT RELATED/ ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENNT TOPICS
SMART station access

PLAN/ REPORT RRECOMMENDATIONS
Overall
Two “Build” Alternatives were analyzed. The alternative with the endpoints at Edwards Avenue and Elliott Avenue was selected as the preferred alternative.

The project is expected to reduce pedestrian-vehicle and bicycle-vehicle conflicts, as it would enable pedestrians and bicyclists to avoid the at-grade freeway ramp crossings at College Avenue and Steele Lane.

It was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment.

Standards N/A
Policies N/A
Infrastructure
The preferred alternative is for a pedestrian/bicyclist bridge over Highway 101 connecting Edwards Avenue on the west side of Highway 101 and Elliott Avenue on the east side. The project would include an 8-foot-wide section for bicyclists and a 5-foot-wide section for pedestrians, potentially separated by a barrier.

KEY TAKEAAWAYS
x The project would provide substantial safety benefits to users and create more direct access for pedestrians and bicyclists between transit stops, schools, shopping, and other destinations.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 122
Appendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology
Level of comfort is an important consideration for people walking, biking, and rolling on the road network.

Comfort can impact perceived distances, willingness to travel, and safety. Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analyses are used throughout the transportation planning industry to estimate the level of comfort for people walking, biking, or rolling on a given roadway segment. While data itself is specific to a city or region, the methodology for assessing comfort based on that data is standardized. Segments are defined as the stretch of road between intersections. These analyses identify segments that represent the highest barriers to walking, biking, or rolling based on users’ ability and comfort level. LTS scores are determined by characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect a user’s perception of safety and comfort. This section outlines Alta’s steps for conducting the LTS analyses as part of the Active Transportation Plan.

Methodology
Street Network Preparation
In the first step, each roadway segment was assigned aƩributes such as number of lanes, posted speeds, one-way streets, and the presence and width of bike facilities, sidewalks, and parking lanes. Alta used analysis inputs derived from client-provided data, publicly available data, and OpenStreetMap (OSM) data.37 OSM data was used as the base data, and the city and regional data was used to update base data wherever possible to ensure accuracy and completeness.

This iniƟal analysis was intended to be augmented by automated or manual review of aerial imagery, local GIS data, and/or street view data. Roadway characterisƟcs like posted speed limit, number of lanes, and the presence of sidewalks or bike faciliƟes significantly influence LTS outcomes, so uƟlizing current and accurate data will be essenƟal. Alta’s baseline assumpƟons deriving key aƩributes from OSM are documented below.

Completing the LTS Analyses
Once the street network database was populated, Alta assigned scores to roadway segments using methodology adapted from the Mineta Transportation Institute’s Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (Mineta, 2012) for BLTS and the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Analysis Procedures Manual (ODOT 2020). The comprehensive LTS analysis for the bicycle network categorized streets from low stress (BLTS 1, suitable for children) to high stress (BLTS 4, suitable only for ‘strong and fearless’ bicyclists/pedestrians), as shown in F Figure 75.

The LTS analysis focusing on the pedestrian network categorized street segments from low stress (PLTS 1, suitable

37 OSM is a crowdsourced database of geographic features including administrative boundaries, street centerlines, points of interest, building footprints, physical and natural features, and other types of geographic information. OSM is one of the most prominent examples of volunteered geographic information, where community processes drive the contributions of geographic information to a shared database (2). These geographic features are tagged based on their attributes, and while community wiki pages provide guidance on which tags apply to which features, there is no centralized authority that authenticates these contributions. For example, street networks in OSM may include tags where contributors denote functional classification, number of lanes, one-way classification, speed limits, presence of sidewalks, and the type of bicycle facility that might be present on the network. While OSM is not always accurate, but it has been benchmarked against comparable map data sources such as Google and found to have comparable or better accuracy for bike paths depending on the type of error (3). Multiple non-profits, academics, and practitioners have found OSM to be an acceptable base for initial derivation of LTS analysis (4,5,6,7).

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 123
for people of all ages and abiliƟes) to high stress (PLTS 4, used only by able-bodied adults with limited route choices). Further details on the methodologies for deriving BLTS can be found below.

Figure 75: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Once the base input values have been validated, Alta will update the dataset with local data and refresh LTS scores using Alta’s LTS calculation scripts. This process will also facilitate the assessment of new scenarios, in addition to standardized network analysis. For instance, Alta can efficiently reevaluate the impact of measures such as reducing speed limits on specific roads or introducing parking lanes.

Data Considerations and Assumptions
The network data was derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM) and updated using existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure data provided by the City of Santa Rosa, and its partners.

Intersections were not considered as part of the LTS analyses. Crossings will play a role in experience for people walking, biking, and rolling and should be considered when performing more detailed site and network assessment.

Alta obtained sidewalk data from Ecopia, a data vendor, because it was not available from the City. Alta reviewed data for accuracy and completeness and converted widths from meters to feet. Quality assurance methodology and associated limitations are provided in the following section.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 124
Ecopia Data Quality Assurance
Alta obtained data on crosswalk presence, sidewalk presence, and sidewalk width from Ecopia, a vendor that provides AI-derived data based on aerial imagery. Alta found that the presence of crosswalks and sidewalks was highly accurate.

Sidewalk width data was more complex to review. Alta first addressed anomalies less than three feet or greater than nine feet with a manual review and edits. There were very few segments that needed edits due to extreme values.

Most sidewalk widths reported by Ecopia were within a normal range, but Alta spot-checked by using the Measure function in ArcGIS Pro against aerial imagery. As demonstrated in FFigure 76, Alta found that Ecopia data often had a measure of error of about plus or minus one foot compared to the value that Alta measured.

Figure 76. A discrepancy is shown between Ecopia-provided sidewalk width (shown in small white text, 1.5 m or 4.9 feet), and Alta-measured width, 1.96 m or 6.4 feet. This difference is equal to about one and a half feet.

Alta determined that one reason for this is that Ecopia’s sidewalk width is averaged out over the length of the segment, which in some cases is an entire four-sided block. When sidewalk width is not consistent across a block, errors follow.

Alta determined that for the LTS analysis, the best course of action was to overestimate, rather than underestimate, sidewalk widths. This is because there were several sub-scores that were calculated in the process of calculating the final Pedestrian LTS score, as listed in TTable 22. Sidewalk width was one sub-score. In the end, the final LTS score was the highest (most stressful) sub-score for that segment. Overestimating sidewalk width improved the final LTS score only if the other sub-scores are at least that low (indicating low-stress streets). If Alta overestimates how wide the sidewalks are but the street is a six-lane arterial with no buffer, sidewalk width does not matter – the poor street conditions will cause another sub-score to be higher, which will override the final LTS score.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 125
Therefore, to provide the benefit of the doubt to the sidewalk widths provided, Alta recommended adding one foot to sidewalk widths less than six feet. Six feet is the highest threshold for sidewalk width that impacts LTS score.

Level of Traffic Stress and OpenStreetMap Derivation Assumptions Alta used a tiered data collection framework for LTS analysis that derived initial analysis inputs from readily accessible data, to determine where additional data collection will be of the most value to meet project goals. In the case of LTS analysis, Alta derived initial base analysis inputs from OpenStreetMap (OSM) data.38 This section documents how Alta developed the input variables for this analysis.

Where OSM data included values for lanes, posted speeds, bike facilities, sidewalks, parking lanes, and one-way tags, these tags were used to populate a database for LTS inputs. Once that database was populated, Alta used that data to score roadway segments. There are various industry standard methodologies available to score roadway segments based on this data. Alta used the Mineta Institute (2012) methodology, a widely accepted approach. This initial LTS was intended to be augmented by automated or manual review of aerial imagery, local GIS data provided by the City of Santa Rosa, and/or street view data. City-provided data will override OSM data wherever valid data is available. Once the base input values have been validated, the LTS scores can be refreshed using Alta’s LTS calculation scripts.

OpenStreetMap Processing
When using OSM networks for LTS analysis, there were several considerations for creating a useful network for visualization and analysis. The following sections outline how Alta processes OSM data for LTS and related network analyses:

Tag Processing
In many cases, OSM data includes tags for attributes such as lanes, posted speed, bicycle infrastructure, and other facility information recorded in the database. This data is more likely to be complete in urbanized areas globally, and on major facilities such as arterials and highways. There can be substantial variance in tag availability from location to location, but the presence of bike paths and a consistent indicator of functional classification is generally well recorded in OSM. In the case of bike lane blockage rates, Alta assumes these instances are rare unless manual review of commercial districts indicates otherwise. When tags are missing from OSM for the purposes of LTS analysis, Alta proposes the assumptions outlined in TTable 15 to be used as proxy values.

38 OSM is a crowdsourced database of geographic features including administrative boundaries, street centerlines, points of interest, building footprints, physical and natural features, and other types of geographic information. OSM is one of the most prominent examples of volunteered geographic information, where community processes drive the contributions of geographic information to a shared database (2). These geographic features are tagged based on their attributes, and while community wiki pages provide guidance on which tags apply to which features, there is no centralized authority that authenticates these contributions. For example, street networks in OSM may include tags where contributors denote functional classification, number of lanes, one-way classification, speed limits, presence of sidewalks, and the type of bicycle facility that might be present on the network. While OSM is not always accurate, it has been benchmarked against comparable map data sources such as Google and found to have comparable or better accuracy for bike paths depending on the type of error (3). Multiple non-profits, academics, and practitioners have found OSM to be an acceptable base for initial derivation of LTS analysis (4,5,6,7).

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 126
Table 15. Alta’s OpenStreetMap Assumptions for Missing Inputs Roadway Functional
Class
Lanes1,2,3 Speed Limit1,2,3 Centerline Present3 AADT3,4 Residential 2 25 No 1,500
Living Street 2 25 No 2,000
Unclassified 2 25 Yes 1,500
Track 2 30 Yes 2,000
Tertiary 3 30 Yes 5,000
Secondary 4 35 Yes 10,000
Primary 4 45 Yes 20,000
Trunk 6 65 Yes 30,000
Motorway 6 65 Yes 45,000
OTHER 2 25 Yes 2,000

1. Lane assumptions for one-way streets are halved to reflect an accurate per-segment assumption. In addition, all one-way streets are assumed to have medians for the purposes of LTS computations.

2. These assumptions only apply if there is no tag provided for speed limit or number of lanes.

3. These assumptions were developed based on Wasserman et al. 2019 and Harvey et al. 2019.

4. Supplemental detail on road character assumptions and not utilized in LTS computation.

LTS analyses also required an understanding of other geometric considerations, such as bicycle facility width and parking lane width (if present). Alta will begin the analysis with a “benefit of the doubt” approach for these attributes, meaning that if they are present, they are assumed to be of sufficient width. Validation was recommended for detailed LTS assessments, but this was less important for less rigorous, or large-scale (e.g., county-, region-, or statewide) LTS-based analysis. Bicycle infrastructure-related tags were processed using assumptions outlined in T
Table 16.

Table 16. Alta’s OpenStreetMap Assumptions for Bicycle Facilities Cycleway Tag1 Bicycle Facility Type Assumed Bicycle Facility Width (Feet)
Is Separated
Shared Class III - Bike Route 0 No
Shared_lane Class III - Bike Route 0 No
Lane Class II – Bike Lane 6 No
Shared_busway Class II – Bike Lane 6 No
Opposite_lane Class II – Bike Lane 5 No
Cycleway2 Class I – Shared Use Path 10 Yes
Path Class I – Shared Use Path 10 Yes
Track Class IV - Separated Bike Lane 8 Yes
Opposite_track Class IV - Separated Bike Lane 8 Yes
Buffered_lane Class IV - Separated Bike Lane 8 Yes
OTHER N/A 0 No

1. Alta processes nondirectional cycleway tags and directional cycleway tags as part of its conversion. The final LTS score is the worst-case score based on the direction of facilities.

2. Highway tags including the tag “cycleway” are also considered to be Class I facilities.

When parking lane-related tags are processed, assumptions related to their width and rates of bike lane blockage are outlined in TTable 17.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 127
Table 17. Alta’s OpenStreetMap Assumptions for Parking Facilities Parking Lane Tag Assumed Parking Lane Width (Feet)
Parallel 8
Marked 8
Diagonal 16
Perpendicular 20

OTHER NA
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
The BLTS analysis estimates the level of comfort for people biking on a given roadway segment. The BLTS analysis identifies where “gaps” or deficiencies in a bike network exist and provides a measure of how likely different types of riders, based on ability and comfort level, are to use the facility.

Alta’s BLTS analysis methodology was adapted from the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19: Low- Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (Mineta Institute, 2012). BLTS was determined by characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect a bicyclist’s perception of safety and comfort, including posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, and the presence and character of bicycle lanes. The combination of these criteria classified a road segment into one of four levels of traffic stress:
x BBLTS 1 represents roadways where bicyclists of all ages and abilities would feel comfortable riding. These roadways are generally characterized by low volumes, low speeds, no more than two travel lanes, and traffic control measures at intersections. These roadways may have bicycle facilities; separated shared use paths for bicycles also fall into this category.
x BLTS 2 represents slightly less comfortable roadways, where most adults would feel comfortable riding. x BLTS 3 represents moderately uncomfortable roadways, where most experienced bicyclists would feel comfortable riding.
x BLTS 4 represents high-stress roadways where only strong and fearless bicyclists would feel comfortable riding. These roadways are generally characterized by high volumes, high speeds, several travel lanes, and complex transitions approaching and crossing intersections.

The results of the BLTS analysis identified existing roadways that are low stress for many bicyclists, as well as the degree to which roadways must be improved to provide a comfortable experience for riders of all ages and abilities. Additionally, scenario testing can be used to determine how a roadway or route’s level of stress may change with improvements. Figure 77 provides an illustration of the different levels of traffic stress and roadway users considered.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 128

Figure 77: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Methodology
BLTS analysis was completed through an assessment of street segments using spatial data and aerial imagery.

Each segment of the roadway is evaluated based on its characteristics; if multiple scores are present within a segment, the highest (most stressful) score is used as the overall segment score. FFigure 78 illustrates the overall BLTS scoring process. Notes on data inputs and assumptions are found in TTable 18. Segment scores are assigned as shown in TTable 19 through Table 21.

Figure 78. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Generalized Segment Scoring Process

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 129
Table 18. Data Inputs and Assumptions
Table 19 through Table 21 specify the scoring criteria based on roadway configuration, speed, and bike lane/parking lane presence and width. The criteria were adapted from the original 2012 Mineta Institute report.

These tables are used in combination to assign an overall BLTS score; if multiple scores are present within a segment, the highest (most stressful) score is used as the overall segment score. These tables are used in combination to create the segment, approach, and intersection scores described previously.

Table 19. Criteria for Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic Prevailing Speed or Speed
Limit (MPH)
Street Width
2–3 Lanes 4–5 Lanes 6+ Lanes
≤ 25 BLTS 1 or 2 BLTS 3 BLTS 4
30 BLTS 2 or 31 BLTS 4 BLTS 4
≥ 35 BLTS 4 BLTS 4 BLTS 4

1. Lower value is assigned to streets without marked centerlines or classified as residential with fewer than three lanes.

Residential roadways are identified based on the Open Street Map “highway” tag.

Inputs Notes Assumptions
Bicycle
Facilities
Bicycle lanes have a positive impact on BLTS and are
a primary input for developing a BLTS model. The
width of facilities can have an impact on the
associated comfort level. Wider facilities provide
greater comfort, especially on high
-speed roadways.

For analysis purposes, a standard width of 5 feet was
assumed for all bike lanes within the city. Buffered bike lanes, which provide an additional degree of separation from motor vehicles and greater operating space for
bicyclists, were considered to be gr
eater than 6 feet,
meeting the requirements for a BLTS 1 score as outlined in Table 20 and Table 21.

Speed Limit High-speed roadways are considered to be less comfortable for bicyclists, particularly in mixed
traffic or with minimal separation from motor
vehicles. Low-speed roadways are considered more
comfortable.

Speed limit data is available for a subset of roadways within the city limits.

Presence and
Width of On-
Street Parking
Adjacent to
Bicycle Lanes
On-street parking is particularly important for
corridors on which bicycle lanes are present. BLTS is
greater on bicycle lanes adjacent to parking than on
bicycle lanes not adjacent to parking, due to the
potential for “dooring” incidents.

A standard width of 8 feet will be assumed for all parking lanes.

Number of
Lanes
The number of travel lanes corresponds with an
increase in the roadway width, which has an effect
on bicyclists’ level of stress. Roadways with fewer
lanes are generally less stressful for bicyclists.

When data was not available or was inadequate,
assumptions about number of lanes were made based on
the roadway’s functional classification according to
OpenStreetMap or other available data.

Presence of
Trails
Class I facilities can be a vital component of a
municipality’s active transportation network.

Increased separation from motor vehicles can
improve comfort and safety.

Class I facilities are scored as a BLTS 1.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 130
Table 20. Criteria for Bike Lanes Not Alongside a Parking Lane Criteria BLTS 1 BLTS 2 BLTS 3 BLTS 4
Street Width (through lanes
per direction)
1 2 More than 2 (no effect)
Bike Lane Width 6 feet or more 5.5 feet or less (no effect) (no effect) Speed Limit (MPH) 30 MPH or less (no effect) 35 MPH 40 MPH or more Bike lane blockage1 Rare (no effect) Frequent (no effect)

1. Bike lane blockage is part of Alta’s analysis methodology but is assumed to be rare by default.

Table 21. Criteria for Bike Lanes Alongside a Parking Lane

Note that all bicycle facilities separated from traffic by a physical buffer or barrier are scored as LTS 1.

Criteria BLTS 1 BLTS 2 BLTS 3 BLTS 4
Street Width (through lanes
per direction)
1 (no effect) 2 or more (no effect)
Sum of Bike Lane Width +
Parking Lane Width
15 feet or more 14 or 14.5 feet 13.5 feet or less (no effect) Speed Limit (MPH) 25 MPH or less 30 MPH 35 MPH 40 MPH or more Bike Lane Blockage1 Rare (no effect) Frequent (no effect)

1. Bike lane blockage is part of Alta’s analysis methodology but is assumed to be rare by default.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 131
Appendix C: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Methodology The pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) analysis estimates the level of comfort for people walking on a given roadway segment. The PLTS analysis identifies where “gaps” or deficiencies in a pedestrian network exist and provides a measure of how likely pedestrians are to use the facility, based on ability and comfort level.

Alta’s PLTS analysis methodology was adapted from the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Analysis Procedures Manual (ODOT 2020) and was intended as a companion for BLTS. PLTS was determined by characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect a pedestrian’s perception of safety and comfort including sidewalk presence and width, sidewalk buffer width and type, posted speed limit, and number of travel lanes.

PLTS scores classify road segments into one of four levels of traffic stress and, while similar to BLTS scores, PLTS considered the level of attention required in addition to the user experience:
x PPLTSS 1 represents roadways where pedestrians of all ages and abilities would feel comfortable walking and require little attention to traffic.
x PLTSS 2 represents slightly less comfortable roadways that require more attention to traffic and are suitable for children over 10, teens, and adults.
x PLTSS 3 represents moderately uncomfortable roadways, where most able-bodied adults would feel uncomfortable but safe.
x PLTSS 4 represents high traffic stress and would be used only by able-bodied adults with limited route choices.

Figuree 799 provides an illustration of the different levels of traffic stress and roadway users considered.

The results of the PLTS analysis identified existing roadways that are low stress for pedestrians, as well as the degree to which roadways must be improved to provide a comfortable experience for people walking of all ages Figure 79: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 132
and abilities. Additionally, scenario testing can be used to determine how a roadway or route’s level of stress may change with improvements. The analysis is intended for use in urban areas specifically; while it can be used in rural conditions where pedestrian facilities exist, the methodology will yield a high PLTS score (greatest discomfort) where high-speed traffic is present.

Methodology
PLTS analysis was completed through an assessment of street segments using spatial data and aerial imagery.

Each segment of the roadway was evaluated based on its characteristics; if multiple scores were present within a segment, the highest (most stressful) score is used as the overall segment score.

PLTS considered elements of the pedestrian environment both individually (e.g., buffer type), and in combinations that are known to influence each other (e.g., sidewalk width and pavement quality). The analysis used the following overall guiding principles:
x The presence of a complete sidewalk serves as the foundation of the pedestrian network. x As the sidewalk width increases and sidewalk condition improves, the level of stress of the pedestrian environment decreases.
x Buffering width is the total distance between the sidewalk and motor vehicle travel lanes. As width increases, the amount of separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles increases, and the pedestrian environment becomes less stressful.
x Buffer type describes the quality of the buffer that separates the sidewalk from the travel lanes. The presence of a buffer itself provides both actual and perceived safety benefits for the pedestrian, thus decreasing the stress of the pedestrian environment. A buffer with vertical elements is especially effective at increasing the safety of the pedestrian. Landscaping serves to enhance the pedestrian’s travel experience.

Scores for each element of the pedestrian environment were assigned to each segment of the sidewalk centerline, and the most stressful (highest scoring) of the elements is used. If two sidewalks are present on a street, the most stressful (highest scoring) result is mapped to the centerline.

F
Figure 80 illustrates the overall PLTS scoring process. Notes on data inputs and assumptions are found in TTable 22.

Segment scores were assigned as shown in TTable 23 through TTable 26.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 133

Figure 80. The Pedestrian LTS Scoring Process

Table 22. Data Inputs and Assumptions
Pedestrian Element Rationale Data Inputs
Sidewalk Presence and
Completeness (Table 23)
The presence and completeness of sidewalk
facilities are the baseline for measurement. At a
minimum, sidewalks should be present and
complete on most roadways to facilitate
pedestrian travel.

Based on OpenStreetMap
(OSM) data and supplemented
by manual review within the
study area.

Sidewalk Width and Condition
(Table 24)
The width of the sidewalk can have an impact on
the associated comfort level. Wider sidewalks
provide greater comfort, especially on high-
speed roadways. The condition of the sidewalk
is primarily based on concrete quality.

Based on OSM data and
supplemented by manual
review within the study area.

Sidewalk Buffer Type (Table 25)) The buffer type changes the pedestrian experience as it can offer a range of perceived
and actual levels of protection. High-speed
roadways are considered less comfortable, and a
more substantial buffer increases pedestrian
comfort.

Based on OSM data and
supplemented by manual
review within the study area.

Sidewalk Buffer Width (Table 26) Total buffering width is the summation of the width of the buffer, width of parking, width of
shoulder, width of curb and gutter, and width of
the bike lane on the same side of the roadway
as the pedestrian facility being evaluated.

Based on OSM data and
supplemented by manual
review within the study area.

Table 23 through Table 26 specify the scoring criteria based on sidewalk presence, sidewalk width and condition, buffer type, and buffer width, in relation to the existing roadway condition (factors such as speed and number of lanes). The criteria are adapted from the Oregon Department of Transportation Analysis Procedures Manual. These tables are used in combination to assign an overall PLTS score; if multiple scores are present within a segment, the highest (most stressful) score is used as the overall segment score.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 134
Table 23. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Based on Sidewalk Presence and Completeness Number of Travel Lanes
Posted or Prevailing Speed
≤ 25 MPH 30–35 MPH ≥ 40 MPH
2 Lanes > 2 Lanes 2 Lanes > 2 Lanes 2 Lanes
Complete Sidewalk on Both Sides1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 Complete Sidewalk on One Side LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 No Sidewalk2 LTS 2 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4

1. Partial sidewalk coverage on a block is not considered complete.

2. Residential (OSM Highway class local) roadways without sidewalks default to LTS 2; roadways without sidewalks default to LTS 4.

Table 24. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Based on Sidewalk Width and Condition

Sidewalk Condition3
Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Actual/Effective Width (feet)1,2
< 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
≥ 4 to < 5 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
≥ 5 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
≥ 6 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3

1. Effective width is the available/usable area for the pedestrian clear of obstructions. Effective width does not include areas occupied by storefronts or curbside features.

2. For analysis purposes, a standard width of five feet was assumed for all sidewalks.

3. Sidewalk condition is assumed to be good unless other information is available.

Table 25. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Based on Physical Buffer Type Buffer Type1
Prevailing or Posted Speed
≤ 25 MPH 30 MPH 35 MPH ≥ 40 MPH
No Buffer (curb tight) LTS 22 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Solid Surface LTS 22 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
Landscaped LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
Landscaped with Trees LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
Vertical LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2

1. Combined buffer: If two or more of the buffer conditions apply, use the most appropriate (typically the lower-stress type).

2. If no centerline is present (residential street) or the street is traffic calmed (including sporadic vertical separation such as street furniture, street trees, lighting, planters, surface change, and so on), then the PLTS can be lowered by one PLTS level.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 135
Table 26. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Based on Physical Buffer Width1 Total Number of Travel Lanes (both directions)3
Total Buffering Width (feet)2
< 5 ≥ 5 to < 10 ≥ 10 to < 15 ≥ 15 to < 25 ≥ 25
≤ 2 LTS 24 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
3 LTS 34 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1
4–5 LTS 45 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1
6 ≥ LTS 45 LTS 45 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 2

1. Source: Based on ODOT (2020) Table 14-23.

2. Total buffering width is the summation of the width of the buffer, width of parking, width of shoulder, width of curb and gutter, and width of the bike lane on the same side of the roadway as the pedestrian facility being evaluated.

3. One-way facilities are assumed to have their lanes multiplied by two to represent exposure to lane crossing.

4. If no centerline is present (residential street) or the street is traffic calmed (including sporadic vertical separation such as street furniture, street trees, lighting, planters, surface change, and so on), then the PLTS can be lowered by one PLTS level.

5. Sections with a substantial physical barrier/tall railing between the travel lanes and the walkway (such as might be found on a bridge) can be lowered to PLTS 3.

Citations

1. Conveyal. Better measures of Bike Accessibility. https://medium.com/conveyal-blog/better- measures-of-bike-accessibility-d875ae5ed831.

2. Hochmair, H. H., D. Zielstra, and P. Neis. Assessing the Completeness of Bicycle Bike Path and Lane Features in OpenStreetMap for the United States. Transactions in GIS, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2014, pp. 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12081.

3. Mineta Institute. Mekuria M., Furth P., Nixon H. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. 2012. https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/Low-Stress-Bicycling-and-Network-Connectivity

4. Mineta Institute. Chester Harvey, Kevin Fang, Daniel A. Rodriguez. Evaluating Alternative Measures of Bicycling Level of Traffic Stress Using Crowdsourced Route Satisfaction Data. 2019. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/mti_publications/276/

5. Mocnik, F.-B., A. Mobasheri, and A. Zipf. Open-Source Data Mining Infrastructure for Exploring and Analysing OpenStreetMap. Open Geospatial Data, Software and Standards, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2018, p. 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40965-018-0047-6.

6. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Transportation Development Division Planning Section:

Transportation Planning Analysis Unit. 2020. Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Planning/Pages/APM.aspx.

7. PeopleForBikes. Bicycle Network Analysis. PeopleForBikes. https://bna.peopleforbikes.org/#/

8. Wasserman D, Rixey A, Zhou X (Elynor), Levitt D, Benjamin M. Evaluating OpenStreetMap’s Performance Potential for Level of Traffic Stress Analysis. Transportation Research Record. 2019;2673(4):284-294.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 136
Appendix C: Active-Trip Potential Methodology
Understanding demand for active transport helps the City of Santa Rosa identify where facilities may be needed to support walking, biking, rolling, bike share, scooter share, and first- and last-mile transit trips. Not all locations can support active transportation modes easily because of unsupportive infrastructure or long trip distances.

While emerging technologies, such as e-bikes and e-scooters provide new options, ranges, and convenience, their ability to affect change is still contextual. The approach for this analysis is illustrated in FFigure 81.

The methodology for this analysis was designed to employ an origin-destination (OD) matrix enriched with trip distances, travel modes, and pertinent demographic information. While this analysis can be conducted with the outputs of any activity-based model, Alta leveraged Replica Places data for this analysis.

Alta used a series of custom-built scripts to process the Replica Places, an activity-based travel demand model, or similar OD data and create interactive desire line visualizations to help understand areas that already have high concentrations of existing walking, biking, and rolling trips as well as areas with high numbers of vehicle trips whose trip distances indicate they could conceivably be served by walking, biking, rolling, or other micromobility options. Alta used the typical trip distances for walking and bicycling trips reported in the Replica Model to weight all short vehicle trips reported in the analysis. For example, Figure 82 and Figure 83 depict typical trip distances for walking and biking in Santa Rosa, as calculated by Replica Places. Based on the model, 58.2% of walking trips that start, end, or pass through Santa Rosa are less than ½ mile. We weighted the potential for walking and biking trips using the modeled trip distances.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 137

Figure 81. Active-Trip Potential Explainer helps illustrate the concept behind stratifying trips by trip distance to understand whether they could be met by Walking, Biking, or E-Biking.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 138
Figure 82. Distances of walking trips in Santa Rosa. Source: Replica Places, Spring 2023 Figure 83. Distances of biking trips in Santa Rosa. Source: Replica Places, Spring 2023

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 139
Methodology
Alta used Replica Places model data specific to the California-Nevada Megaregion from spring 2023 for this analysis. The data was filtered for private vehicle or Transportation Network Company (TNC) trips that intersect the city boundary, whether or not the trips started or ended in the city. Data was aggregated and analyzed based on the block group level geometries and focused on the typical patterns observed during weekdays except where otherwise noted.

Alta used a series of custom-built scripts to process the Replica Places data to help understand areas that already have high concentrations of existing walking, biking, and rolling trips as well as areas with high numbers of vehicle trips whose trip distances indicate they could conceivably be served by walking, biking, rolling, or other micromobility options.

Alta used Replica data summarized by block group origin to understand the starting points of vehicle trips under five miles. Private vehicle trips made by a passenger were excluded, but the driver’s trip was counted. These results were further divided by trip distance to approximate trips that could be replaced by one of three active modes based on typical trip distances for those modes:
x Trips 0-1 miles: potential walking trips
x Trips 1-3 miles: potential bike trips
x Trips 3-5 miles: potential e-bike trips
To create OD lines, Alta used a custom-built tool to plot lines between block group centroids and symbolize them based on the number of trips.

Limitations
While short trips are indicators of trips that can be met using active modes, it is unrealistic to expect all short trips can be converted to active transportation. Even if supportive infrastructure is provided, there are various reasons why a trip would still be made by non-active modes, including:
x HHeavy Loads. In many cases, some bikes (ex. cargo bikes) may support many types of grocery or shopping trips, but some heavy loads are often bulky or heavy enough to warrant the use of the vehicle. x Multiple Passengers. While some bikes (ex. cargo bikes, tandem bicycles) can accommodate small children, people carrying multiple passengers or who do not feel comfortable navigating a loaded cargo bike (which can make it more difficult to maintain balance) may still opt for a vehicle. x Trip Chaining. Some trips are chained in a way that make it difficult to envision using active transportation for the entire tour/trip. For example, if one leg of a trip that is part of a chain of trips is too long to consider using an active mode, the entire tour/trip may be better made using a vehicle. For example, a pedestrian typically walks half a mile to work on most days but on occasion needs to travel from work to a doctor’s appointment that is two miles away. On these days, they might drive rather than walk. x Physical Impairment. Some members of the community may have an impairment that prevents them from comfortably walking or may not know how to ride a bicycle. x Seasonal Weather. Active trips become more difficult to accomplish in some weather conditions. While walking, biking, and rolling trips may still be viable in many instances, there may be sometimes where it is inadvisable, such as in heavy rain, a heat wave, or unhealthy air conditions. x Formal Occasions. If someone needs to wear formal clothing for an event, including work, they may be less inclined to walk or ride a bike if they would need to shower or change clothes at their destination.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 140
x SStructural Barriers. Some people experience structural barriers to active travel, regardless of the specific trip. These include concerns about the security of one’s bike while parked, harassment from police or passerby, or street crime.
x Personal Preference. Some members of the community may elect to never bike or walk even if an all ages and ability network is provided in a community.

Task 2 - Existing Conditions FINAL 04-17-24

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | 141
Appendix D: Collision Severity Index Methodology
Alta used collision data from 2017 to 2021 from TIMS to analyze the locations and severities of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. For each analysis, Alta filtered to either bicyclist-involved or pedestrian-involved collisions.

Alta also used a prepared roadway network including all public roadways within the City limits, segmented into quarter-mile sections.

To perform the collision severity analysis, Alta assigned collision weights to each collision as follows, based on the severity noted in TIMS:
● Fatal: 15
● Injury (Severe): 5
● Injury (Complaint of Pain) or Injury (Other Visible): 1

Alta then used the spatial join tool in ArcGIS Pro to sum the total weight of all collisions that occurred on each road segment. For example, a segment that had three serious injury collisions (3 x 5 = 15 pts) and one minor injury collision (1 pt) would have a weighted sum of 16. Alta used a rolling-window approach that summed collisions not only on the segment but 300 feet in either direction on neighboring segments. This process allows rolling-window statistics to be calculated on each road segment. The benefits of rolling-window analysis are that they reduce the impact that segment breakpoints or anomalous collisions have on the final collision severity index.

With a sum of collision weights assigned to each segment, Alta divided each segment’s score by the length of the segment to achieve a weighted score per linear mile. This score is known as the Collision Severity Index. This index allows segments of different lengths to be compared equally to understand which corridors, mile for mile, are experiencing the most severe pedestrian or bicyclist-involved collisions.

Appendix C:

Summaries of
Public Engagement
City of Santa Rosa
Active Transportation Plan

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY

City of Santa Rosa | 1
TTo: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner. City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernández; Alta Planning + Design
CC: Charlie Simpson; Alta Planning + Design
Date: February 26, 2025
Re: City of Santa Rosa Active Transportati on Plan – Community Engagement Summary

Introduction
Community engagement included both in person and virtual strategies aimed at engaging with our community members where they were and providing a variety of convenient opportunities for involvement. Engagement strategies included the project webpage, online interactive map, attendance at Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB) meetings, stakeholder meetings, public workshops, and pop-up events. Engagement occurred in two phases:
x Phase 1: Discovery
We focused on understanding the unmet community needs related to walking, biking, and rolling. We used these results to inform the development of the Plan’s recommendations. x Phase 2: Recommendations
We provided opportunities for community members to provide feedback on the Plan’s draft recommendations. We used feedback to fine tune our recommended improvements and prioritize their implementation.

The following community engagement summary provides an overview of each outreach event/strategy, followed by a summary of individual events.

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan – Community Engagement Summary City of Santa Rosa | 2
Outreach Strategies
The Santa Rosa ATP used a variety of outreach strategies to engage with the community. The outreach methods combined opportunities to engage the general public through digital and in-person events. These strategies are summarized below.

Table 1. Outreach Strategies
Outreach
Strategy
Description Number of Events /
Meetings
Number of Participants/Comments
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Advisory Board
Meetings
BPAB meetings were held at each phase of engagement to
gather feedback from this key stakeholder group focused on walking, biking, and rolling. The meetings were held virtually and included a presentation followed by an open discussion.

An additional six meetings were held with the BPAB for
public comment opportunities on Plan deliverables not
associated with a specific phase of engagement.
x Phase 1: Two (2)
x Phase 2: One (1)
x Other (not
associated with a
phase): Six (6)
N/A
Project
Webpage
Alta worked with city staff to provide content updates to the City’s project webpage
(https://www.srcity.org/3906/Active-Transportation-Plan) for every phase of the project. The webpage provided a
location to:
x Promote outreach and education materials
x Host the proposed public surveys
x Document workshops, public events, and other in-
person engagement opportunities
x Allow members of the public to view the final Task
deliverables throughout the project (ex. Final
existing conditions memo)
x Allow members of the public to provide feedback
on the Draft Plan using an online interactive PDF
and eventually view the Final Plan.

N/A N/A
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan – Community Engagement Summary Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 3
Outreach
Strategy
Description Number of Events /
Meetings
Number of Participants/Comments
Online
Interactive Map
An online map was available during each phase of
engagement. The online map allowed community members
to provide feedback on specific challenges and desired
facilities and routes for walking, biking, and rolling. Phase 1 included an interactive map where the community indicated barriers and opportunities to using active transportation, whereas the Phase 2 map requested that community
members review and confirm the draft infrastructure
recommendations. The interactive map for both phases was available in English and Spanish.

N/A Phase 1:
x 1,956 interactions
x 488 unique comments
x 109 comments on unique
comments
x 1,349 votes on unique
comments
Phase 2:
x 2,508 interactions
x 230 unique comments
x 181 comments on unique
comments
x 1,865 votes on unique
comments
Pop-Up Events
Many pop-up events were held at various community
destinations, often during existing community events. These events included feedback boards, comment cards, flyers, and other opportunities to provide feedback. Phase 1 of community engagement included a more robust approach
with additional events focusing on helping us understand the barriers to usin
g active transportation citywide to
inform the Plan recommendations. Phase 2 was used to
confirm recommendations with community members.
x Phase 1: Eleven
(11)
x Phase 2: Two (2)
Phase 1:
x 548 participants
x 343 comments
Phase 2:
x 75 participants
x 55 comments
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan – Community Engagement Summary Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 4
Outreach
Strategy
Description Number of Events /
Meetings
Number of Participants/Comments
Stakeholder
Meetings
Thematic stakeholder meetings were held during each
phase of engagement: one set of meetings was focused on community-based organizations while another set of
meetings was geared towards partner agencies and City
departments. The meetings were held virtually and included a presentation followed by an open discussion.
x Phase 1: two (2)
x Phase 2: two (2)
N/A
Public
Workshops
One public workshop was held during each phase of
engagement. The first in-person workshop was held May
23, 2024, at Sonoma Clean Power Customer Center and
included a presentation, discussion, and interactive stations showcasing the existing active transportation network. The second workshop was held virtually on October 15, 2024, and included a presentation followed by an open discussion. x Phase 1: one (1)
x Phase 2: one (1)
Phase 1:
x 20 participants
x 70 comments
Phase 2:
x 7 participants
x 15 comments
Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan – Community Engagement Summary City of Santa Rosa | 5
Phase 1 Outreach Event / Strategy Summaries

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: September 17, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 1 – WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ Overview
As part of phase 1 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the City of Santa Rosa and Alta held a Community meeting on May 10th, 2024, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Sonoma Clean Power Customer Center. Project staff presented findings from the existing conditions analysis followed by a Question and Answer discussion. Following the presentation, the project team sought input from community members through different stations.

The stations, similar to the pop-up events, included large, printed boards with general information about the plan goals and timeline and maps showing the existing bicycle facilities in different areas of the city.

Residents were encouraged to provide direct feedback with sticky notes and color-coded dots on the large boards representing different areas of the city. In addition to the boards, residents interested in learning more about the project were provided a QR code leading to the project website and online interactive input map.

Participants were encouraged to identify locations on the printed maps of the city to outline:
x Green dots – destinations where community members would like to go (On the Map: “Place green dots on places you would like to go by bike, on foot, or by transit if it were safer or more convenient.”) x Yellow dots – destinations where community members go to (On the Map: “Place yellow dots on the places you travel to most often in Santa Rosa.”)
x Red dots – Areas that are challenging for walking, biking and rolling. (On the Map: “Place red dots on areas where it is challenging to bike, walk, or roll.")
The following memo provides a summary of the location, general number of attendees, and general feedback gathered from the Community Meeting.

Event Details
Event Details
Location: 741 4th St, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Project Team Staff
x Torina Wilson, City of Santa Rosa
x Alexander Oceguera, City of Santa Rosa
x Rob Sprinkle, City of Santa Rosa
x Ana Horta, City of Santa Rosa
x San Hennessey, City of Santa Rosa
x Mauricio Hernandez, Alta
x Charlie Simpson, Alta
x Barry Bergman (WTrans)

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
x William Andrews (WTrans)
Community Meeting attendance: 20 community members
Translation Provided: Spanish
Other services provided: Childcare, food, and drink
Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
General themes emerged from the feedback:
x Creating safe routes for active travel to school.
x Enhancing connections to trails and across freeways.
x Improving crossings at major intersections.
x Upgrade existing painted bike lanes, which feel unsafe and narrow. x Separating bikes and motor vehicles along major arterials. x Improve pavement conditions on all City roads.

Location-Specific Feedback
Comments by Quadrant
Downtown
x Enhance path connection around SMART Trail Tracks.
x Close gaps along SMART Trail.
x Install a bridge over Santa Rosa Creek at Shortt Rd.

Northeast
x Add separated bike lanes along Hwy 12.
x Install a separate bike/ped connection from the Bush Creek Trail to Haworth Park x Install protected bike lanes to connect the US 101 Overcrossing to Downtown along Armory Dr, Carrillo St, Morgan St, and 9th St.

Northwest
x Enhance bike connection between SMART trail to the Children’s Museum x Square out offset trail crossings along the SMART Trail. x Improve trail crossings at Guerneville Rd.
x Add a connection between the Santa Rosa Creek Trail and the Finley Community Center. x Add a connection between Santa Rosa Creek Trail and A Place to Play. x Enhance signal timing and restrict right on red at Range Ave and Steele Ln. x Add protected bike lanes on Fulton Rd.
x Implement a road diet on College Ave from Dutton Ave to Fulton Rd x Reconfigure Yulupa Ave as a Complete Street.

Southwest
x People on bikes ride on the opposite side of the street on Hearn Ave and Sebastopol Rd.

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 3
x Making left turns on a bicycle is dangerous all along Stony Point Rd. x Drivers speeding on Stony Point Rd.
x Enhance the connection between Mitote Food Park and Joe Rodota Trail. x Safer connection from Joe Rodota Trail to Olivers Market across the freeway.

Outreach Boards
A summary of locations is listed below based on the color of the dot utilized on the outreach boards.

x Destinations where the community would like to go (green dots) include:
o Cesar Chavez School
o Sonoma Academy
o The Bridge Church, Fulton Rd and Occidental Rd
o Finley Community Center, W College Ave and Tyara Way
o Hwy 12 and Mission Blvd

x Destinations where the community members go to (yellow dots):
o Montecito Pine Apartments
o Park Manor Apartments
o Camacho Market
o Roseland Regional Library
o FoodMax, Stony Point Rd and Sebastopol Rd
o Monroe Hall, W College Ave and Borden Villa Dr
o Finley Community Center, W College Ave and Tyara Way
o Steele Ln and Santa Rosa Creek Trail
o Youth Community Park, Fulton Rd and Jenes Ln
o Taylor Mountain Regional Park
o Sonoma Ave Park
o Park Trail Open Space
o Santa Rosa Junior College
o Summerfield Rd and Sonoma Ave

x Areas that are challenging for walking, biking and rolling (red dots):
o Sonoma Highway
o Sonoma Highway and Calistoga Rd
o Summerfield Rd and Mission Blvd
o Montecito Blvd and Mission Blvd
o Fountaingrove Pkwy and Chanate Rd
o Sleepy Hollow Dr and Bonita Vista Ln
o Colgan Ave and Colgan Creek Park
o Dutton Ave and Sebastopol Rd
o Fulton Rd and Santa Rosa Creek Trail
o Guerneville Rd and Santa Rosa Creek Trail
o W College Ave and Link Ln
o SMART Trail and Guerneville Rd
o Steele Ln and Range Ave
o Santa Rosa Creek and SMART Railroad Track
o Coffey Ln and Piner Rd
o SMART Rail and Windrose Ln
o Future US 101 Overcrossing
o Franklin Ave and North St

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 4
o Fravel Open Space
o Stony Point Rd and Hwy 12
o Hearn Ave and US 101

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: March 15, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 1 Ͳ^ƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌDĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ Overview
As part of phase 1 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the project team held two virtual stakeholder meetings in June 2024. During the virtual meetings, the project team introduced the project, presented the findings from the Existing Conditions analysis, and engaged in a discussion and Question & Answer session to solicit feedback from stakeholders. The events and dates are listed below:
x Stakeholder Meeting with Community-based Organizations ad Advocates, June 5, 2024 x Stakeholder Meeting with Partner Agencies, June 6, 2024 The following memo provides a summary of the feedback gathered from the Stakeholder Meetings.

Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
x Stakeholders identified the following places as needing better connectivity:
o Santa Rosa Junior College, Hospitals, County Center, shopping centers, post offices, transit stops, Downtown, Sonoma County Event Center at the Fairgrounds, priority development areas from General Plan, schools, libraries, parks, schools
x Stakeholders dentified the following major barriers:
o Lack of protected bikeways and bikeway gaps
o sidewalk gaps (i.e. near Meadow View Elementary School and Helen Lehman Elementary School) o Lack of secure bike parking (especially at grocery stores) o Long crossing distances and perceived speeding on major roadways o Bikeway and sidewalk maintenance issues (i.e. shared use paths and bikeway adjacent to Santa Rosa Junior College)
x Opportunities
o Interest in considering e-bikes in the recommendations o Interdepartmental collaboration needed for the plan’s implementation o Community bike rides
o Youth can be drivers of mode share shift to active modes. o Coordinate City recommendations with County ATP recommendations. o Desire to prioritize a recommended bike and pedestrian network that is comfortable for all users. For bikeways, this should include a connected network of protected bikeways that serve all neighborhoods. o Coordinate this ATP with other Citywide planning and design efforts, including:
ƒ Community Based Transportation Planning Project
ƒ Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (Summer 2024) ƒ VMT Mitigation Banking and Exchange Program
ƒ SMART path plans and wayfinding plans along paths.

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
ƒ Bike share program expecting to roll out in late summer/fall. ƒ Grant applications (SS4A, ATP Cycle 7, ETC)

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: March 15, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 1 – Cinco de Mayo Pop-Up Event

Overview
As part of phase 1 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the City of Santa Rosa and Alta held a pop-up event at the Cinco de Mayo Celebration on Sebastopol Road. The event was held on May 5th, 2024 from 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM. This location was selected to prioritize feedback from the highest need communities in Santa Rosa, as identified by the City of Santa Rosa’s Equity Priority Areas.

The pop-up events included large, printed boards with general information about the plan goals and timeline and maps showing the existing bicycle facilities in different areas of the city. Residents were encouraged to provide direct feedback with sticky notes and color-coded dots on the large boards representing different areas of the city. In addition to the boards, residents interested in learning more about the project were provided a QR code leading to the project website and online interactive input map.

Participants were encouraged to identify locations on the printed maps of the city to outline:
x Green dots – destinations where community members would like to go (On the Map: “Place green dots on places you would like to go by bike, on foot, or by transit if it were safer or more convenient.”) x Yellow dots – destinations where community members go to (On the Map: “Place yellow dots on the places you travel to most often in Santa Rosa.”)
x Red dots – Areas that are challenging for walking, biking and rolling. (On the Map: “Place red dots on areas where it is challenging to bike, walk, or roll.")
The following memo provides a summary of the location, general number of attendees, and general feedback gathered from the pop-up event.

Event Details

Location Date Time Interpretation
Provided
Estimated Participants
Sebastopol Rd, between
West Ave and Avalon Ave,
near Mitote Food Park
Sunday, May 5th 3:00-9:00pm Spanish 116

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
Given the event’s location at the Cinco de Mayo celebration in the Roseland neighborhood, most feedback was provided by residents regarding the areas of southeast and southwest Santa Rosa.

General themes emerged from the feedback:
x Many existing crossings of major roadways—such as Sebastopol Rd, Colleg e Ave, and Stony Point Rd—can be difficult to cross due to long crossing distances, perceived speeding, and vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians. x There is a perception that motorized vehicles frequently drive over the speed limit, run red lights and stop signs, or drive too fast along many major roadways (collectors and arterials). x There is a lack of connectivity to and between existing trails and on-street bike facilities. x Safety challenges exist when crossing under freeway overpasses and/or interchanges.

Location-Specific Feedback
Comments by Quadrant
Downtown
x A bike facility along 4th Street would be great to connect with Rincon Valley Middle School. x Gaps exist along the 6th Street bike lane
x Biking on Montgomery feels dangerous and the existing bike facility isn’t fully continuous Northeast
x The following intersections along College Ave feel unsafe: Orchard St, Beaver St, and Mendocino Ave Northwest
x The bike lane on Dutton Avenue ends at 3rd Street and feels too narrow. x Dutton Avenue and 3rd Street feels dangerous for people walking and biking Southeast
x No sidewalks exist on Bennett Valley Road.
x The bike lane along Santa Rosa Ave feels unsafe and the roadway serves as a barrier to access trails. x Summerfield Rd bike lane seems too narrow.

Southwest
x The intersection of West Hearn Ave and Stony Point Rd feels unsafe. x The intersection of Stony Point Rd and Sebastopol Rd feels unsafe. x Need more connections to South Park
x Bellevue Ave has incomplete sidewalks
x The following conditions make Stony Point Rd a barrier to biking an walking:
o Poor sidewalk conditions
o Roots lifting up the bike lane
o Limited number of crossings
o Existing crossings feel unsafe (poor lighting, long crossing distance, drivers fail to yield to pedestrians) x The following conditions make Hearn Ave a barrier to biking and walking:
o No sidewalks

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 3
o Drivers perceived to be speeding
o Barrier for accessing trails.
o Hearn Ave is an important connection to downtown and the existing bike lane feels unsafe. x The following conditions make Sebastopol Rd a barrier to biking and walking:
o No crossing exists at Goodman Ave
o Few crossings along the corridor
o Existing Crossings feel unsafe
o No crossing exists at Cesar Chavez School
o Missing sidewalk
Outreach Boards
A summary of locations is listed below based on the color of the dot utilized on the outreach boards.

x Destinations where the community would like to go (green dots) include:
o Oliver’s Market – Stony Point (Stony Point Rd/W 3rd St) o Empire College (Russell Ave/US 101)
o Santa Rosa Charter School for the Arts (Benton St/Humboldt St) o Julliard Park
o Benton St and Orchard St
o 6th Street Playhouse (Jefferson St and 6th St)
o Howarth Park
o Stony Point Rd and Rodota Trail
o Bennett Valley Rd near Lazzini’s Market
o Quest Forward High School (Farmers Ln and Bennett Valley Road) o Spring Lake
o Cesar Chavez High School
o Sebastopol Rd and McMinn Ave
o West Junior College
x Destinations where the community members go to (yellow dots):
o Bellevue Ave and SMART Trail
o Bicentennial Park
o Garner Ave and Lombardi Ln
o Stony Point Griffen Ave
o Santa Rosa High School
o Cesar Chavez High School
o Sebastopol Rd and McMinn Ave
o Stony Point Rd and Sebastopol Rd
o Mixtote Food Park (Sebastopol Rd/West Ave)
o Lola’s Market and restaurant (Dutton Ave/Sebastopol Rd) o Julliard Park
o Colgan Park
o B St and 5th St
o Benton St and Orchard St
o Bennett Valley Rd near Lazzini’s Market
o West Junior College
o Punchdown Cellars (Hopper Ave/Piner Creek Trail)
x Areas that are challenging for walking, biking and rolling (red dots):
o Stony Point Rd and Rodota Trail
o Stony Point Rd and SMART Trail
o Stony Point Rd and Sebastopol Rd

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 4
o Stony Point Rd at Stony Point Plaza entrance
o Sebastopol Rd at Cesar Chavez High School
o Dutton Ave and Sebastopol Rd
o Earl St and Olive St
o Hearn Ave and SMART Trail
o Santa Rosa Creek Trail and Fulton Rd
o W 8th St and Link Ln
o W 9th St and N Dutton Ave
o College Ave and US 101
o Steel Ln and Iroquois St
o Mendocino Ave and Ridgeway Ave
o 4th Street and College Ave
o 3rd Street and Brookwood Ave
o 3rd St and Dutton Ave
o 4th Street/Hwy 12 east of Farmers Ln
o Sonoma Hwy and Acacia Ln
o Farmers Ln and Bennett Valley Road
o Yolanda Ave east of Santa Rosa Ave
o Santa Rosa Ave and Bellevue Ave
o Coffey Ln and Hopper Ave
o Kawana Springs Rd and Santa Rosa Ave
o Bennett Valley Rd near Lazzini’s Market
o Hern Avenue at National Fitness
o Bellevue Ave at Elsie Allen High
o SMART Trail at 6th Street
o 6th St and Davis St
o 6th St and US 101
o Prince Memorial Greenway and Santa Rosa Ave
o B St and 7th St
o College Ave and Beaver St
o College Ave and Orchard St
o College Ave and Dutton Ave
o Mendocino Ave and College Ave

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: September 17, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 1 – City-led Pop-up Events

Overview
As part of phase 1 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the City of Santa Rosa held seven culturally relevant pop-up engagement events at planned community gatherings and at existing transit facilities or other prominent locations during the months of April – June in 2024. The events were held in different parts of the city so that a wide range of residents, commuters, and visitors had an opportunity to engage with the project.

Moreover, events were strategically selected to connect with people of all ages and abilities, including students, seniors, people with disabilities, immigrant communities, and low-income residents. The project team provided Spanish translation at each of the seven events. Across each of the city-led events, the City passed out about 500 pencils, 250 stress balls, over 1400 rack card flyers, about 400 business cards and about 400 stickers. Overall, 263 comments were received from all city- led pop-up engagement events. The events, dates, and locations are listed below:
x Earth Day Celebration, April 20th from 12 - 4 PM at Courthouse Square x YMCA Healthy Kids Day, April 27th from 11 AM – 2 PM at the Santa Rosa YMCS x MLK Park Healthy Kids Day
x CityWorks Festival, May 22nd from 5 – 7 PM at Courthouse Square x CHOPS Teen Club
x Pride Parade, June 1st from 11 AM – 5 PM at Courthouse Square x Child in the Wild, June 2nd from 12 – 4 PM at Howarth Park The pop-up events included large, printed boards with general information about the plan goals and timeline and maps showing the existing bicycle facilities in different areas of the city. Residents were encouraged to provide direct feedback with sticky notes and color-coded dots on the large boards representing different areas of the city. In addition to the boards, residents interested in learning more about the project were provided a QR code leading to the project website and online interactive input map.

Participants were encouraged to identify locations on the printed maps of the city to outline:
x Green dots – destinations where community members would like to go (On the Map: “Place green dots on places you would like to go by bike, on foot, or by transit if it were safer or more convenient.”) x Yellow dots – destinations where community members go to (On the Map: “Place yellow dots on the places you travel to most often in Santa Rosa.”)
x Red dots – Areas that are challenging for walking, biking and rolling. (On the Map: “Place red dots on areas where it is challenging to bike, walk, or roll.")
The following memo provides a summary of the location, general number of attendees, and general feedback gathered from the pop-up events.

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
Feedback Summary

Overall Themes
General themes emerged from the feedback:
x Residents would like safer routes for walking and biking to downtown, schools, parks, and trails throughout Santa Rosa.
x Many trail crossings feel unsafe at major roads (i.e. Joe Rodota Rail and Stony Point Rd). x Intersections near US 101 and Highway 12 feel unsafe. x Missing sidewalks in the Roseland Neighborhood.
x Missing bike connections between east Santa Rosa and Downtown, particularly at Farmers Lane. x Homeless encampments along trails, including the Joe Rodota Trail and Santa Rosa Creek Trail, discourage some residents from using them.
x Many major roadways can be difficult to cross due to long crossing distances, perceived speeding, and vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians.
x Many major roadways feel unsafe for biking, even when there is an existing bike facility, due to perceived speeding and lack of separation between motor vehicles and bikes.

General Comments
Other general comments included:
x Support for a Ciclovia (Open Streets) event in Santa Rosa Location-Specific Feedback
Comments by Quadrant
Southeast
x The bike lanes on Brookwood Ave feel unsafe.
x Complete bike network to Petaluma Hill Rd, Dauenhauer Park and Fairgrounds Golf Course. x Improve access to MLK Park, Southwest Park, and RCP Elementary and slow down traffic on surrounding streets. x The following intersections feel unsafe to bike and/or walk: Santa Rosa Ave and Todd Rd, Bennett Valley Rd and Santa Rosa Ave, Hendley St and Pressley St, Santa Rosa Ave and Bellevue Ave. x Perceived speeding drivers along Hendley St and Brookwood Ave. x Connect Colgan Creek Path across US 101.
x The bike lanes along Bennett Valley Rd are discontinuous. x Missing sidewalks on Kawana Springs Rd
x Santa Rosa Ave feels unsafe for biking
Southwest
x Residents feel unsafe on shared-use paths due to houseless encampments. x Improve bike safety along Stony Point Rd and Sebastopol Rd. x Missing sidewalks in the Roseland Neighborhood, on Burbank Ave, Olive St, Barham Ave, Aston Ave, Corby Ave, Stony Point Rd, Sebastopol Rd, and Peterson Rd.

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 3
x The following intersections feel unsafe to bike and/or walk: Joe Rodota Trail and Stony Point Rd, Stony Point and Sebastopol Rd, Corby Ave and Hearn Ave, Fulton Rd to Wright Rd, Hearn Ave and Corby Ave, Hearn Ave and US 101, Dutton Ave and Hwy

12. x Residents would like to see more investment in the Roseland neighborhood. x Poor pavement conditions on South Ave.
x Complete bike network between Fulton Rd and Sunset
Downtown
x Increase separation between cars and bikes along Sonoma Ave. x Improve biking conditions along Montgomery Dr.
x Complete SMART Trail.
x Missing sidewalks on 4th Street near Hwy 12.
x Enhance crosswalk visibility with high-visibility crosswalks or rectangular-rapid flashing beacons. x The following intersections feel unsafe to bike and/or walk: 4th St and Montgomery Dr, 4th St and Hwy 12, and at Sonoma Ave and Brookwood Ave.
x Improve walking and biking routes to Santa Rosa Middle. x Consider closing 4th Street to vehicles.

Northwest
x Bike lanes feels unsafe on Piner Rd and Fulton Rd.
x Missing sidewalks on College Ave, Cleveland Ave, Dennis Ln, 6th St, Peterson Ln, Guerneville Rd, Link Ln and Piner Rd.
x Widen sidewalks around Coffey Park.
x Improve walking and biking routes to Multi-Cultural Child Development Pre-School and French American Charter. x Pave all unpaved shared-use paths.
x The following intersections/crossings feel unsafe to bike and/or walk: Piner Creek trail and Piner Rd, Wilson St and 7th St, across Stony Point Rd, Steele Ln and US 101, Steele Ln and Cleveland Ave, W Third St and Stony Point Rd. x Consider grade separation for the Santa Rosa Creek Path at Pierson St. x It feels unsafe to walk along Barnes Rd and Marlow Rd. x Burnout remnants at W 9th St and Lincoln St.
x Poor sidewalk conditions on Fulton Rd, Ethan Dr, and Teasdale St.

Northeast
x Incomplete bike lanes around Farmers Ln, and along Mendocino Ave and College Ave. x Add bike and pedestrian connections to Spring Lake, Howarth Park and Proctor Terrace Park. x Debris in bike facilities on Armory Ave and Ridgeway Dr. x Improve bike and ped safety along 4th St, Hwy 12, College Ave, Sonoma Ave, Humboldt Blvd, and Wikiup Dr. x Enhance pedestrian connection between Farmers Ln and Downtown. x Bethards Dr serves as a barrier for Mesquite Park and Yulpa Elementary. x Slow down vehicles along Mission Blvd, Montecito Blvd, Hidden Valley Rd, Brush Creek Rd, Humboldt St and Middle Rincon Rd.
x Missing sidewalks on Hoen Ave, Hwy 12, Winding Ridge Rd, Hull Rd and Brush Creek Rd.

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 4
x The following intersections/crossings feel unsafe to bike and/or walk: Hahman Ave and Montgomery Dr, 4th St and Mendocino Ave, 15th and North St (RRFB), Chanate Rd and Humboldt St, St Mary’s Dr and Montecito Rd, Hoen Ave and Sonoma Ave, Mission Blvd and Hwy 12, Hwy 12 and Brush Creek Path, Mission Blvd and Brush Creek Trail, Montecito Rd and Middle Rincon Rd, Oakmont Dr and White Oak Dr, Summerfield Rd and Montgomery Ave, E St and Maple St and across Farmers Ln.
x Widen bike lanes on Hwy 12 near Oakmont Dr.
x Improve safety along Hoen Ave for students at Spring Lake Middle School, Binkley Elementary, and Maria Carrillo High. x Add more crossing opportunities along North St.
x Improve the flashing beacon near Spring Lake Middle.
x Enhance crosswalk visibility along College Ave.
x Missing curb ramps on Stone Bridge Rd.
x Poor pavement conditions on Hoen Ave near Farmers Ln. x Improve pedestrian lighting in Jr College Neighborhood. x Improve safety on Mendocino Ave in front of Santa Rosa High. x Hwy 12 is a major barrier into downtown from the eastern part of the city. x Bike network gap between Calistoga Rd and Spring Lake.

Outreach Boards
A summary of locations is listed below based on the color of the dot utilized on the outreach boards. x Destinations where the community would like to go (green dots) include:
o Santa Rosa Creek Trail
x Destinations where the community members go to (yellow dots):
o Coffee Park
o Piner Creek Trailhead
o Spring Lake
o Taylor Mountain
x Areas that are challenging for walking, biking and rolling (red dots):
o Santa Rosa Creek Trail near Imwalle Dr
o Colgan Ave and Petaluma Hill Rd

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: March 15, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 1 – Lola’s Market Pop-Up Event

Overview
As part of phase 1 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the City of Santa Rosa and Alta held two pop-up events, one at each of the Lola’s Market locations in Santa Rosa’s Roseland and South Park neighborhoods. In Roseland, Lola’s Market is located at the intersection of Dutton Avenue and Sebastopol Road. In South Park, Lola’s Market is located at the intersection of Petaluma Hill Road and Colgan Avenue.

The events were held on Tuesday, May 14th, 2024, from 3:00 PM to 6:30 PM. Project staff were stationed at each location for an hour and a half. These locations were selected to prioritize feedback from the highest need communities in Santa Rosa, as identified by the City of Santa Rosa’s Equity Priority Areas.

The pop-up events included large, printed boards with general information about the plan goals and timeline and maps showing the existing bicycle facilities in different areas of the city. Residents were encouraged to provide direct feedback with sticky notes and color-coded dots on the large boards representing different areas of the city. In addition to the boards, residents interested in learning more about the project were provided a QR code leading to the project website and online interactive input map.

Participants were encouraged to identify locations on the printed maps of the city to outline:
x Green dots – destinations where community members would like to go (On the Map: “Place green dots on places you would like to go by bike, on foot, or by transit if it were safer or more convenient.”) x Yellow dots – destinations where community members go to (On the Map: “Place yellow dots on the places you travel to most often in Santa Rosa.”)
x Red dots – Areas that are challenging for walking, biking and rolling. (On the Map: “Place red dots on areas where it is challenging to bike, walk, or roll.")
The following memo provides a summary of the location, general number of attendees, and general feedback gathered from the pop-up events.

Event Details
Location Date Time Interpretation
Provided
Estimated Participants
Lola’s Market
x 440 Dutton Avenue
x 1680 Petaluma Hill Road
Tuesday, May 14th 3:00-6:30pm Spanish 32

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
Given the event’s location at a Latino supermarket in Santa Rosa’s Roseland and South Park neighborhoods, most feedback was provided by local Spanish-speaking residents. The feedback mainly regarded the areas of southeast and southwest Santa Rosa.

General themes emerged from the feedback:
x Homeless encampments along trails, including the Joe Rodota Trail and Santa Rosa Creek Trail, discourage some residents from using them
x Many locations in the southeast and southwest areas of the City do not have complete sidewalks. Where sidewalks do exist, cars sometimes park on the sidewalk, such as along Dutton Ave near Southwood Dr x Some roadways, such as West Ave near Bayer Park & Gardens, feel unsafe due to poor lighting, vandalism, and perceived speeding by drivers.
x Some intersections at major roadways, such as Petaluma Hill Rd and Breeze Wy, can be difficult to cross due to long crossing distances, perceived speeding, and vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians.

General Comments
Other general comments included:
x Support for a Ciclovia (Open Streets) event in Santa Rosa Location-Specific Feedback
The following specific locations were mentioned, either verbally or through written comments:
x Parking on the sidewalk on Dutton Ave near Southwood Dr x West Ave (near Bayer Park & Gardens) feels unsafe due to poor lighting, lots of vandalism, and speeding drivers x It feels unsafe to cross at Petaluma Hill Rd and Breeze Way x Homeless encampments along trails, including the Joe Rodota Trail and Santa Rosa Creek Trail, discourage some residents from using them
Outreach Boards
A summary of locations is listed below based on the color of the dot utilized on the outreach boards.

x Destinations where the community would like to go (green dots) include:
o Santa Rosa Creek Trail
x Destinations where the community members go to (yellow dots):
o Coffee Park
o Piner Creek Trailhead
o Spring Lake
o Taylor Mountain
x Areas that are challenging for walking, biking and rolling (red dots):
o Santa Rosa Creek Trail near Imwalle Dr
o Colgan Ave and Petaluma Hill Rd
o Petaluma Hill Rd and Breeze Wy

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: September 17, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Webmap Phase 1

Overview
As part of phase 1 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the project team developed an Online Interactive Webmap to provide community members with the opportunity to share feedback related to:
x Destinations that you currently walk, bike, or roll to x Destinations that you would like to walk, bike, or roll to x Routes that work well or that you frequent by biking, walking, or rolling x Routes that you’d like to walk, bike, or roll on
x Barriers to walking, biking, or rolling
The webmap was available for input from March until June. Overall, the webmap received a total of 1,956 interactions (comments and votes combined). The breakdown of the webmap interactions included:
x 488 unique comments
o Barriers (286 unique comments)
o Destinations I currently go to (65 unique comments)
o Destinations I would like to go to (20 unique comments) o Routes that work well or that you frequent (37 unique comments) o Routes you’d like to walk, bike, or roll on (80 unique comments) x 109 comments responding to the above unique comments
x 1,349 Votes (“Like” or “Dislike”) of the unique comments Residents provided feedback on all areas of Santa Rosa but mainly focused in the Downtown. Feedback was collected in the form of points and lines on the Webmap. The following memo provides additional details on the events.

Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
x Destinations
o Courthouse Square, Santa Rosa Mall, Downtown Transit Center, Montgomery Village, Railroad Square, Senior Center at Finley Center, Howarth Park
x Suggested Walking and Biking Routes
o Add connection to Spring Lake from the future Southeast Greenway. o Separate bikes and cars and complete sidewalks along College Ave. o Install protected bike lanes of Farmers Ln.
x Barriers

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
o Joe Rodota Trail at Hwy 12, Joe Rodota Trail and Stony Point Rd, Houseless encampment one Joe Rodota Trail near 3rd St, Farmers Ln and Sonoma Ave, B St and 7th St.

Location-Specific Feedback
Destinations
x Railroad Square
x Playhouse on 6th St.
x Add bike parking near SMART Stations
x Courthouse Square
x Transit Center
x Montgomery Village
x Shopping center and apartments on Yulpa Ave and Hoen Ave. x Oliver’s Market at Stony Point Rd and Hwy 12.
x Community College.
x Senior Center at the Finley Center
x Howarth Memorial Park
x Brush Creek trail entrance on Mission Blvd.
x Taylor Mountain Regional Park
x Bayer Park and Gardens
x Entrance to Joe Rodota Trail on Stony Point Rd.
x A Place to Play Park
Barriers
x Joe Rodota Trail entrance and continuity at Fulton Rd, Stony Point Rd and 3rd St. x Houseless encampments along Prince Memorial Greenway. x Santa Rosa Creek Trail at 3rd St.
x 3rd St and Wilson St.
x Houseless encampments at 6th St and US 101.
x Drivers don’t stop for pedestrians around B St and 7th St. x Narrow sidewalks near 7th St and Mendocino Ave.
x 9th St and US 101.
x College Ave and US 101.
x Mendocino Ave and College Ave.
x Farmers Ln and Sonoma Ave.
x 4th St and Talbot Ave.
x Summerfield Rd and Montgomery Dr.
x Guerneville Rd and Dutton Ave.
x Mendocino Ave and Pacific Ave.
x Steele Ln and Guerneville Rd.
x Mission Blvd and Hwy 12.
x Santa Rosa Ave and Petaluma Hill Rd.
x Sebastopol Rd and Fulton Rd.

Suggested Routes
x Connect future Southeast Greenway and Annadel to Prince memorial Greenway/Joe Rodota Trail ad Doyle Park. x Improve bike and pedestrian facilities along College Ave from 4th St and Marlow Rd.

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 3
x Protected bike lane on Farmers, or a foot/bike bridge over the Santa Rosa Creek connecting Shortt Road and Rogers Way to enhance connection between Montgomery Village to the Safeway shopping area on 4th St and Farmers Ln.
x Bike lanes on Yulupa Ave connecting Galvin Park to Montgomery Dr x Brookwood Ave from Kawana Springs Park to Sonoma Ave. x Hwy 12 along Howarth Memorial Park.
x Mendocino Ave from the Community College to Fountain Grove Parkway. x Pave path along Piner Creek.
x Elliot Ave to Edwards Ave.
x Sebastopol Rd to 3rd St connection into downtown.
x Stony Point Rd across Hwy 12.
x San Miguel Ave from Fulton Rd to Coffey Ln.
x Spencer Ave to W 9th St.
x 4th St.
x Hoen Ave to Sonoma Ave to Downtown.

Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan – Community Engagement Summary Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 6
Phase 2 Outreach Event / Strategy Summaries

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: June 10, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 2 – Public Workshop

Overview
As part of phase 2 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the City of Santa Rosa and Alta held a virtual Public Workshop on October 15th, 2024, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Project staff presented a recap of Phase 1 of the Plan, followed by a presentation of the draft infrastructure recommendations and a Question and Answer discussion.

The following memo provides a summary of the location, general number of attendees, and general feedback gathered from the Community Meeting.

Event Details
Event Details
Location: Virtual
Project Team Staff
x Torina Wilson, City of Santa Rosa
x Rob Sprinkle, City of Santa Rosa
x Mauricio Hernandez, Alta
x Charlie Simpson, Alta
Community Meeting attendance: 7 community members
Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
General themes emerged from the feedback:
x Excitement about the focus of the recommendations on “All Ages and Abilities” x Questions about bike facility design standards
x Questions about which projects may be implemented in the short-term x Desire for improved bike facility along Mendocino Avenue x Curiosity about potential traffic calming measures to be implemented x Desire to fill in small gaps in the bike network to make them more comfortable

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date:

Re: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 2 – Stakeholder Meetings

Overview
As part of phase 2 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the project team held two virtual stakeholder meetings in October 2024. During the virtual meetings, Project staff presented a recap of Phase 1 of the Plan, followed by a presentation of the draft infrastructure recommendations and a Question and Answer discussion. The events and dates are listed below:
x Stakeholder Meeting with Partner Agencies, October 16, 2024 x Stakeholder Meeting with Community-based Organizations ad Advocates, October 17, 2024 The following memo provides a summary of the feedback gathered from the Stakeholder Meetings.

Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
x Interest in lining the City recommendations with the County recommendations/facilities and neighboring jurisdictions
x Interest in the prioritization to look into timing (short-term vs. long-term) x Importance of considering the aging population for recommendations x Desire for explicit definition of ‘study corridor’
x Interest in exploring Quick-Build projects, but with a focus on maintenance and high-quality design over time x Desire for emphasis on designing and planning recommendations, keeping people with disabilities in mind. x The Santa Rosa Junior College is very interested in making biking safer and more comfortable for students. Desire for safer facilities on Mendocino Avenue, Elliot Avenue, and Sebastopol Road. Desire for improvement of Class I trails to feel safer and better maintained.
x Desire to fill in small gaps in the bike network to make them more comfortable. x Excitement for the low stress bike connections in the plan

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2

490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
Memorandum
Date: October 30, 2024 Project: SRO631
To: Mr. Mauricio Hernandez
Alta Planning + Design
From: Barry Bergman
[email protected]
Subject: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 2, 10/8/2024 Mitote Food Park Pop-Up Event Summary Overview
As a part of Phase 2 of community engagement for the City of Santa Rosa’s Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan a pop-up event was held at the Mitote Food Park on Sebastopol Road with staff from the City of Santa Rosa, Alta, and W-Trans. The event was held on October 8, 2024, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. This location was selected as the weekly Santa Rosa Taco Tuesday Ride makes a stop at the Mitote Food Park.

The pop-up event featured presentation of maps of the potential pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Santa Rosa, including both a citywide map well as an enlarged map of southwest Santa Rosa including the Roseland neighborhood, where the event was held. Images were also provided to illustrate the various types of pedestrian and bicycle improvements being proposed. Attendees of the pop-up event were encouraged to provide feedback by talking with staff from the City of Santa Rosa, Alta, and W-Trans, sticking Post-It notes to the maps, and using a business card with a QR code and link to the project website and the online interactive map.

A summary of the event is provided in Table 1. Images of the event are provided in Plates 1 through 4.

Table 1 – Event Summary
Location Date Time Interpretation
Provided
Estimated
Participants
Mitote Food Park,
665 Sebastopol Road
Tuesday,
October 8
6:00–8:30 p.m. Spanish 45
Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
Given the pop-event’s location in the Roseland neighborhoo d and the timing of the event to coincide with the Santa Rosa Taco Tuesday Ride, most comments focused on bike facilities and connections from Roseland to nearby land uses. The comments provided by participants foll owed several general themes : residential neighborhoods need better access to commercial areas, traffic is too fast on major streets which ma kes it feel dangerous for cyclists, and that existing trails and major streets lack adequate bicycle facilities.

Feedback
Feedback largely fell into one of three categories, access, safety, and general infrastructure improvements, and is summarized below:

Mr. Mauricio Hernandez Page 2 October 30, 2024
Access
x Protected bike lanes should connect the Roseland neighbo rhood to the Joe Rodota trail, nearby creek trails, and Oliver’s Market on Stony Point Road.
x Montgomery Drive should have bike lanes near the Lakeside Shopping Center, and sidewalks are needed on Montgomery Drive along the shopping center frontage.
x The Children’s Museum should have better bike access to the surrounding neighborhood. x The fairgrounds should have better pedestrian and bicycle access. x Improved bike/ped access should be provided to the farmer’s market (near Rite Aid).

Safety
x The creek trails need more lighting to improve safety, currently people avoid using the trails at night. x Pacific Avenue feels dangerous for cyclists.
x Traffic is too fast on Franklin Avenue north of North Street and along Maple Avenue. x 4th Street from Farmers Lane to Bryden Lane feels dangerous. x There should be more road safety education.

General Infrastructure
x Sonoma Avenue should have a buffered bike lane.
x Guerneville Road should have a separated bike lane.
x 4th Street should be closed to vehicle traffic.
x The intersection of Montecito Avenue/Brush Creek Trail should have “Keep Clear” pavement markings.

Photo 1 – Community event Photo 2 – Community event

Photo 3 – Community event Photo 4 – Community event

490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
Memorandum
Date: October 30, 2024 Project: SRO631
To: Mr. Mauricio Hernandez
Alta Planning + Design
From: Barry Bergman
[email protected]
Subject: Santa Rosa Public Engagement Phase 2, 10/10/2024 Green Living Fair Pop-Up Summary Overview
As a part of Phase 2 of community engagement for the City of Santa Rosa’s Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan, a pop-up event was held at the Santa Rosa Junior College’s Green Living Fair with staff from the City of Santa Rosa and W-Trans. The event was held on October 10, 2024, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

The pop-up event included maps of the potential improvements for the City of Santa Rosa’s pedestrian and bicycle facilities and descriptions of various pedestrian and bicycle improvements. These ma ps included maps of the Northeast quadrant of the city where the event was loca ted, and citywide maps. Attendees of the pop-up event were encouraged to provide feedback by talking with Santa Rosa and W-Trans staff, providing comments on Post- it notes and adding them to the maps, and providing fe edback online using a business card with a QR code and link to the project website and online interactive map from the pop-up event.

A summary of the event is provided in Table 1. Images of the event are provided in Plates 1 and 2.

Table 1 – Event Summary
Location Date Time Interpretation
Provided
Estimated
Participants
Santa Rosa Junior College,
Bertolini Quad
Thursday,
October 10
6:00–8:30 p.m. Spanish 30
Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
Due to the event’s location at the Santa Rosa Junior College Green Living Fair, feedback appeared to be primarily provided by junior college students and staff.

Feedback
Feedback largely fell into one of three categories, access, safety, and general infrastructure improvements, and is summarized below:

Access
x Provide additional connectivity between facilities along popular biking routes and to destinations in and around downtown.

Mr. Mauricio Hernandez Page 2 October 30, 2024
x During construction projects, maintaining access for pedestrians and bicyclists should be the highest priority.

Avoid sidewalk closures when streets are open to moto r vehicles. There have been cases where detours or alternative routes were either not in place or poorly communicated. x Biking from Sebastopol to Santa Rosa could be made easier with improved connectivity, the paths currently taken can be inconvenient or not straightforward.
x Entering or exiting Class IV bike lanes with concrete ba rriers can be difficult or impossible for certain users if the rider is entering midblock or in segments without entrance/exit points. x Class IV design – recommended order of facilities is bike, pedestrian, parking, then traffic x Provide additional crosswalks along major streets with infrequent crossings, such as Mendocino Avenue.

Safety
x Traffic calming should be implemented on high-speed streets, like Mendocino Avenue as the speeds make pedestrians and cyclists feel less safe.
x Vehicles sometimes don’t stop for pedestrians at a c rossing or slow down very la te. Additionally, vehicles occasionally creep into crosswalks (either to prepare for moving into the intersection, lack of sufficient sightlines, or impatience with pedestrians).
x Pedestrians feel wide roads are dangerous to cross. A dditions such as pedestrian islands or curb bulb outs (such as those found on Santa Rosa Avenue) would make crossing wide streets easier and safer. x On higher speed roads, separation between bike lanes and vehicle lanes would improve comfort and safety for both bicyclists and drivers.
x Class IV bike lanes with concrete barriers are perceived to be dangerous in certain scenarios. If bicyclists ride in both directions in the same lane (regardless of whether the lane is designed to be two-way or not), attempting to move out of the way wi th concrete barriers may lead to collis ions either from lack of space or from catching the barrier. Entering or exiting can also be unsafe due to lack of entering/exiting space.

General Infrastructure
x Create a better transition for 4th Street and Bryden Lane. x Install a roundabout at the intersection of College Avenue and Mendocino Avenue. x Implement road diet on College Avenue from US 101 to 4th Street, with one lane in each direction, center turn lane, and bike lanes.
x Install protected bike lanes on E Street and Brookwood Avenue from Sonoma Avenue to Vallejo Street. x More and better crosswalks near Santa Rosa Junior College. x Connect Flat Rock Park to downtown.
x Improved facilities near downtown and SRJC.

Photo 1 – Community event Photo 2 – Community event

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: February 26, 2025
Re: Santa Rosa Webmap Phase 2

Overview
As part of phase 2 of community engagement for the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan (Activa Santa Rosa), the project team developed an Online Interactive Webmap to provide community members with the opportunity to share feedback related to:
x Bike network recommendations
x Bike spot recommendations
x Pedestrian network recommendations
x Pedestrian spot recommendations
The webmap was available for input throughout October 2024. Overall, the webmap received a total of 2,508 interactions (comments and votes combined). The breakdown of the webmap interactions included:
x 488 unique comments
o Bike network recommendations (83 unique comments)
o Bike spot recommendations (173 unique comments)
o Pedestrian network recommendations (32 unique comments) o Pedestrian spot recommendation (115 unique comments)
o Comment on a unique comment (181 unique comments)
Residents provided feedback on all areas of Santa Rosa but mainly focused in the Downtown and around the US 101 and Hwy 12 intersection. Feedback was collected in the form of points and lines on the Webmap. The following memo provides additional details on the events.

Feedback Summary
Overall Themes
x Bike Network Recommendations
o Increased separation between bikes and motor vehicles along major roadways. o Traffic diversion to reduce vehicle traffic on neighborhood bike routes. o Expanding the City’s trail network with new trail, neighborhood connections, and crossings over creeks. o Creating safe bike routes to school with separated bikeways and enhanced traffic calming. x Bike Spot Recommendations
o Crossing enhancements where trails meet roadways.
o Crossing enhancement where roadways meet US 101 and Hwy 12. o Crossing enhancements at major roadways such as Sebastopol Rd, Santa Rosa Ave, Stony Point Rd, Guerneville Rd, Farmers Ln, Montgomery Dr, and Mendocino Ave. x Pedestrian Network Recommendations

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
o Completing the sidewalk network where there are gaps
o Reduce vehicle volumes on neighborhood streets and in the downtown area. x Pedestrian Spot Recommendations
o New marked crosswalks and crossing enhancements to parks, schools, and shopping centers. o Enhancing visibility of people waiting to cross an intersection. o Using pedestrian beacons to enhance mid-block crossings.

Location-Specific Feedback
Bike Network Recommendations
x Increased separation between bikes and motor vehicles along:
o Stony Point Rd
o Sebastopol Rd
o Mendocino Ave
o Farmers Ln
o Guerneville Rd
o Santa Rosa Ave
o College Ave
o Dutton Ave
o 4th St
o Sonoma Ave
o Montgomery Dr
x Neighborhood bike route enhancements
o Pacific Ave
o Spencer Ave
o Boyd St
o South Ave
o Lombardi Ln
Bike Spot Recommendations
x Guerneville Rd and Range Ave
x Guerneville Rd and US 101
x Joe Rodota Trail and Stony Point Rd
x Joe Rodota Trail and Dutton Ave
x Stony Point Rd and Sebastopol Rd
x Fulton Rd and Hwy 12
x Hearn Ave and Hwy 12
x Hearn Ave and Santa Rosa Ave
x Steele Ln and US 101,
x Mendocino Ave ad Steel Ln
x College Ave and Humboldt St
x College Ave and Cleveland Ave
x Mission Blvd and Montgomery Dr
Pedestrian network recommendations
x Complete missing sidewalk
o S Wright Rd
o McConnell Ave
o Boyd St

MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 3
o Haman Dr
o Francisco Ave
o Summerfield Rd
o Wilson St
o Corby Ave
o Summerfield Rd
x Widen sidewalks
o Franquette Ave
o Cleveland Ave
o Sebastopol Rd
o Lewis Rd
o Morgan St
o Middle Rincon Rd
Pedestrian spot recommendations
x Crossing enhancements
o Franklin Ave and Monroe St
o Sebastopol Rd and Leddy Ave
o Monte Verde Dr and Saint Francis Rd
o Dutton Ave and Hewett St
o Fulton Rd and Wishing Well Way
o Farmers Ln and Magowan Dr
o Franklin Ave and Monroe St
o Hearn Ave and US 101
o A St and 6th St
Appendix D:

Development of
Recommendations
Memo
City of Santa Rosa
Active Transportation Plan

MEMORANDUM

City of Santa Rosa | 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportati on Planner; City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernández, Alta Pla nning + Design; Barry Bergman, W-Trans CC: Charlie Simpson, Alta Planning + Design
Date: June 24, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan - Recommendation Development Approach and Data

Introduction
This memo outlines the approach and methodology for developing recommendations for the City of Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan. This methodology relies on using consistent data and a clear process to apply federal, state, and city design guidance in an objective and context sensitive manner. The outcome of this methodology will be a set of maps depicting existing, funded, and newly proposed projects, along with a project list with the project name, proposed facility type, and location for each recommended improvement. Proposed improvements will prioritize the development of a complete active transportation network that improves equitable outcomes, safety, access, and comfort for people of all ages and abilities.

Guidelines and Standards
Local1, state, and federal guidelines and standards to follow for developing recommendations includes:
x City of Santa Rosa Traffic Standards (2008)
o Defines standards for roadway signage, markings, and equipment in addition to those set forth in the California MUTCD.
x City of Santa Rosa Street Design & Construction Standards (2004) o Informs design of public infrastructure, including standards for different roadway types and includes pedestrian facilities and bike lanes
x City of Santa Rosa Public Storm Drain Standards (2005) o Defines minimum standards for drainage for projects in the public right-of-way and requirements of private property owners
x City of Santa Rosa Park and Landscape Construction Standards (1997) o Provides standards and requirements for landscaping on public property including parks, roadways, and parkways
x City of Santa Rosa Construction Specifications for Public Improvements (1979)

1 All City Standards listed here are in the process of being updated. The Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan process and recommendations will inform the City Standards update.

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 06-24-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
o Provides direction regarding construction materials and procedures for facilities including streets, sidewalks, curbs, pedestrian ramps, and street trees
x Caltrans 7th Edition Highway Design Manual (HDM) – Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (2015) o Informs the design and implementation of bicycle facilities. References FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide x Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 94 – Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance (2024) o Informs decision to maximize the use of the public right of way to achieve sustainable and equitable mobility
x Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 89-02 – Class IV Bikeway Guidance (2022) o Informs the design and implementation of Class IV bicycle facilities x Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide (2023)
o Informs design and implementation of different traffic calming treatments x FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019)
o Informs facility type recommendation based on roadway speed, volume, and urban/rural context. x FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (2016)
o Informs rural bicycle and pedestrian recommendations
x FHWA Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)
o Informs pedestrian improvements
x FHWA STEP: Improving Visibility at Trail Crossings (2021) o Informs pedestrian and bicycle improvements at trail crossings x FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
o Supplements pedestrian and bicycle recommendations as needed based on location x FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
o Informs road diet feasibility determination
Recommendations Development Phases
Infrastructure recommendations will be developed in two main phases. The first phase will build directly on the Existing Conditions memo, using key data to build out an initial “backbone” network of bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

This will include a desktop review of existing facilities (ex. sidewalk, marked crosswalks, and bike infrastructure) to identify clear network deficiencies. Additionally, the first phase will focus on streets and intersections identified as collision hotspots, streets with transit routes and high-ridership bus stops, and areas near schools, commercial corridors, large employment sites, senior facilities, recreation sites, government buildings, and medical facilities.

The second round will be focused on identifying additional improvements across the rest of the city, based on the considerations and criteria listed below. This round will also incorporate feedback received during public engagement activities, as appropriate, such as specific locations or infrastructure types requested using the online mapping tool and during in-person outreach events. Community input will be evaluated by the project team to identify feasible, cost- effective solutions to community concerns and ideas.

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 06-24-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa3
Recommendations Development Approach
Bicycle Recommendations Considerations
Alta will identify context-sensitive bike facility recommendations using a multi-step approach that allows us to evaluate feasibility while meeting the needs of people bicycling in Santa Rosa. Following the guidelines and standards described above, such as the Caltrans DIB 94, Alta will use the following high-level process for determining proposed bicycle projects:

1. Identify potential improvements (i.e., corridors and intersections)

2. Identify desired bike facility type (class)

3. Evaluate desired bike facility type (class) for feasibility using various criteria (described below)

4. Recommend preferred bike facility based up on feasibility evaluation (step 3 above)

5. If necessary, explore feasible alternatives or the “nex t best” facility if the preferred bike facility is not determined to be feasible.

The three main criteria that Alta will use to vet bicycle network recommendations for feasibility are:

CCriterionn 1. Roadwayy Contextt
First, Alta will consider what facility is most appropriate for different roadways based on their motor vehicle speeds, using the City’s radar enforceable speed limit data, and traffic volumes, using Replica average daily traffic (ADT) data. State and Federal guidance indicate that, in general, the higher the speed and volume of a roadway, the more separated and protective the recommended bike facility should be. Class III bicycle routes and boulevards are most appropriate for lower speeds and volumes, such as along local, residential streets; Class II bike lanes or buffered bike lines are best for streets with lower speeds and low- to moderate volumes; and Class IV separated bike lanes or Class I shared use paths are best for moderate to high speeds and high volumes. The graphic below shows general guidance for how vehicle volumes and speeds can be taken into consideration to determine a preferred bike facility type.

Figure 1: Caltrans DIB-94 Bikeway Selection Chart
Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 06-24-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 4

It is important to note that the suggested parameters in this graphic assume that actual speeds are close to posted speed limits. If, however, there is data indicating that actual speeds are higher than posted speed limits (e.g., from consistent community input or police data), then we consider the actual speed rather than the posted speed.

CCriterion 2. Planned/Funded Projects
This criterion builds on planned/funded and already under-design projects that the City has in the pipeline over the next five years. This information will help us:
x Avoid redundant or conflicting projects between the Active Transportation Plan recommendations and previous or concurrent efforts, and
x Identify potential connections to planned/funded projects to avoid bicycle network deficiencies.

Please note that this criterion is dependent on City data to advance the analysis and we hope to obtain the most up to date data related to the next 5 years of project implementation.

Criterion 3. Roadway Reconfiguration Feasibility Index & Usable Space Using ADT data from Criterion 1, Alta will also identify roadways which may be candidates for a roadway reconfiguration (“road diet”) based on current traffic volumes, number of lanes, and identified need for greater accommodation for active transportation modes (i.e., people walking, biking, or rolling). The most common application of a road diet consists of converting four lanes to three lanes – two traffic lanes, one for each direction, and one two-way left-turn lane – but there are other configurations that can work for different contexts. Per FHWA and Caltrans guidelines, ADT provides a good first determination of whether to consider a road diet. Typically, roadways with an ADT of 20,000 or less are good candidates for road diets, though this can vary for different jurisdictions, and can be further evaluated for feasibility using other considerations listed in the next section. We will work with City staff to determine what thresholds are most appropriate for Santa Rosa. When removing a travel lane is not feasible, lane narrowing (e.g., down to 10 feet) may be an appropriate alternative for creating more space for dedicated bicycle facilities.

Other Considerations
In addition to the three primary criteria described above, Alta will consider other factors when determining bicycle recommendations, including but not limited to:
• Equity
• Community input
• Collision hotspots
• Previously proposed but not yet planned/funded bicycle facilities • High Stress (Level of Traffic Stress 4) roadway segments according to the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) analysis
• Unique environment conditions like topography and landscape • Physical constraints including available right of way • Barriers such as railroads, highways, and waterways
• Traffic vehicle mix (e.g., whether roadways have a lot of bus or freight/truck traffic) • Frequency of driveways and intersections
Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 06-24-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 5
Pedestrian Recommendations Considerations
The intent of the proposed evaluation is to update the network developed for the 2018 Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Update and support the land use vision as currently presented in the Draft Santa Rosa General Plan 2050.

Pedestrian Crossings Typologies
x DDevelop Intersection Typologies: W-Trans will work with the City to develop pedestrian crossing treatment typologies for intersections based on the City’s street functional classifications – for example, arterial/arterial, arterial/collector, and other combinations, as well as facilities such as highway on/off ramps and mid-block crossings. The typologies will include recommended crossing enhancement strategies, for which multiple options could potentially be used in tandem, depending on the context. Examples of treatments to be incorporated into the typologies for unsignalized crossings include, but may not be limited to, high visibility striping, curb extensions, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), High Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWK), median refuge islands, high visibility pedestrian crossing signs, and advance yield markings (“shark’s teeth”). Typologies will also be developed for signalized intersections, including design features such as leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs), striping recommendations, and signal phasing recommendations to avoid vehicle- pedestrian conflicts.

The specific mix of recommended treatments will be developed based on demonstrated effectiveness from guidance including FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA, 2017, Caltrans’ Traffic Calming Guide, Caltrans DIB 94, and FHWA’s STEP: Improving Visibility at Trail Crossings.

Draft typologies will be prepared and presented to staff for refinement to reflect local conditions and needs.

Typologies are not intended to be “one size fits all”, but to provide a starting point for further analysis and to develop a systematic, consistent approach for use of these treatments throughout the City.

x Compile Previous Project Recommendations: This component of the analysis will be based on the City’s previous planning efforts and project recommendations as a starting point for identifying intersections for potential enhancements. Key documents include the BPMP, Santa Rosa General Plan 2050, City of Santa Rosa Local Road Safety Plan, Sonoma County Vision Zero Action Plan, and more focused efforts such as the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes.

Plans completed prior to 2018 are assumed to have been incorporated into the BPMP. The consultant team will meet with City staff to help identify and confirm previously proposed pedestrian infrastructure projects that have been completed or have been funded.

x Identify Additional Candidate Intersections: To develop a list of candidate project locations, intersections of arterials and/or collector streets will be identified within a one-quarter mile buffer around public schools, SMART rail stations, major bus stops, and selected large employers. Other locations will include the on- and off-ramps at the SR 12 and US 101 interchanges as well as intersections in the High Injury Network. This step will also incorporate feedback received during public engagement activities, as appropriate, such as specific locations or infrastructure types requested using the online mapping tool and during in-person outreach events.

Recommendation Development Approach and Data FINAL 06-24-24 Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 6
x AAssign Typologies to Candidate Intersections and Integrate with Previous Data Collection: The locations identified in the previous two steps will be classified according to the pedestrian crossing typologies. The information in the GIS database will be used to identify the known features of these intersections, such as traffic controls and presence of crosswalks.

Sidewalks Gaps and Connectivity
• Assess Sidewalk Network: Major sidewalk gaps will be identified from the GIS map prepared for the existing conditions analysis, focusing on arterials and collectors. Sidewalks should be on both sides of the roadway if located within one-quarter mile of the following: large-scale commercial/residential land use; SMART station; schools; or high-ridership bus stop as identified in the existing conditions analysis. Consideration will also be given to barriers that require a circuitous path of travel between key origins and destinations, including railroad tracks, creeks, and highways; this could be quantified by establishing a minimum diversion threshold such as the degree to which trip lengths are increased due to the presence of the barrier. Consideration will also be given to gaps near the boundary between the City and unincorporated Sonoma County to identify interjurisdictional connectivity issues.

Data Needs
Alta will use the following data files to support recommendation development under this task:

Data Recommended Source
Posted Speed Limit Open Street Map (OSM)
Average Daily Traffic Volumes Replica
Existing/Available Right--of--Way Parcel Based Analysis (Alta) Existing Bike Facilities City data, Alta analysis
Collisions SWITRS
Public Input Input map (Alta), notes from outreach events (Alta)

Appendix E:

Policy and
Programs Memo
City of Santa Rosa
Active Transportation Plan

MEMORANDUM

City of Santa Rosa | 1
To: Torina Wilson, Transportati on Planner, City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernandez, Alta Planning + Design
Date: November 5, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan | Policy and Program Recommendations (FINAL)

This memo summarizes recommended policies and programs to support and complement the expansion of Santa Rosa’s Active Transportation network. The document has been organized using the 6’Es of transportation planning (i.e., Engineering, Encouragement, Education, Evaluation, Equity, and Engagement). The document includes a summary of previously proposed and existing programs/policies, and identifies specific goals supported by each recommended program and policy.

It is important to note that some recommendations reaffirm policies and programs proposed in previously approved plans (e.g., General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update, etc.). The City may not have had the opportunity to expand existing programs or policies as recommended or may not have had the available funding to implement recommended policies and programs.

AA note on Enforcement: For more than 15 years, Enforcement programs/policies were used as a core factor in the organizing framework for transportation planning. In recent years, however, this framework has been updated to remove enforcement and include equity and engagement as two of the main pillars of programmatic and policy work.

As part of the addition of Equity, the Enforcement “E” was reassessed to focus on community approaches to safety, understanding the deep issues that exist in many communities with law enforcement. As a result, this Plan does not recommend general enforcement programs. However, enforcement focused on road safety including penalizing dangerous actions such as vehicle speeding, running red lights, and failure to yield or stop at traffic control devices (ex.

Stop signs, HAWKs, rectangular rapid flashing beacons) should still be considered. To that end, this memo seeks to present ideas within the engineering “E” to solve many of the common challenges historically addressed through enforcement, such as speeding and bike lane encroachment. This Plan also supports City collaboration with the Santa Rosa Police Department on active transportation safety education and encouragement activities. 1

1 Dropping Enforcement from the Safe Routes to School 6 E’s Framework | Safe Routes Partnership FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
Previously Proposed/Existing Programs and Policies
TTable 1 provides a summary of existing and previously proposed programs and policies in support of active transportation in the City of Santa Rosa. The table references the 2018 City of Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update and has been organized by the aforementioned themes.

Table 1: Previously Proposed / Existing Programs and Policies (by Theme)

Theme
Policies/Programs
Proposed in 20188 PPlan Existing
Engineering
x Vision Zero Policy
x School Zone Speed Limits
x Wayfinding Sign Program
x Pedestrian Scale Lighting
x Bicycle & Pedestrian Amenities
x Maintenance Program (Street
Sweeping, Vegetation
Maintenance through
MySantaRosa)

x Adoption of Sonoma County Vision Zero Action Plan
(2022)
x Wayfinding Signage Program
x MySantaRosa dashboard for reporting problems in the
community and accessing services. This has included
bike lane restriping, potholes, sidewalk damage,
vegetation, and traffic signals
x Complete Streets Policy
Education
x Updated “StreetSmarts” Campaign
x Bicycle Safety Education for Adults
x Safe Routes to School
x Waste Bin Placement

x Sonoma County Safe Routes to School Program
Encouragement
x Hire a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Coordinator
x Social Walks/Rides
x Walking & Biking Ambassadors
x Adopt-A-Trail Program
x Bike Rack Program
x Bicycle Friendly Business Program
x SMART Corridor Bike Share
x Bicycle Parking at Large Events

x Bike Rack Request Form
x Bike Rack Installation Guide
x Bike to Wherever Day
x Adopt a Green Space Program
x Sonoma Marin Bike Share Pilot (Under Development)
x Bike Valet Service at large events (Sonoma County
Bicycle Coalition)
x Hired a transportation planner focusing on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
Enforcement
x Bait Bike Program
x Targeted Enforcement

x Bait Bike Program
x Targeted Enforcement at locations with high incidence of red light running
Evaluation
x Annual Report Card
x Vehicle Miles Traveled
x Active Transportation Online Dashboard
x Safe Routes to School Travel Plans (Sonoma Safe
Routes Program)
x Vehicle Miles Traveled Transition
x Annual Workplan Process (report to BPAB)

Engagement
x No specific engagement-focused
policies/programs recommended
in the 2018 Plan
x Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB)
x City webpage for reporting Walking/Biking Issues
x Community Empowerment Plan and Principles of
Community Engagement
FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 3
Proposed Programs and Policies
This section describes proposed new or expanded programs and policies supporting active transportation. Where appropriate and available, each section presents examples of existing policies and programs within the city and best practices from other cities.

Engineering and Infrastructure
Support facilities that provide increased comfort and ease for people who bike, walk and roll. TTable 2 summarizes proposed engineering programs and policies that work with existing bicycle infrastructure to improve user experience.

Table 2: Recommended Engineering Programs and Policies
Support
Program/Policy
Description Plan Goal Examples
Vision Zero Policy Adopt a local Vision Zero policy to better understand local collisions and collaborate across
City Departments to improve safety for walking,
biking, and rolling in Santa Rosa.

x Make Safety the
Default Option

x Increase Access and
Comfort
x Sonoma County, CA

x Fremont, CA

x Santa Clara, CA
Banning IImplement
“No Right Turn on
RRed” policy
The City will evaluate restrictions banning motor
vehicles from turning right while they have a red-
light signal on a case-by-case basis.

Specifically at high pedestrian/bicycle traffic
intersections and near schools as projects move
into the design phase.

x Make Safety the
Default Option

x Increase Access and
Comfort
x Ann Arbor, Michigan
Bike detection at key
intersections
Develop an inventory of signalized intersections
without bicycle detection where bicycle facilities
exist and implement prioritized traffic signal
modifications to include these improvements at
high-traffic bicycle locations with bicycle detection
at these locations.

x Create a Sustainable
City

x Make Safety the
Default Option
x Santa Clara County, CA

x Huntsville, Alabama
White Paper
Leading Pedestrian
IInterval Policy
Create a policy that standardizes Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) at high-pedestrian traffic
intersections across the city, except where the City
determines there to be an exception. These
improvements should be prioritized within
disadvantaged communities and at intersections
with a history of pedestrian collisions.
x Make Safety the
Default Option

x Increase Access and
Comfort

x Promote Equity and
Social Justice
x CA AB 2264 (2022)
FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 4
SSupport
PProgram/Policy
DDescription PPlan Goal EExamples
UUpdate Street Design
SStandards
Review and update all relevant policy and design
standards regarding bikeway facilities, path and
sidewalk design, materials, and supporting
amenities to be consistent with the most recent
best practices and state and federal standards for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and in compliance
with the latest ADA Standards for Accessible
Design and Public Right-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG).

x Make Safety the
Default Option

x Increase Access and
Comfort

x Create a Sustainable
City
x NACTO Urban Street
Design Guide
Rapid
IImplementation &
Piloting

To streamline project delivery, the City should
consider implementation of Quick-Build or Tactical
Urbanism strategies.

The City should prioritize Quick-Build projects,
especially in historically under-
invested/disadvantaged communities and at high-
collision locations.

Quick-Build projects may include slip lane retrofits
and corner curb extensions. Additionally, the City
should consider implementing Quick Build projects
identified in completed school Walk Audits.

x Make Safety the
Default Option

x Increase Access and
Comfort

x Promote Equity and
Social Justice

x Create a Sustainable
City
x CalBike Quick Build
Street Design
Daylighting In compliance with the California Vehicle Codes Section 22500 that prohibits people from parking,
stopping, or leaving a motor vehicle unattended
within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any
marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet of
any crosswalk where a curb extension is present.

The City can improve enforcement of the California
Vehicle Code by installing a red-painted curb, curb
extensions, bicycle parking or other space
activation, and/or signage.
x Make Safety the
Default Option

x Increase Access and
Comfort

x Create a Sustainable
City
x Fremont, CA
Lower Speed Limits Create a program to analyze and reduce speeds where appropriate along arterial and collector
roadways based on the CA Manual for Setting
Speed Limits. Lowering the speed limits on streets
may lessen the severity and frequency of crashes.

x Make Safety the
Default Option

x Santa Monica, CA
FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 5
SSupport
PProgram/Policy
DDescription PPlan Goal EExamples
SSchool Zone Speed
LLimits
Per California Vehicle Code Section 22358.8, the
city should consider reducing speed limits around
School Zones, which may be lowered to 15 mph on
all two-way residential streets under the City’s
jurisdiction within 500 feet of schools and 25 mph
up to 1,000 feet from schools.

x Increase Access and
Comfort

x Make Safety the
Default Option
x Oakland, CA
Expanding City’s TTree
Canopy
Consider planting shade trees and other greening
elements along bike and pedestrian corridors and
within school zones. Caltrans considers street trees
to be traffic-calming elements as they are often
attributed to a perceived narrowing of the
roadway, a sense of rhythm and human scale
created by framing the street, and the perception
that the driver is in a place where they are more
likely to encounter pedestrians, bicyclists, and
cross-traffic.

x Increase Access and
Comfort

x Create a Sustainable
City
x San Jose, CA

x San Rafael, CA

FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 6
Encouragement
Encouragement programs help to create a lasting active transportation culture and can encourage overall mode share shifts. TTable 3 provides an overview of recommended bicycle and pedestrian encouragement programs.

Table 3: Recommended Encouragement Programs
Support
Program/FFacility
Description Plan Goal Examples
Bicycle/Pedestrian--
Friendly Designation
Continue to pursue bicycle-friendly and
pedestrian-friendly designations from the
League of American Bicyclists and Walk Friendly
America, respectively.

Santa Rosa currently has a silver designation in
the Bicycle Friendly Communities program from
the League of American Bicyclists

x Create a
Sustainable City
x League of American
Bicyclists

x WalkFriendly Communities

Open Streets Start a regular Open Streets program to
encourage biking, walking, and rolling and
strengthen local bike culture.
x Create a
Sustainable City

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Viva Calle SJ

x CicLAvia
Transportation
Demand
Management (TDM)
Implementation Plan
Develop a Transportation Demand
Management Implementation Plan or Report to
increase support for commuters bicycling or
walking to work.

Plan may include identifying additional metrics
for businesses to count active transportation-
supportive policies towards their TDM plans
and goals.

x Create a
Sustainable City

x Increase Access
and Comfort
x Denver, CO

x Metropolitan
Transportation Commission,
Commuter Benefits
Program
Safe Routes to School The City will continue to act as an engaged partner with the Sonoma County Safe Routes to
School program in support of Safe Routes to
School activities and programs at schools within
the city.
x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Promote Equity
and Social Justice
x Sonoma County Safe Routes
to School
FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 7
SSupport
PProgram/FFacility
DDescription PPlan Goal EExamples
TTrail Maintenance Work with the City’s Encampment Team to regularly maintain and address community
safety concerns around houseless
encampments on shared use paths.

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Promote Equity
and Social Justice
x Richmond Greenway -
Richmond, CA

x Rails-to-Trails: Maintenance
Basics
SSocial Walks/Rides Continue to support local organizations who wish to host social rides or walks or that
advocate on behalf of Vision Zero initiatives.
x Create a
Sustainable City

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Taco Tuesday

x Sonoma County Bicycle
Coalition

x Bikeable Santa Rosa

WWaste Bin
PPlacement
Provide clear instructions on the City Website
and in utility bills mailed to residents about
properly placing waste bins. Where on-street
parking exists, bins should be placed near the
curb within the parking aisle. Residents should
be instructed to place bins against the curb
where no on-street parking exists to minimize
intrusion into the bicycle lane.

Work with waste management companies to
add reflective marking to waste bins to increase
their visibility at night and reduce the risk of a
bicycle collision with a misplaced waste bin, in
addition to stenciling “Do Not Place In Bicycle
Lane” on the waste bins to remind residents of
proper placement.

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Make Safety the
Default Option
x Pomona, CA
Bicycle Parking at
Large Events
Revise Chapter 11-40 Section 040 of the Santa
Rosa Municipal Code regarding event permits
to include “Conditions for Issuance” to require
events expected to draw more than 5,000
attendees must provide secure, attended
bicycle parking for attendees at no charge.
x Create a
Sustainable City

x Increase Access
and Comfort
x Oakland, CA

FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 8
Education
Bicycle and pedestrian education programs help those interested in active transportation feel more comfortable, safe, and confident navigating streets and shared-use paths. TTable 4 outlines potential programs and program expansions that the City should consider.

Table 4: Recommended Education Programs
Support
Program/Facility
Description Plan Goal Examples
Bicycle Safety
Education for
Adults
Continue supporting the Sonoma
County Bicycle Coalition’s Smart
Cycling classes by advertising them
and providing meeting space in Santa
Rosa.
x Create a
Sustainable City

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Make Safety the
Default Option

x Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition

x Huntington Beach, CA

Mini--Main Street
EEducation Events
Partner with Sonoma County Safe
Routes to School program and the
Parks Department as needed, to install
permanent traffic gardens at select
schools, or parks.

Mini main streets and traffic gardens
provide safe environments for
children to practice roadway safety.

x Create a
Sustainable City

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Promote Equity
and Social Justice
x Mountain View, CA
Walk and Bike
Buses to
School (SRTS)
Partner with Sonoma County Safe
Routes to School program, as needed,
to encourage and support efforts to
organize walk and bike buses
throughout the school year.

Consider pursuing Caltrans and
Sonoma County Active Transportation
Authority funding to obtain funding
for ongoing long-term programs
throughout Santa Rosa.

x Create a
Sustainable City

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Make Safety the
Default Option
x Alameda County, CA

x Safe Routes to School: West Sacramento
– WALKSacramento
FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 9
SSupport
PProgram/Facility
DDescription PPlan Goal EExamples
BBike repairr Clinics Offer bike repair clinics at big events and advertise repair and maintenance
shops on the City Website.

Repair clinics could be conducted in
partnership with Community Bikes
Santa Rosa.

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Promote Equity
and Social Justice
x Sacramento Bicycle Kitchen

x Oakland, CA Library

x Bay Area BikeMobile
BBike Repair
SStation
Install bike repair stations along trails
that include bike maintenance tools,
air pumps, and water fountains.

The City can partner with Eagle
Scouts, which already provides bike
repair stations nearby.

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Create a
Sustainable City
x UC Davis
Rider/Driver
EEducation
Program
Create a program that educates
drivers on how to anticipate and
respond to people biking and walking.

These classes could be held in
partnership with the Safe Routes to
School Program to advertise bicycle-
friendly training to high school
students.

The City should consider advertising
the program in conjunction with Bike
to Everywhere Month in May.

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Make Safety the
Default Option
x League of American Bicyclists – Bicycle
Friendly Driver Program
New
Infrastructure
Education
Campaign
Implement an education campaign to
provide materials for local residents to
increase awareness about how to use
and travel through traffic control and
active transportation improvements,
which may be new to the area and
which residents may not be familiar
with.

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Make Safety the
Default Option
x E-Bike Education Campaign, New York
City, NY

x How to Use a Two-Stage Turn Box,
Pittsburg, PA

FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 10
Evaluation
Programs to help evaluate and track progress toward reaching the Plan’s goals are important for measuring long-term success of project implementation. TTable 5 lists proposed programs and policies supporting Evaluation efforts.

Table 5: Recommended Evaluation Programs
Support
Program/Facility
Description Plan Goal Examples
Annual Bicycle and
Pedestrian Collision
Reports
Conduct annual reviews of bicycle and
pedestrian collisions to assess traffic safety
issues and track progress toward a safer
community for bicyclists and pedestrians.
x Create a Sustainable
City

x Increase Access and
Comfort

x Make Safety the
Default Option

x SFMTA Collision Report
Bicycle and Pedestrian
CCount Program
Continue to use SCTA counters available to
the city to measure bikeway activity and
analyze the impact of infrastructure
improvements.
x Create a Sustainable
City

x Increase Access and
Comfort
x BikePed Info – Counting
and Estimating Volumes

x SACOG Bike/ Ped
Counting Equipment
End of Year Workplan
Reporting
As part of the year end reporting to city
BPAB, catalog all finished projects from the
previous fiscal year and calculate number
of miles of new and/or upgraded bicycle
and pedestrian facilities installed.
x Create a Sustainable
City

x Increase Access and
Comfort
x Santa Rosa BPAB

FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 11
Equity
Equity helps ensure that resources are redistributed to the City’s communities that have historically experienced disinvestment. TTable 6 lists proposed programs that help bring the focus toward creating healthy, thriving communities for people of all ages, races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities.

Table 6: Recommended Equity Programs
Support
Program/Facility
Description Plan Goal Examples
Bicycle and Bicycle
Accessories Giveaway
Program
Subsidize or provide free bicycles and bicycle
equipment through a voucher program to
residents who qualify for CalFresh or SCE
CARE/FERA utility discount. Consider working with
local bike shops to implement this program.

x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Increase Access
and Comfort
x Victorville, CA
Bicyclee and
Pedestrian
IInfrastructure Equity
Program
Prioritize implementing bicycle and pedestrian safety
projects in equity priority communities.

Continually review implementation to ensure
equitable distribution
of infrastructure in support
of people biking, walking, and rolling, especially in
areas with a disproportionate number of
pedestrian or bicycle-related crashes.

x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

E--bike Rebates and
Incentives
Create a program to provide additional funding
for e-bike purchases for low-income individuals.
x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Create a
Sustainable City

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x City of Berkeley

x A guide to Denver’s e-bike
rebate program
(denverite.com)
Assess travel patterns
aand collisions
involving people
experiencing
hhomelessness
Collaborate with the City’s contracted outreach
provider, Catholic Charities’ Homeless Outreach
Services Team (HOST), to understand the travel
patterns of people experiencing homelessness to
inform improvements. Additionally, the city
should work to catalog people experiencing
homelessness as part of the City’s collision
analysis.
x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Increase Access
and Comfort

x Make Safety
the Default
Option
x Texas DOT – Mobility35
Pedestrian Safety Program
FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 12
SSupport
PProgram/Facility
DDescription PPlan Goal EExamples
BBike Lending Library Work with the Santa Rosa Tool Library to establish a bike and bike tool library to rent out bikes and
bike tools to individuals who may not have access
to one or are curious about getting around by
bike. Integrate safety and education courses to
support users, especially those who are new to
traveling by bicycle.

x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Increase Access
and Comfort
x Long Beach, CA

FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 13
Engagement
Engagement creates a communication channel between the City and the communities it serves to ensure investments are community-driven. TTable 7 lists proposed programs that promote engagement efforts that include Santa Rosa’s diverse residents.

Table 7: Recommended Engagement Programs
Support
Program/Facility
Description Plan Goal Examples
Targeted Outreach
and Programs
Advertise and promote all programs in languages
residents use, such as English and Spanish. Offer
programs specifically for women, families, non-English
speaking communities, and other specific
demographic groups.

x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

Attend Community
EEvents
Budget time for City staff to attend community events
to build relationships with community members.

x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

Provide Family
Services at
Engagement
Activities
Provide funding for family services such as childcare at community engagement activities to increase the
participation of underrepresented voices in the
planning process.
x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Increase Access
and Comfort

Partnerships with
BBicycle Organizations
aand other
Community-Based
Organizations
Continue to partner with local bike groups (ex.

Community Bikes Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Bike
Coalition, Bikeable Santa Rosa) to support rides and
the local bike culture.

Forming strong relationships with local bicycle
advocates and bicycle clubs may encourage mutually
beneficial collaboration and help the City reach its plan goals. When possible, compensate community-based
organizations for their time when partnering with
them to conduct outreach.
x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Let’s Bike Oakland,
Oakland, CA

x CalBike
Early Community
Involvement
Identify and involve stakeholders (e.g., residents,
community leaders, businesses, etc.) early in the
decision-making processes. Community members are
involved in framing issues before any conclusions have
been drawn, requiring early and ongoing
communication with participants through each phase
in the process.
x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Create a
Sustainable City

FINAL 11-05-24
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 14
SSupport
PProgram/Facility
DDescription PPlan Goal EExamples
IImplement
rrecommendations
ffrom tthe Community
EEmpowerment Plan
Implement the findings from the Community
Empowerment Plan with regard to staff training,
community engagement, and equity.
x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Create a
Sustainable City

Coffee with
Transportation &
Public Works Staff
On a quarterly basis, host a informal meetings at
neutral locations between community members and
city staff (Transportation & Public Works) to talk about various transportation related concerns and upcoming
projects.
x Promote Equity
and Social
Justice

x Create a
Sustainable City

Appendix F:

Prioritization
Methodology and
List of Projects
City of Santa Rosa
Active Transportation Plan

MEMORANDUM

Alta Planning + Design
1 City of Santa Rosa
To: Torina Wilson, Transportation Planner; City of Santa Rosa From: Mauricio Hernández, Alta Planning + Design
CC: Charlie Simpson, Alta Planning + Design
Date: November 5, 2024
Re: Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan – Prioritization Methodology (FINAL)

Prioritization
The following memorandum summarizes the proposed metrics and methodology used to weigh projects to develop a planning-level assessment for the prioritization of projects and programs as part of the Santa Rosa Active Transportation Plan.

The approach to enhancing and expanding the City’s active transportation network must consider what is realistic given historic and anticipated funding, while also providing the City with flexibility to respond to changing conditions and opportunities that may arise. The prioritization of proposed projects helps formulate a strategic list to guide project implementation. Prioritization results are flexible concepts that serve as guidelines. It is recommended that the City re- evaluate the proposed projects and rankings eevery five years. Over time as development occurs or other changes to land uses and Santa Rosa’s transportation network take place, this framework can be used to re-evaluate remaining projects and continue pursuing implementation of the recommended improvements. For example, a low-priority spot improvement may be completed ahead of a high-priority corridor project due to immediate funding opportunities as part of a redevelopment or larger project. Similarly, a high-priority project may require additional study and funding making it take longer to implement.

Methodology
Focusing public investments into areas with the greatest needs helps to leverage the greatest public benefits from scarce public dollars for improving transportation access, connectivity, and project sustainability. This project used a weighted prioritization process for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Each prioritization scheme included mode specific analysis such as bicycle/ pedestrian levels of traffic stress and larger community metrics including health and equity needs. As shown in TTables 1, 2, and 3 below, the safety metric was awarded the most prominent score weighting to focus on high-collision intersections and segments for both pedestrian and bicycle projects. The project prioritization process also placed a high priority on projects located in high equity and health need areas. These areas have historically had under-investment in public infrastructure. To address historical inequities, projects in these areas are prioritized for improvements as part of this plan.

Interpretation Prioritization Results
The overall prioritization rankings will provide an order of which projects may provide the greatest community benefit by improving safety and connectivity. The projects will be sorted into high, medium, and opportunity-priority categories based on the distribution of scores. Implementation for high-priority projects is recommended for a timeframe of 0-2 years. Medium-priority projects should be considered for implementation between 3-5 years.

Opportunity projects should be considered for implementation after 5 years or when funding and other opportunities like repaving or development projects occur.

Prioritization Methodology
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 2
Overall project rankings can help select projects for Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant applications or for projects to add to the City’s next Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Breaking down the scores of the different inputs can provide guidance for more specific needs. The rankings are not intended to be a hardened list but rather a guide for staff to select projects based on a variety of factors that present opportunities to move projects forward.

Prioritization Methodology

Alta Planning + Design 3 City of Santa Rosa
Table 1. Linear Bicycle Project Prioritization Matrix
GGoal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max Score Total score Safety
Collision History
Roadway segment scores on the Bike Crash Severity Index (Alta Existing Conditions: Bike Crash Severity Index - FIGURE 69)
20 pts: >29 crash severity index score
15 pts: 12.1 - 29 crash severity index score
10 pts: 5.1-12 crash severity index score
5 pts: 1-5 crash severity index score
0 pts: none
20 35
Facility Upgrade Recommended Bicycle Facility upgrade from existing conditions (Alta Bikeway Network Recommendations)
15 pts: No facility to Class I
14 pts: Class III or IIIB to Class I
13 pts: No facility to Class IV
12 pts: Class III or IIIB to Class IV
8 pts: No facility to Class II
7 pts: Class II to Class I
5 pts: Class II to Class IV
2 pts: Class IV to Class I
1 pt: No facility to Class IIIB
15 Health and Equity Health & Equity
Analyses
Segment borders or travels within region with high socio-economic needs (Alta Existing Conditions: Equity Priority Community analysis - FIGURE 10) 20 pts if project borders or travels through census tract within MTC Equity Priority Community or Santa Rosa Equity Priority Area;
0 pts if not
20 30
Segment borders or travels within region with high Environmental and Health Burden (Alta Existing Conditions: Environmental & Public Health Index Analysis
- FIGURE 18)
10 pts: project borders or travels through census tract with high environmental burden & high public health burden score;
8 pts: project borders or travels through census tract with either high environmental burden and medium public health burden or high public health burden and medium environmental burden score; 0 pts if not
10 Access and Comfort; Sustainable City
Transit Presence of major transit stops along the roadway (Alta Existing Conditions: Transportation Profile - FIGURE 40)
5 pts for 1-mile proximity to major transit stops (SMART stations, Downtown Transit Mall, Coddingtown Transit Hub)
0 pts if not.
5 25
Demand Roadway has high active trip potential (Alta Existing Conditions: Active Trip Potential Analysis - FIGURE 71)
10 pts: 65-77% share of short trips (Red on map)
5 pts: 54-64% share of short trips (Orange on map)
0 pts: <54% share of short trips
10 Low stress
connectivity
Segment connects to an existing or already planned/approved low stress bike facility (Class IV, Class I).
5 pts if segment connects to a low stress bike facility (Class IV, Class I) 0 pts if no connection to a low stress bike facility
5 School Access School located nearby (School polygon data) 5 pts if project is within ¼ mile of schools;
0 pts if not
5 Feasibility Parking Removal Potential need for parking removal based upon aerial imagery 10 pts - if no parking removal is needed to implement project 0 pts - parking removal is needed to implement project
10 10
TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS 100
Prioritization Methodology
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 4

Table 2. Pedestrian Spot Improvement Project Prioritization Matrix GGoal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max Score Criteria Max Score
Safety
Collision History
Roadway segment scores on the Pedestrian Crash Severity Index (Alta Existing Conditions:

Pedestrian Crash Severity Index - FIGURE 65)
20 pts >29 crash severity index score
15 pts: 12.1 - 29 crash severity index score
10 pts: 5.1-12 crash severity index score
5 pts: 1-5 crash severity index score
0 pts: none
20 35
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian LTS analysis (Alta Existing Conditions: PLTS Analysis - FIGURE 49)
15 pts: PLTS 4;
10 pts: PLTS 3;
0 pts: PLTS 2 or 1
15 Health and Equity Health & Equity Analyses
Segment borders or travels within region with high socio-economic needs (Alta Existing Conditions: Equity Priority Community analysis - FIGURE 10) 20 pts if project borders or travels through census tract within MTC Equity Priority Community or Santa Rosa Equity Priority Area;
0 pts if not
25 35
Segment borders or travels within region with high Environmental and Health Burden (Alta Existing Conditions: Environmental & Public Health Index Analysis- FIGURE 18) 10 pts: project borders or travels through census tract with high environmental burden & high public health burden score;
8 pts: project borders or travels through census tract with either high environmental burden and medium public health burden or high public health burden and medium environmental burden score; 0 pts if not
10 Access and Comfort;
Sustainable City
Transit Presence of transit stops along the roadway (Alta Existing Conditions: Transportation Profile - FIGURE 40)
10 pts for crossing improvements that link two or more transit stops together (within 300 feet of two or more stops);
5 pts for crossing improvements within 300 feet of one transit stop; 0 pts if not.
10 30
Park Access Park located nearby (Alta Existing Conditions: Park polygon data) 10 pts if project is within ¼-mile of parks;
0 pts if not
10 School Access School located nearby (School polygon data) 10 pts if project is within 500 feet of school boundary; 0 pts if not
10 TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS 100

Prioritization Methodology
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Santa Rosa 5
Table 3. Linear Pedestrian Improvement Project Prioritization Matrix GGoal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max Score Criteria Max Score
Safety
Collision History
Roadway segment scores on the Pedestrian Crash Severity Index (Alta Existing Conditions:

Pedestrian Crash Severity Index - FIGURE 65)
20 pts >29 crash severity index score
15 pts: 12.1 - 29 crash severity index score
10 pts: 5.1-12 crash severity index score
5 pts: 1-5 crash severity index score
0: none
20 35
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian LTS analysis (Alta Existing Conditions: PLTS Analysis - FIGURE 49)
15 pts: BLTS 4;
10 pts: BLTS 3;
0 pts: BLTS 2 or 1
15 Health and Equity Health & Equity Analyses
Segment borders or travels within region with high socio-economic needs (Alta Existing Conditions: Equity Priority Community analysis - FIGURE 10) 20 pts if project borders or travels through census tract within MTC Equity Priority Community or Santa Rosa Equity Priority Area;
0 pts if not
20 30
Segment borders or travels within region with high Environmental and Health Burden (Alta Existing Conditions: Environmental & Public Health Index Analysis- FIGURE 18) 10 pts: project borders or travels through census tract with high environmental burden & high public health burden score;
8 pts: project borders or travels through census tract with either high environmental burden and medium public health burden or high public health burden and medium environmental burden score; 0 pts if not
10 Access and Comfort;
Sustainable City
Transit Presence of transit stops along the roadway (Alta Existing Conditions: Transportation Profile - FIGURE 40)
5 pts for 500 feet proximity to all transit stops;
0 pts if not. 5
25 Park Access Park located nearby (Alta Existing Conditions: Park polygon data) 5 pts if project is within ¼-mile of parks;
0 pts if not
5 School Access School located nearby (School Polygon Data) 5 pts if project is within ¼-mile of schools;
0 pts if not
5 Existing city and regional
networks Fills facility gap within a segment (Alta Project Identification) 10 pts if gap filled on both sides of segment,
5 pts if gap filled on one side of segment,
0 pts if no gap filled
10 TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS 90
Table 4. Intersection Improvements by Typology and Prioritization Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category 9TH ST DAVIS ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
SANTA ROSA AVE OAK ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
OLD PETALUMA HILL RD PETALUMA HILL RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
KAWANA SPRINGS RD SANTA ROSA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
HEARN AVE BURBANK AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
High-Priority
SEBASTOPOL RD WEST AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority BICENTENNIAL WAY RANGE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
PETALUMA HILL RD KAWANA SPRINGS RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority DUTTON AVE SEBASTOPOL RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority BURT ST SANTA ROSA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
MENDOCINO AVE 7TH ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority MENDOCINO AVE COLLEGE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
MARLOW RD Piner Rd Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category 5TH ST MENDOCINO AVE Typology C - Road way Improvements High-Priority RANGE AVE W STEELE LN Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority CHANATE RD MENDOCINO AVE Typology C - Road way Improvements High-Priority JENNINGS AVE RANGE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
High-Priority
MENDOCINO AVE STEELE LN Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority COLLEGE AVE BROOKWOOD AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
MAPLE AVE S A ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority 3RD ST E ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority 3RD ST SANTA ROSA AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority MARLOW RD JENNINGS AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority N DUTTON AVE 9TH ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority BROOKWOOD AVE COLLEGE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
COLLEGE AVE KING ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
9TH ST MORGAN ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements High-Priority W COLLEGE AVE STONY POINT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
N DUTTON AVE 3RD ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority W 3RD ST WILSON ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
B ST 3RD ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category COUNTY CENTER DR STEELE LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
OCCIDENTAL RD STONY POINT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
3RD ST BROOKWOOD AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
W 9TH ST STONY CIR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
STEELE LN US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
STEELE LN US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
COLLEGE AVE US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
MORGAN ST US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
3RD ST US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category 3RD ST US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
W COLLEGE AVE CLOVER DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority N DUTTON AVE DECKER ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
N DUTTON AVE W 8TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
W STEELE LN IROQUOIS ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
W 3RD ST BROCKHURST DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
D ST 5TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
High-Priority
HUMBOLDT ST 5TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
High-Priority
BROOKWOOD AVE 5TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements High-Priority W STEELE LN COFFEY LN Typology A - Crossing and A ccessibility Improvements High-Priority MARLOW RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements High-Priority W 3RD ST MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
ARROWHEAD DR HEARN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements High-Priority BARNDANCE LN STONY POINT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements High-Priority STEELE LN MEYERS DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category CLEVELAND AVE STATE FARM DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements High-Priority CLEVELAND AVE CARRILLO ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
High-Priority
Sebastopol Rd Avalon Ave Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
3rd St Rusch Dr Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
Sebastopol Rd Laurel Grove Cir Typology B - Roadway Improvements High-Priority Sebastopol Rd Laurel Grove Cir Typology B - Roadway Improvements High-Priority Sonoma Ave Carley Rd Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
Montecito Blvd Maria Carrillo HS Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
Mendocino Ave Schurman Dr Typology B - Roadway Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
High-Priority
MAXWELL CT RAILROAD Opportunity Project
CLEVELAND AVE 10TH ST Opportunity Project
9TH ST DONAHUE ST Opportunity Project
7TH RILEY ST Opportunity Project

B ST ROSS ST

Opportunity Project
4TH ST OLD COURTHOUSE SQ

Opportunity Project
1ST ST A ST

Opportunity Project

SANTA ROSA AVE JULLIARD PARK DR

Opportunity Project

SEBASTOPOL RD RAILROAD

Opportunity Project
MELITA RD LOS ALAMOS RD Typology A - Crossing and A ccessibility Improvements Opportunity Project Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category OAK LEAF DR FAIRFIELD DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SEBASTOPOL RD BURBANK AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project PETALUMA HILL RD SANTA ROSA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SANTA ROSA AVE BENNETT VALLEY RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
W BARHAM AVE DUTTON AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project BROOKWOOD AVE ALLAN WAY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project BELLEVUE AVE MOORLAND AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project YULUPA AVE BENNETT VALLEY RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project S WRIGHT RD FINLEY AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
S WRIGHT RD PRICE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessi bility Improvements Opportunity Project S WRIGHT RD LUDWIG AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project STONY POINT RD BELLEVUE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
DUTTON AVE HEARN AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project STONY POINT RD LUDWIG AVE Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project B ST 5TH ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project 1ST ST B ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project COLGAN AVE PETALUMA HILL RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project PINER RD CLEVELAND AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project PINER RD RANGE AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category ELLIOTT AVE ARMORY DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SAN MIGUEL AVE FULTON RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project MENDOCINO AVE ELLIOTT AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project SPEERS RD BENJAMINS RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project MIDDLE RINCON RD BADGER RD Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project MISSION BLVD MONTECITO BLVD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
BARNES RD DENNIS LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessi bility Improvements Opportunity Project COFFEY LN DENNIS LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project MOUNTAIN HAWK DR SAN RAMON WY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
BARNES RD HOPPER AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project CANYON DR BENJAMINS RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
MONTECITO AVE CHANATE RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project MIDDLE RINCON RD RINCONADA DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
AIRWAY DR PINER RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
VENTURA AVE ADMINISTRATION DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
CLEVELAND AVE FRANCES ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project 4TH ST COLLEGE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category HIDDEN VALLEY DR PARSONS DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
PACIFIC AVE MONTECITO AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project ROGERS WAY E FOOTHILL DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project 4TH ST B ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project 4TH ST BRYDEN LANE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
RIDGWAY AVE ARMORY DR Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project RIDGWAY AVE MENDOCINO AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project MELITA RD QUEEN ANNE DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project MONTGOMERY DR SOTOYOME ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project D ST SONOMA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
1ST ST D ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
MISSION BLVD RINCONADA DR Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project OCCIDENTAL RD BRITTAIN LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project W COLLEGE AVE RIDLEY AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
HEARN AVE SANTA ROSA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
VALLEY OAKS DR OAKMONT DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
SONOMA AVE SOTOYOME ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category TACHEVAH DR BETHARDS DR Typology A - Crossi ng and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
OAK LEAF DR VALLEY OAKS DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
S WRIGHT RD SEBASTOPOL RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project FAIRFIELD DR WHITE OAK DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
TALBOT AVE 4TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
EXETER DR PUTNEY DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
BENNETT VALLEY RD S E ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
OAKMONT DR PYTHIAN RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
SPENCER AVE HUMBOLDT ST Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project HUMBOLDT ST PACIFIC AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project YOLANDA AVE PETALUMA HILL RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project CORBY AVE HEARN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
CORBY AVE BARHAM AVE Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project LAZZINI AVE STONY POINT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category BAKER AVE CORBY AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
ASTON AVE PETALUMA HILL RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project DOWD DR KENTON CT Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project TALMADGE DR DOWD DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project GIFFEN AVE STONY POINT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
STONY POINT RD HEARN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
DUTTON AVE BELLEVUE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
7TH ST A ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
B ST 7TH ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project SANTA ROSA AVE SONOMA AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project SANTA ROSA AVE 1ST ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
CLEVELAND AVE WILSON ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
VALLEJO ST FARMERS LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
PINER RD FULTON RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project BICENTENNIAL WAY VENTURA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category SAN MIGUEL AVE PETERSON LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
HUMBOLDT ST 7TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
COLLEGE AVE HUMBOLDT ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
PACIFIC AVE NORTH ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project MENDOCINO AVE BICENTENNIAL WAY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MENDOCINO AVE PACIFIC AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project PETERSON LN PINER RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project WALTZER RD SAN MIGUEL AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD BADGER RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
GRAHN DR NORTE WAY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
MONTECITO BLVD MIDDLE RINCON RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SUMMERFIELD RD MONTGOMERY DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
WALTZER RD PINER RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project DELAMERE AVE FRANCISCO AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category COFFEY LN PINER RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HOPPER AVE COFFEY LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessi bility Improvements Opportunity Project BADGER RD BAIRD RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project CHANATE RD HIDDEN VALLEY DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project CHANATE RD BELVEDERE WY Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project AIRWAY DR HOPPER AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
AIRWAY DR INDUSTRIAL DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
5TH ST E ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project COFFEY LN SAN MIGUEL AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project JENNINGS AVE RIDLEY AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
YERBA BUENA RD SAN RAMON WAY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
E ST 4TH ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project HUMBOLDT ST LEWIS RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project 4TH ST D ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project TERRACE WAY PARSONS DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SPENCER AVE NORTH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessi bility Improvements Opportunity Project PACIFIC AVE MCDONALD AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project SAN MIGUEL RD SANTIAGO DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category PETERSON LN MARSH CT Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
N DUTTON AVE W COLLEGE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
GUERNEVILLE RD N DUTTON AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
RIDLEY AVE GUERNEVILLE RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project W STEELE LN COFFEY LN Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project MORGAN ST COLLEGE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SONOMA AVE SUMMERFIELD RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project FARMERS LN HOEN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
CYPRESS WAY CREEKSIDE RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
SONOMA AVE E ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project SONOMA AVE FRANQUETTE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
3RD ST D ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project MONTGOMERY DR FRANQUETTE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
4TH ST MENDOCINO AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category YULUPA AVE MONTGOMERY DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project SONOMA AVE YULUPA AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project W COLLEGE AVE PUTNEY DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project N DUTTON AVE JENNINGS AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
YULUPA AVE CREEKSIDE RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
YULUPA AVE TACHEVAH DR Typology A - Crossi ng and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SUMMERFIELD RD HOEN AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project FARMERS LN BENNETT VALLEY RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project YULUPA AVE HOEN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
YULUPA AVE BETHARDS DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project OCCIDENTAL RD FULTON RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
STONY POINT RD SEBASTOPOL RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
VALLEJO ST BROOKWOOD AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
4TH ST ROGERS WAY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category SUMMERFIELD RD BETHARDS DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project CORPORATE CENTER PKWY SEBASTOPOL RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project COUNTY CENTER DR ADMINISTRATION DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
3RD BRITTAIN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
BENNETT VALLEY RD HOLLAND DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project BENNETT VALLEY RD BETHARDS DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project CALISTOGA RD DUPONT DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project FRANKLIN AVE LEWIS RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessi bility Improvements Opportunity Project GUERNEVILLE RD CLEVELAND AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MONTGOMERY DR FARMERS LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
RANGE AVE GUERNEVILLE RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project BROOKWOOD AVE SONOMA AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project GUERNEVILLE RD STEELE LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
THOMAS LAKE HARRIS DR FOUNTAINGROVE PKWY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD FOUNTAINGROVE PKWY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
FOUNTAINGROVE PKWY MENDOCINO AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category MONTECITO BLVD BEAUMONT WAY Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project FOUNTAINGROVE PKWY THOMAS LAKE HARRIS DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project STONY POINT RD NORTHPOINT PKWY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MARLOW RD STEELE LN Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project 4TH ST BROOKWOOD AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MARLOW RD GUERNEVILLE RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project W 3RD ST WILSON ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
WHITE OAK DR OAKMONT DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
FARMERS LN SONOMA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
STONE BRIDGE RD OAKMONT DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
FARMERS LN 4TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
FULTON RD W COLLEGE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SAINT FRANCIS RD YERBA BUENA RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
GUERNEVILLE RD PETERSON LN Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category GUERNEVILLE RD GAMAY ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project CORPORATE CENTER PKWY NORTHPOINT PKWY Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project FULTON RD HALL RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
FULTON RD GUERNEVILLE RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
CHANATE RD FOUNTAINGROVE PKWY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
BICENTENNIAL WAY US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
BICENTENNIAL WAY US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
STONTY POINT RD STONTY POINT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
COLGAN AVE SANTA ROSA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MENDOCINO AVE US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
US 101 RAMP BICENTENNIAL WAY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category COLLEGE AVE US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
BENNETT VALLEY RD SR 12 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
N DUTTON AVE SR 12 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
N DUTTON AVE SR 12 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MAPLE AVE SR 12 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
FARMERS LN SR 12 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
YOLANDA AVE US 101 RAMP Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HWY 12 PYTHIAN RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HWY 12 MIDDLE RINCON RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HWY 12 BUSH CREEK RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
SAINT FRANCIS RD HWY 12 Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category HWY 12 CALISTOGA RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
LOS ALAMOS RD HWY 12 Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HWY 12 E FULTON RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project HWY 12 MISSION BLVD Typology A - Crossi ng and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MOUNTAIN HAWK HWY 12 Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
RANGE AVE CODDINGTON MALL DRIVEWAY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
BEACHWOOD DR ARROWOOD DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
S WRIGHT RD FINLEY AVE Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project SANTA ROSA AVE COURT ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HOWARD ST MENDOCINO AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
OLD PETALUMA HILL RD WINTERHAVEN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project WEST AVE MCMASTER LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
MONTGOMERY DR JACQUELINE DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
GUERNEVILLE RD LANCE DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category FULTON RD FULTON PL Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MELITA RD MONTGOMERY DR Typology A - Crossing and A ccessibility Improvements Opportunity Project CHICO AVE WRINGHT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project TALMADGE DR CORBY AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessi bility Improvements Opportunity Project WILJAN CT BELLEVUE AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project BELLEVUE AVE DUTTON MEADOW Typology A - Crossing and A ccessibility Improvements Opportunity Project HEARN AVE DUTTON MEADOW Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project BRITTAIN LN SEBASTOPOL RD Typology A - Crossing and A ccessibility Improvements Opportunity Project JENNINGS AVE CLEVELAND AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project WEST AVE HEARN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project BADGER RD CALISTOGA RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project PARKER HILL RD CHANATE RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
B ST HEADLSBURG AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project YERBA BUENA RD CALISTOGA RD Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project GAMAY ST JENNINGS AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
DUPONT DR SAINT FRANCIS RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
TERRACE WAY FRANKLIN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
TALBOT AVE SONOMA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project MONTECITO AVE NORTE WY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project VALLEJO ST E ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessib ility Improvements Opportunity Project HOEN AVE SONOMA AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project PARKHURST DR CALISTOGA RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category EXETER DR JENNINGS AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project CREEKSIDE RD BETHARDS DR Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project YUBA DR STONY POINT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project SAINT ANDREWS DR THOMAS LAKE HARRIS DR Typology A - Crossing a nd Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project ALDERBROOK DR MONTGOMERY DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
TALBOT AVE MONTGOMERY DR Typology A - Crossing and A ccessibility Improvements Opportunity Project MONTGOMERY DR MISSION BLVD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MARSH RD MARLOW RD Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project MORGAN ST CARRILLO ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project HOEN AVE FARMERS LN Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project S E ST MAPLE AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project BELLEVUE AVE MOORLAND AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project GUERNEVILLE RD HERBERT LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
FOUNTAINGROVE PKWY STAGECOACH RD Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project SEBASTOPOL RD FRESNO Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project PARKER HILL RD FOUNTAINGROVE PKWY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project W 3RD ST MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
DUTTON AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category DUTTON AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
FRANCISCO AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
CHANATE RD CHANTE RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
DAVIS ST 6TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
US 101 RAMP HOPPER AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MELITA RD SR 12 Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
LUDWIG AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MIDDLE RINCON RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MARLOW RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category BROOKWOOD AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project

SANTA ROSA AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING

Opportunity Project
S E ST MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
RANGE AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
FRANQUETTE AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Opportunity Project
BURBANK AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Opportunity Project

YUBA DR MIDBLOCK CROSSING

Opportunity Project
RANGE AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project

CALISTOGA RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING

Opportunity Project
COFFEY LN MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
RINCONADA DR BENICIA DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
MIDDLE RINCON RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
N WRIGHT RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
W STEELE LN MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category

VALLEJO ST MIDBLOCK CROSSING

Opportunity Project
D ST MIDBLOCK CROSSING Opportunity Project
HOEN AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project

HOEN AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING

Opportunity Project

FARMERS LN MIDBLOCK CROSSING

Opportunity Project
GUERNEVILLE RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
BELLEVUE AVE RAILROAD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project

MARLOW RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING

Opportunity Project
HOPPER AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
CLEVELAND AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
GUERNEVILLE RD RAILROAD Opportunity Project
MONTGOMERY DR MIDBLOCK CROSSING Opportunity Project
SAN MIGUEL RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
YULUPA AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
MCCONNELL AVE MENDOCINO AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category

STONY POINT RD SHOPPING CENTER DRWY

Opportunity Project
W 3RD ST MIDBLOCK CROSSING Opportunity Project
FULTON RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project W STEELE LN APACHE ST Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project

W STEELE LN AUDUBON CT

Opportunity Project
MENDOCINO AVE RUSSEL AVE Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project DUTTON AVE FUNSTON DR Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project

N DUTTON AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING

Opportunity Project
MAPLE ST MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project BAIRD RD MONTECITO BLVD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project PARKER HILL RD STAGECOACH RD Typology A - Crossi ng and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
BICENTENNIAL WAY FOUNTAINGROVER PKWY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project SUMMERFIELD RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HOEN AVE SIERRA CREEK LN Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HOEN AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
FRANKLIN AVE SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL PARK DRIVEWAY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
NORTH ST CARR AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
FRANKLIN AVE MONROE ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category HAHMAN DR PATIO CT Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
YULUPA AVE SACRAMENTO AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
HAHMAN DR ROCK CREEK DRIVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
CHANNEL DR SPRING LAKE ENTRANCE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
MONTGOMERY DR JACKSON DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
MIDDLE RINCON RD HANSEN DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
FOUNTAINGROVE PKWY ROUND BARN BLVD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
15TH ST MCDONALD AVE Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
NORTH ST 15TH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
HENDLEY ST E ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
MONTGOMERY DR SHORTT RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
SEBASTOPOL RD MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
JENNINGS AVE SMART RAIL Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project E ST BUSH ST Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category

WEST FORK PAULIN CREEK BENT TREE PL

Opportunity Project
PAULIN CREEK MEYERS DR Opportunity Project
PINER CREEK CHEROKEE AVE Opportunity Project

PAULIN CREEK CHAPMAN WY

Opportunity Project

PINER CREEK PAULIN CREEK

Opportunity Project
STEELE CREEK ZINFANDEL AVE Opportunity Project
PINER CREEK STEELE CREEK Opportunity Project

SANTA ROSA CREEK CHARRO PL

Opportunity Project

IRWIN CREEK WEST OF COUNTRYSIDE DR

Opportunity Project

COUNTRYSIDE CREEK WEST OF COUNTRYSIDE DR

Opportunity Project

SANTA ROSA CREEK ASPEN MEADOWS CIR

Opportunity Project

ROSELAND CREEK GRIFFEN AVE

Opportunity Project

ROSELAND CREEK FRESNO AVE

Opportunity Project

COLGAN CREEK BELLEVUE AVE

Opportunity Project

KAWANA SPRINGS CREEK SOUTH OF PETALUMA HILL RD

Opportunity Project

SIERRA PARK CREEK ALEJANDRO DR

Opportunity Project

SIERRA PARK CREEK SACRAMENTO AVE

Opportunity Project

SPRING CREEK IDAHO DR

Opportunity Project

SANTA ROSA CREEK LELAND ST

Opportunity Project
SANTA ROSA CREEK EAST OF FAMRERS LN Opportunity Project SANTA ROSA CREEK ROGERS WY Opportunity Project

SANTA ROSA CREEK KYLIE LN

Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK SHERBROAK DR Opportunity Project
DUCKER CREEK ACACIA LN Opportunity Project
AUSTIN CREEK SOUTH OF CHARMIAN DR Opportunity Project

SKYHAWK CREEK MYSTIC POINT PL

Opportunity Project

AUSTIN CREEK ALGIERS CT

Opportunity Project

AUSTIN CREEK KORBEL PL

Opportunity Project

SANTA ROSA CREEK SHERWOOD DR

Opportunity Project
Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Typology Group Prioritization Category

SANTA ROSA CREEK MISSION BLVD

Opportunity Project
WEST AVE ROSE MEADOW CT Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Opportunity Project
EXETER DR WHITE CHAPEL WY Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
BADGER CREEK ASPEN MEADOWS CIR Opportunity Project
KAWANA SPRINGS RD AMETHYST RD Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project BURBANK AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology C - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project MISSION BLVD MISSION CIR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project SANTA ROSA AVE COLGAN AVE Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project SONOMA AVE MIDBLOCK CROSSING Typology B - Roadway Improvements Opportunity Project SUMMERFIELD RD SPRING CREEK DR Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Typology B - Roadway Improvements
Typology C - Traffic Control Improvements
Opportunity Project
Hardies Ln Paulin Creek Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project Valdes Ct Piner Creek Typology A - Crossing and Acce ssibility Improvements Opportunity Project Mission Blvd Brush Creek Typology A - Crossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project Benicia Dr Ducker Creek Typology A - Cr ossing and Accessibility Improvements Opportunity Project

Table 5. Sidewalk Improvements and Generalized Costs - by street name and prioritization Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
4TH ST Farmers Ln Rogers Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.46 $$$ High-Priority BELLEVUE AVE Wiljan Ct Burgess Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.74 $$$ High-Priority BURBANK AVE Hearn Ave Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 1.00 $$$ High-Priority BURGESS DR Bellevue Ave Flapjack Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.17 $$$ High-Priority CLEVELAND AVE Lincoln St College Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ High-Priority COLGAN AVE La Esplanada Pl Santa Rosa Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.19 $$$ High-Priority CORBY AVE 550 ft south of Baker
Ave
Cottonwood Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ High-Priority CORBY AVE Greenwood Dr Myrtlewood Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ High-Priority DUTTON AVE City Limits Bellevue Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.34 $$$ High-Priority DUTTON AVE End of Street Ohair Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.37 $$$ High-Priority FRANCES ST Central Ave Briggs Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ High-Priority FRANQUETTE AVE Hoen Ave Mayette Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.22 $$$ High-Priority GUERNEVILLE RD Coffey Ln Ridley Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.63 $$$ High-Priority HEARN AVE Santa Rosa Ave Corby Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.22 $$$ High-Priority HEARN AVE Railroad Park Meadow
Dr
Sidewalk on 1-side 1.16 $$$ High-Priority
INDUSTRIAL DR Piner Rd Industrial Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.38 $$$ High-Priority KAWANA SPRINGS RD Petaluma Hill Rd Santa Rosa Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.50 $$$ High-Priority N DUTTON AVE Trowbridge St W 8th St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ High-Priority N DUTTON AVE Decker St W 9th St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ High-Priority RANGE AVE Jennings Ave Edwards Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 $$$ High-Priority S WRIGHT RD Lancaster Ave 400 ft south of
Sebastopol Rd
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.18 $$$ High-Priority
S WRIGHT RD Ludwig Ave Finley Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 1.12 $$$ High-Priority SANTA ROSA AVE Yolanda Ave Hearn Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.14 $$$ High-Priority SEBASTOPOL RD Stony Point Rd Kenmore Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 $$$ High-Priority SEBASTOPOL RD Joe Rodota Trail Lombardi Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 1.72 $$$ High-Priority Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
SONOMA AVE Village Ct Farmers Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ High-Priority STONY POINT RD Bellevue Ave Hearn Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.71 $$$ High-Priority W 3RD ST 500 ft east of Rusch Ct Dutton Ave Sidewa lk on 1-side 0.35 $$$ High-Priority W 9TH ST N Dutton Ave Saracen Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.09 $$$ High-Priority W COLLEGE AVE Sparrow Creek St Casassa Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.39 $$$ High-Priority W COLLEGE AVE 550 ft east of Link Ln Tyara Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.81 $$$ High-Priority WILSON ST 3rd St 4th St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ High-Priority YOLANDA AVE 1600 ft west of
Petaluma Hill Rd
Santa Rosa Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.27 $$$ High-Priority AVALON AVE End of Street Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.17 $$$ High-Priority BARHAM AVE Petaluma Hill Rd Santa Rosa Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.16 $$$ High-Priority BENNETT VALLEY RD Cork Tree Ln Brookwood Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.39 $$$ High-Priority COFFEY LN 650 ft south of Dennis
Ln
City Limits Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.12 $$$ High-Priority COLGAN AVE Petaluma Hill Rd La Esplanada Pl Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.16 $$$ High-Priority CORBY AVE 550 ft south of Baker
Ave
Baker Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.10 $$$ High-Priority
DUTTON AVE Ohair Ct Bellevue Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.14 $$$ High-Priority LANCE DR End of Street Iroqois St Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.08 $$$ High-Priority

OLD PETALUMA HILL
RD
Winterhaven Ave Petaluma Hill
Rd
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.13 $$$ High-Priority
PETALUMA HILL RD Winterhaven Ave 500 ft south of
Kawana Springs
Rd
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.46 $$$ High-Priority
RIDLEY AVE End of Street Ridley Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.18 $$$ High-Priority S WRIGHT RD Finely Ave Lancaster Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.09 $$$ High-Priority S WRIGHT RD 400 ft south of
Sebastopol Rd
Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.07 $$$ High-Priority YOLANDA AVE 1600 ft west of
Petaluma Hill Rd
Petaluma Hill
Rd
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.23 $$$ High-Priority
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
ACACIA LN End of Street 100 ft south of
Sorrento Wy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity
Project
ALDERBROOK DR 250 ft south of
Alderbrook Ln
Bay St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity
Project
ALEGRA PL End of Street Red Willow Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
ANDERSON DR 150 ft north of Badger
Rd
Badger Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 $$$ Opportunity
Project
ANNADEL HEIGHTS DR Santa Margarita Ct Old Ranch Pl Sidewalk on 1-side 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
APOLLO WAY Mercury Wy Corporate
Center Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.33 $$$ Opportunity
Project
ASPEN LEAF LN End of Street Jennings Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
ASTON AVE Meda Ave Hendley St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.28 $$$ Opportunity Project
AVOTS DR Horseshoe Dr Siskiyou Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
BADGER RD Badger Ct Middle Rincon
Rd
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.31 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BADGER RD Anderson Rd Petrie Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project
BAIRD RD Montecito Blvd Sunshine Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
BARHAM AVE S Davis St Corby Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
BARHAM AVE Beachwood Dr Railroad Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 $$$ Opportunity Project
BEAUMONT WAY End of Street Montrose Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.21 $$$ Opportunity Project
BELLEVUE AVE Primrose Ave Stony Point Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.37 $$$ Opportunity Project
BENICIA DR Culebra Wy Driveway Sidewalk on 1-side 0.30 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
BENJAMINS RD Speers Rd Speers Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.41 $$$ Opportunity Project
BENNETT VALLEY RD Farmers Ln Cork Tree Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.22 $$$ Opportunity Project
BENNETT VALLEY RD 600 ft west of Yulupa
Ave
Yulupa Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.09 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BICENTENNIAL WAY 300 ft north of Lake
Park Dr
Fountaingrove
Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.22 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BOAS DR Charmain Dr Morocco Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 $$$ Opportunity Project
BONITA VISTA LN 200 ft north of Bonnie
Ln
150 ft south of
Sleepy Hollow
Dr
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BOYD ST Barham Ave Myrsine Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.22 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK Hwy 12 Sherbrook Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.78 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD 350 ft north of
Trailwood Dr
150 ft south of
Jaylee Dr
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BRUSH CREEK RD Shadowhill Dr Aslan Lair Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD Shadyoak dr Brush Creek Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD Fountaingrove Pkwy Heimbucher Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD Hwy 12 Saint Thomas Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project

BRUSH CREEK RD -

WALLACE RD
450 ft north of Badger
Rd
Wild Lilac Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.14 $$$ Opportunity Project
BUCKTHORN CT Folia Ct Hwy 12 Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
BURT ST Madrus Rosa St Thistle Creek St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
CALISTOGA RD Badger Rd City Limits Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
CARRINGTON ST S Davis St Olive St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
CENTER DR Airway Dr Industrial Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
CENTRAL AVE Carrillo St Frances St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.23 $$$ Opportunity Project
CHANATE RD Glen Echo Dr Cobblestone Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.30 $$$ Opportunity Project
CHANATE RD 350 ft east of Bonita
Vista Ln
Fountaingrove
Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.86 $$$ Opportunity
Project
CHANATE RD Paulin Creek Mendocino Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
CLOVER DR W College Ave Jennings Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.37 $$$ Opportunity Project
COMMON WAY Flapjack Wy Applejack Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project

HILLIARD COMSTOCK
MIDDLE
End of Street Larry Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project

CORPORATE CENTER
PKWY
Northpoint Pkwy Corsair Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.21 $$$ Opportunity Project

CORPORATE CENTER
PKWY
Challenger Wy Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.35 $$$ Opportunity Project
CROSSPOINT AVE Marlow Rd Barsugila St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
CULEBRA WAY Benicia Wy Sorrento Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
DENNIS LN Elwin Ln Barnes Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.26 $$$ Opportunity Project
DENNIS LN Mocha Ln Bluegrass Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
DOWD DR 700 ft north of Bellevue
Ave
Kenwood Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.49 $$$ Opportunity
Project
DUTTON MEADOW Bellevue Ave Hearn Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.86 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
EDWARDS AVE 250 ft west of Raccoon
Ln
Cleveland Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.14 $$$ Opportunity Project
FINLEY AVE Fresno Ave S Wright Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.52 $$$ Opportunity Project

FOUNTAINGROVE
PKWY
Fountaingrove Pkwy Chanate Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project

FOUNTAINGROVE
PKWY
Chanate Rd Fountaingrove
Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 $$$ Opportunity
Project

FOUNTAINGROVE
PKWY
Chanate Rd Fountaingrove
Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project

FOUNTAINGROVE
PKWY
Altruria Dr Round Barn
Blvd
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.32 $$$ Opportunity
Project
FRANCISCO AVE 850 ft west of Barrel Ln 150 ft north of
Delamere Ave
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.36 $$$ Opportunity
Project
FRANCISCO AVE Delamere Ave Clairborne Cir Sidewalk on 1-side 0.31 $$$ Opportunity Project
FRANKLIN AVE Gay St Lewis Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
FRANKLIN AVE Carr Ave North St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.14 $$$ Opportunity Project
FRANKLIN AVE Pacific Ave Poppy Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.34 $$$ Opportunity Project
FRANKLIN AVE Silva Ave Sillick Ter Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
FRESNO AVE Finley Ave Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.34 $$$ Opportunity Project
FULTON RD Joe Rodota Trail Occidental Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.17 $$$ Opportunity Project
FULTON RD Piner Rd Wood Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 1.00 $$$ Opportunity Project
GARDNER AVE Kenmore Ln Keegan Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
GLORIA DR Camellia Ct Westwood Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
GOBAR LN N Village Dr Sophia Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
GOLDEN GATE AVE 250 ft east of Arthur
Ashe Cir
Arthur Ashe Cir Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
GRANADA DR Granada Pl Benicia Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
HAHMAN DR Midway Dr Montgomery Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
HAHMAN DR Claremont Dr Sonoma Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
HAHMAN DR Patio Ct Valley Center Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project
HARDIES LN 750 ft north of Terry Rd Russell Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.28 $$$ Opportunity Project
HARVEST LN End of Street Occidental Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
HEWETT ST End of Street Madison St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
HILLTOP CT End of Street Murdock Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
HOEN AVE Hoen Ave Hoen Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.56 $$$ Opportunity Project
HOEN AVE Hoen Ave Hoen Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
HOEN AVE Spring Creek Sonoma Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project

HOEN AVE FRONTAGE
RD
Hoen Ave Townview Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.30 $$$ Opportunity Project
HOYAL DR End of Street Elysse Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.32 $$$ Opportunity Project
HWY 12 Acacia Ln Cardinal Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
HWY 12 200 ft west of Melita Rd Melita Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
HWY 12 Peppertree Ln Melita Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.23 $$$ Opportunity Project
HWY 12 Queen Anne Dr Saint Francis Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.48 $$$ Opportunity Project
INDIAN CREEK DR Folia Ct Hwy 12 Sidewalk on 1-side 0.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
IROQUOIS ST Lance Dr Tolar Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 $$$ Opportunity Project
JENNINGS AVE Eardley Ave Clover Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.21 $$$ Opportunity Project
JENNINGS AVE Cleveland Ave Range Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.30 $$$ Opportunity Project
KAWANA SPRINGS RD Taylor Mountain Pl Brookwood Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
KAWANA SPRINGS RD Meda Ave Franz Kafka Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.31 $$$ Opportunity Project
KAWANA SPRINGS RD Farmers Ln Rudesill Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
KEEGAN DR End of Street Gardner Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.22 $$$ Opportunity Project
KENMORE LN Gardner Ave Driveway Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
KNOLLS LN 150 ft east of Knolls Dr Knolls Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 $$$ Opportunity Project
KNOLLS LN 200 ft east of Knolls Dr Knolls Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
KOWELL RD End of Street W College Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.14 $$$ Opportunity Project
LINWOOD AVE Brookwood Ave Aston Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 $$$ Opportunity Project
LUDWIG AVE Hobbie Ln S Wright Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.98 $$$ Opportunity Project
MARSH RD Robinson Ln Belair Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
MARSH RD Arden Wy Garrett Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.18 $$$ Opportunity Project
MARSH RD Marlow Rd Respite Pl Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
MARTHA WAY Albert Dr Martha Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
MCDONALD AVE Park St Terrace Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project
MCMASTER LN End of Street West Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
MCMINN AVE 300 ft south of Hughes
Ave
Hughes Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity
Project
MEDA AVE Sonata Ave Aston Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.36 $$$ Opportunity Project
MELITA RD 500 ft east of Sharon St Diane Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.26 $$$ Opportunity Project
MELITA RD 950 ft north of
Montgomery Dr
Montgomery Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.18 $$$ Opportunity Project
MELITA RD 1000 ft east of Queen
Anne Dr
Queen Anne Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.19 $$$ Opportunity Project
MERCURY WAY Apollo Wy Corporate
Center Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
MIDDLE RINCON RD 400 ft north of
Sunshine Ave
Badger Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.29 $$$ Opportunity
Project
MONTGOMERY DR 1000 ft east of Brey Rd Channel Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.18 $$$ Opportunity Project
MONTGOMERY DR 750 ft west of Melita Rd Melita Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
MONTGOMERY DR Greengate Ct Rocky Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.14 $$$ Opportunity Project
MOROCCO AVE Boas Dr Charmian Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
MOUNTAIN HAWK Melita Rd Evening Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.41 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
MT OLIVE DR 550 ft south of Mt Olive
Wy
Brigham Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.29 $$$ Opportunity
Project
NEWANGA CT End of Street Newanga Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
NORTHPOINT PKWY Kingfisher Wy Lombardi Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.27 $$$ Opportunity Project
NORTHPOINT PKWY End of Street Mariner Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 1.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
OCCIDENTAL RD City Limits N Wright Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.36 $$$ Opportunity Project
OLD RANCH DR Valley Pl Old Ranch Pl Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
OLIVE ST Barham Ave Earle St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.18 $$$ Opportunity Project
ORCHARD ST Mcconnell Ave Carr Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project
PARK ST McDonald Ave Monroe St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
PARKER HILL RD Chanate Rd Fountaingrove
Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 1.53 $$$ Opportunity
Project
PARKER HILL RD Stagecoach Rd Fountaingrove
Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.96 $$$ Opportunity
Project
PASCAL ST Arista Ln Dennis Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 $$$ Opportunity Project
PATIO CT Hahman Dr Farmers Ln Sidewalk on 1-side 0.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
PETERSON CREEK DR Wild Oat Wy Sorrel St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project
PETERSON LN Moonlight Wy 150 ft south of
Sundance St
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.23 $$$ Opportunity
Project
PIERSON ST Santa Rosa Creek W 6th St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
PINER CT End of Street Piner Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
PINERCREST DR 400 ft east of Genoa Pl Waltzer Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
PROSPECT AVE 100 ft west of Hansbery
Wy
Hansbery Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.02 $$$ Opportunity
Project
RICK DR Gregory Ct Badger Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
RICK DR 200 ft east of Baird Rd Baird Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
RIDGWAY AVE Central Ave Briggs Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
RIDGWAY AVE End of Street End of Street Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
RIDLEY AVE 250 ft north of
Longship Ln
Jennings Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
RIDLEY AVE Brooklyn Dr Tonja Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
RINCON MEADOWS CT End of Street Badger Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
RINCONADA DR Middle Rincon Rd Benicia Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.20 $$$ Opportunity Project
ROGERS WAY E Foothill Dr La Paloma Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.22 $$$ Opportunity Project
S A ST Santa Rosa Ave Sebastopol Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.27 $$$ Opportunity Project
S DAVIS ST Theresa ST Carrington St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
SAINT ANDREWS DR 1850 ft north of
Lakebriar Pl
Skyfarm Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.64 $$$ Opportunity
Project
SALLY ANN ST Aloise Ave Hearn Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
SAN MIGUEL AVE Versailles St Fulton Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.23 $$$ Opportunity Project
SAN RAMON WAY Owls Nest Dr Monte Verde Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
SANTA MARTA CT End of Street Santa Rosita Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project

SANTA ROSA CREEK
TRAIL
Santa Rosa Creek Trail Pierson St Sidewa lk on 1-side 0.21 $$$ Opportunity Project
SANTA ROSITA CT End of Street Summerfield Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
SILVA AVE Humboldt St Slater St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
SILVER SPUR DR Blue Sky Ln Hearn Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
SONATA AVE Meda Ave Citrine Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
SPRING CREEK DR End of Street Colorado Blvd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.02 $$$ Opportunity Project
STAGECOACH RD Chanate Rd Fountaingrove
Pkwy
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.01 $$$ Opportunity
Project
SUMMERFIELD RD Woodview Dr Hillsboro Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.52 $$$ Opportunity Project
SUMMERFIELD RD Bethards Dr Horseshoe Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.72 $$$ Opportunity Project
SUMMERFIELD RD Mayette Ave Sonoma Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.40 $$$ Opportunity Project
SUMMERFIELD RD Parktrail Dr Stonehedge Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.20 $$$ Opportunity Project
SUMNER LN Park Vista Ct Summerfield Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
SUNSET AVE McMinn Ave Burbank Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.17 $$$ Opportunity Project
TALMADGE DR Corby Ave Dowd Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
TESORO LN End of Street Sorrento Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
THERESA ST S Davis St Olive st Sidewalk on 1-side 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
TOKAY ST Brookwood Ave Amethyst Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.24 $$$ Opportunity Project
TUXHORN DR Pebblecreek Dr Birch Meadow
St
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.09 $$$ Opportunity
Project
TUXHORN DR Dutton Meadow Rain Dance Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
VALLEJO ST End of Street 400 ft east of
Hwy 12
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 $$$ Opportunity
Project
VALLEY PL End of Street Old Ranch Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
WALNUT CREEK CT End of Street 150 ft west of
Walnut Grove St
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
WILD OAT WAY Wild Oat Wy Peterson Creek
Dr
Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity
Project
WILD OAT WAY End of Street Wild Oat Wy Sidewalk on 1-side 0.02 $$$ Opportunity Project
WRIGHT ST Fulkerson St Carr Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
YEAGER DR Fresno Ave Fairgrave Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
YERBA BUENA RD Santa Teresa Ave Rinaldo St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.18 $$$ Opportunity Project
YULUPA AVE Princeton Dr Spring Creek Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
ACACIA LN End of Street 100 ft west of
Sorrento Wy
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.01 $$$ Opportunity
Project
ACACIA LN 100 ft south of
Sorrento Wy
Prospect Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
ALDERBROOK LN End of Street Alderbrook Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.07 $$$ Opportunity Project
ANDERSON DR City Limits 150 ft north of
Badger Rd
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.13 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BADGER RD Middle Rincon Rd Anderson Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
BAIRD RD City Limits Badger Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.47 $$$ Opportunity Project
BARHAM AVE Corby Ave Beachwood Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
BAY ST End of Street Alderbrook Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
BEAVER LN King St Beaver St Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
BELLEVUE AVE Corby Ave Wiljan Ct Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
BENJAMINS RD Speers Rd City Limits Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.03 $$$ Opportunity Project
BENNETT VALLEY RD 600 ft west of Yulupa
Ave
350 ft west of
Farmers Ln
Sidewalk on 2-sides 1.81 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BENNETT VALLEY RD City Limits Bennett Valley
Rd
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.17 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BOAS DR Morocco Ave Tunisia Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.24 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRITTAIN LN End of Street Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.18 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD Saint Thomas Ct Brush Creek Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.31 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD Asian Lair Ct Fountaingrove
Pkwy
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.35 $$$ Opportunity
Project
BRUSH CREEK RD 350 ft north of
Trailwood Dr
Heimbucher Wy Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.39 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD Shadyoak Dr Shadowhill Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.30 $$$ Opportunity Project
BRUSH CREEK RD 150 ft south of Jaylee
Dr
Wild Lilac Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.24 $$$ Opportunity Project
CHANATE RD Slater St Lomitas Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
CORBY AVE Corby Ave Ext Bellevue Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.79 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
CREST DR Danbeck Ave Franklin Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
DENNIS LN Bluegrass Ln Elwin Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.25 $$$ Opportunity Project
DENNIS LN Coffey Ln Mocha Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project
DOWD DR Kenwood Ct Corby Ave Ext Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
DRIVEWAY End of Street Driveway Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.01 $$$ Opportunity Project
DRIVEWAY End of Street Hoen Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
DRIVEWAY 200 ft east of Kenmore
Ln
Kenmore Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.03 $$$ Opportunity
Project
E FOOTHILL DR 200 ft north of Rogers
Wy
Rogers Wy Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.03 $$$ Opportunity
Project
EARLE ST Davis St Corby Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.14 $$$ Opportunity Project
ELAINE DR End of Street Hwy 12 Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project

FOUNTAINGROVE
PKWY
Chanate Rd Chanate Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.42 $$$ Opportunity Project

FOUNTAINGROVE
PKWY
Montecito Ave Chanate Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.02 $$$ Opportunity Project
FRANCISCO AVE 850 ft west of Barrel Ln City Limits Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.20 $$$ Opportunity Project
FRANCISCO AVE 150 ft north of
Delamere Ave
Delamere Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.02 $$$ Opportunity Project
FRANKLIN AVE Silva Ave Poppy Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
GARDNER AVE Stony Point Rd Kenmore Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
GLEN ECHO DR End of Street Chanate Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.20 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
GLORIA DR West Ave Camellia Ct Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
GOLDEN GATE AVE Arthur Ashe Cir Leddy Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
HANSEN DR Jack London Dr MIddle Rincon
Rd
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.25 $$$ Opportunity
Project
HEWETT ST N Dutton Ave Umland Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
HOEN AVE Hoen Ct Brasher Ct Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.08 $$$ Opportunity Project
HOEN AVE Hoen Ln Spring Creek Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
HOEN LN End of Street Hoen Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
HWY 12 Village Pkwy Farmers Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 1.55 $$$ Opportunity Project
HWY 12 Melita Rd Melita Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.34 $$$ Opportunity Project
HWY 12 Melita Rd Queen Anne Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 1.80 $$$ Opportunity Project
JENNINGS AVE End of Street N Dutton Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
JUNIPER AVE City Limits Bellevue Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.34 $$$ Opportunity Project
KENMORE LN End of Street Kenmore Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
KENMORE LN Driveway Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
KNOLLS LN 200 ft east of Knolls Dr 150 ft east of
Knolls Dr
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.07 $$$ Opportunity
Project
LANCASTER AVE Leddy Ave S Wright Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.15 $$$ Opportunity Project
LANCE DR W College Ave Jennings Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.42 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
LEDDY AVE Finley Ave Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.34 $$$ Opportunity Project
LOMITAS AVE Chanate Rd End of Street Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.33 $$$ Opportunity Project
LOS ALAMOS RD Fawn Dr Montgomery Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.92 $$$ Opportunity Project
LOS OLIVOS RD 1450 ft south of
Montecito Ave
Montecito Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.27 $$$ Opportunity Project
MAES PL End of Street Hoen Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
MARSH RD Belair Wy Arden Wy Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
MARSH RD Respite Pl Robinson Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
MELBROOK WAY End of Street Melbrook Wy Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
MELITA RD 950 ft north of
Montgomery Dr
1000 ft east of
Queen Anne Dr
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
MELITA RD Queen Anne Dr 500 ft east of
Sharon St
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.20 $$$ Opportunity
Project
MELITA RD Los Alamos Rd Melito Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
MONDAY CT End of Street West Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.05 $$$ Opportunity Project
MONTECITO AVE Chanate Rd Norte Wy Sidewalk on 2-sides 1.59 $$$ Opportunity Project
MONTEREY DR End of Street Hoen Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
MONTGOMERY DR 750 ft west of Melita Rd 1000 ft east of
Brey Rd
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.28 $$$ Opportunity
Project
MONTGOMERY DR Channel Dr Greengate Ct Sidewalk on 2-sides 1.20 $$$ Opportunity Project
MOORE RD End of Street Hoen Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
MURDOCK DR Lewis Rd Sycamore Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.17 $$$ Opportunity Project
PEBBLECREEK DR Tuxhorn Dr Birch Meadow
St
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.13 $$$ Opportunity
Project
PIERSON ST Santa Rosa Creek 3rd St Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.14 $$$ Opportunity Project
POLK ST Hewett St Trowbridge St Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
PROSPECT AVE Hansbery Wy Acacia Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
RIDLEY AVE W College Ave Brooklyn Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project
ROSELAND AVE End of Street Sebastopol Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.18 $$$ Opportunity Project
S DAVIS ST Barham Ave Theresa St Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.06 $$$ Opportunity Project
SAINT FRANCIS RD El Encanto Dr Yerba Buena Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.41 $$$ Opportunity Project
SAN RAMON WAY Monte Verde Dr Yerba Buena Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
SEBASTOPOL RD End of Street Joe Rodato Trail Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.12 $$$ Opportunity Project
SONOMA HWY Saint Francis Rd Peppertree Ln Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.28 $$$ Opportunity Project
STREIFF LN End of Street Piner Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.11 $$$ Opportunity Project
SYCAMORE AVE Sycamore Ave Murdock Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.03 $$$ Opportunity Project
TRAIL ACCESS Sonoma Ave Santa Rosa
Creek Trail
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.02 $$$ Opportunity
Project
TROWBRIDGE ST Polk St N Dutton Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.04 $$$ Opportunity Project
TROWBRIDGE ST N Dutton Ave Umland Dr Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.16 $$$ Opportunity Project
Corridor From To Sidewalk Side Needed Length in
miles
Generalized Costs
(Per MI.)
Prioritization
Category
W BARHAM AVE Railroad Dutton Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.20 $$$ Opportunity Project
W COLLEGE AVE Halyard Dr Fulton Rd Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.54 $$$ Opportunity Project
W HEARN AVE W Hearn Ave Park Meadow
Dr
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.47 $$$ Opportunity
Project
WALLACE RD 50 ft south of Deer Trail
Rd
450 ft north of
Badger Rd
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.13 $$$ Opportunity
Project
WESTWOOD DR Gloria Dr Hearn Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.09 $$$ Opportunity Project
WHITEHAVEN AVE Old Petaluma Hill Rd Madrus Rosa St Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.02 $$$ Opportunity Project
WILD OAT WAY End of Street Wild Oat Way Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.01 $$$ Opportunity Project
WILJAN CT 700 ft north of Bellevue
Ave
Bellevue Ave Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.13 $$$ Opportunity Project
YERBA BUENA RD San Ramon Wy Santa Teresa
Ave
Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.77 $$$ Opportunity
Project

Table 6. Bike Improvements by Cost and Prioritization
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
1st St (South Side) Midblock East A St Bike Route (Class III) 0.10 $ High-Priority 1st St (South Side) D St A St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.10 $$$ High-Priority
2nd St E St Montgomery Dr Study Corridor 0.33
Undetermin
ed
High-Priority
2nd St & 3rd St Couplet E St Santa Rosa Creek Study Corridor 0.49 Undetermin
ed
High-Priority
3rd St E St Santa Rosa Ave Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.21 $$$ High-Priority
3rd St Santa Rosa Ave B St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.10 $$$$ High-Priority
3rd St B St Morgan St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.17 $$$$ High-Priority
4th St Brookwood Ave Hope St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.06 $$$ High-Priority
4th St (South Side) Hope St E St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.16 $$$ High-Priority
6th St Davis St Morgan St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.07 $$$ High-Priority
7th St Riley St Beaver St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.15 $$$ High-Priority
7th St B St A St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.10 $$$$ High-Priority
7th St Mendocino Ave Riley St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.05 $$$$ High-Priority
9th St Morgan St Wilson St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.17 $$$ High-Priority
A St 7th St 6th St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.06 $$$$ High-Priority
B St 3rd St 4th St Bike Lane (Class II) 0.06 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Bellevue Ave Juniper Ave Wiljan Ct Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.38 $$$$ High-Priority
Bicentennial Way Range Ave Kaiser Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.33 $$$$ High-Priority
Brookwood Ave Maple Ave Bennett Valley Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.05 $$$$ High-Priority
Brookwood Ave College Ave Sonoma Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.89 $$$$ High-Priority
Calistoga Rd Montecito Blvd Hwy 12 Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

1.07 $$$$ High-Priority
Cleveland Ave College Ave Ridgeway Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.20 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority Cleveland Ave Jennings Ave Edwards Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.12 $$$$ High-Priority
Cleveland Ave Edwards Ave Hopper Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.94 $$$$ High-Priority
College Ave Morgan St 4th St Bike Lane (Class II) 0.77 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority College Ave SMART Trail Cleveland Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.09 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority College Ave Mendocino Ave N Dutton Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.22 $$$$ High-Priority
Dutton Ave Sebastopol Rd 3rd St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.31 $$$$ High-Priority
Dutton Ave Hearn Ave Sebastopol Rd Study Corridor 1.13
Undetermin
ed
High-Priority
Dutton Ave (Extension) Dutton Meadow North End of Dutton Ave
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.37 $$$$ High-Priority
Edwards Ave Cleveland Ave Range Ave Study Corridor 0.33 Undetermin
ed
High-Priority
Elliott Ave Mendocino Ave Armory Dr Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.47 $$$$ High-Priority
Fulton Rd Guerneville Rd Sebastopol Rd Shared Use Path
(Class I)

1.92 $$$$ High-Priority
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Guerneville Rd Cleveland Ave Range Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.24 $$$$ High-Priority
Guerneville Rd Range Ave Coffey Ln Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.51 $$$$ High-Priority
Guerneville Rd N Dutton Ave Ridley Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.51 $$$$ High-Priority
Guerneville Rd Marlow Rd Fulton Rd Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

2.00 $$$$ High-Priority
Guerneville Rd Ridley Ave Fulton Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.28 $$$$ High-Priority
Guerneville Rd SMART Trail Ridley Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.53 $$$$ High-Priority
Guerneville Rd Coffey Ln SMART Trail Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.05 $$$$ High-Priority
Hearn Ave Santa Rosa Ave Corby Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.22 $$$$ High-Priority
Hearn Ave SMART Trail West Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.13 $$$$ High-Priority
Hearn Ave Smart Path Corby Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.20 $$$$ High-Priority
Hearn Hub Project Colgan Creek Trail Hearn Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.18 $$$$ High-Priority
Highway 101 Overcrossing Elliott Ave

Edwards Ave

Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.05 $$$$ High-Priority
Hopper Ave Cleveland Ave Coffey Ln Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.64 $$$$ High-Priority
Jennings Ave Cleveland Range Ave Study Corridor 0.30
Undetermin
ed
High-Priority
Kawana Springs Park Farmers Ln Meda Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.79 $$$$ High-Priority
Maple Ave Brigham Ave Brookwood Ave Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.16 $$$ High-Priority
Maple Ave E St Brookwood Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.28 $$$$ High-Priority
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Maple Ave Santa Rosa Ave E St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.39 $$$$ High-Priority
Marlow Rd W College Ave W Steele Ln Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

1.47 $$$ High-Priority
Marlow Rd W Steele Ln Piner Rd Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.82 $$$$ High-Priority
Mendocino Ave College Ave Fountaingrove Pkwy Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

2.21 $$$$ High-Priority
Middle Rincon Rd Montecito Blvd State Rte 12 Bike Lane (Class II) 0.96 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority Mission Blvd Sherbrook Dr Montecito Blvd Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.62 $$$ High-Priority
Mission Blvd Montgomery Dr Sherbrook Dr Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.62 $$$$ High-Priority
Montgomery Dr Shadow Ln Mission Blvd Bike Lane (Class II) 0.33 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority N Dutton Ave Hewett St College Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.60 $$$$ High-Priority
N Dutton Ave Jennings Ave College Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.52 $$$$ High-Priority
N Dutton Ave 3rd St Hewett St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.26 $$$$ High-Priority
N Dutton Ave Guerneville Rd Jennings Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.27 $$$$ High-Priority
Petaluma Hill Rd Santa Rosa Ave Yolanda Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.24 $$$$ High-Priority
Piner Rd Fulton Rd Marlow Rd Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

1.01 $$$$ High-Priority
Piner Rd Cleveland Ave Range Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.10 $$$$ High-Priority
Range Ave Piner Rd Bicentennial Way Bike Lane (Class II) 0.08 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority Roseland Creek Trail Burbank Ave McMinn Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.23 $$$$ High-Priority
Russell Ave Cleveland Ave Range Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.18 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority S E St Sonoma Ave Stevenson St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.39 $$$ High-Priority
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
S E St Hendley St Stevenson St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.20 $$$$ High-Priority
Santa Rosa Ave Bennett Valley Rd Petaluma Hill rd Bike Lane (Class II) 0.06 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority Santa Rosa Ave Maple St Sonoma Ave Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.36 $$$ High-Priority
Santa Rosa Ave 1st St 3rd St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.11 $$$$ High-Priority
Santa Rosa Ave Petaluma Hill Rd Hearn Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.03 $$$$ High-Priority
Santa Rosa Ave Yolanda Ave Hearn Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.14 $$$$ High-Priority
Santa Rosa Ave Yolanda Ave Southern City Limits Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.03 $$$$ High-Priority
Santa Rosa Ave Maple Ave Bennett Valley Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.07 $$$$ High-Priority
SE Greenway Connector Southeast Greenway Spring Lake Path Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.32 $$$$ High-Priority
Sebastopol Ave Olive St SMART Trail Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.13 $$$$ High-Priority
Sebastopol Rd Joe Rodota Trail Lombardi Ln Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.73 $$$$ High-Priority
Sebastopol Rd Lombardi Ln Smart Path/Trl Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.52 $$$$ High-Priority
SMART Trail 4th St 6th St Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.12 $$$$ High-Priority
SMART Trail 3rd St Santa Rosa Creek Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.07 $$$$ High-Priority
SMART Trail (Extension) Shiloh Rd Guerneville Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

3.38 $$$$ High-Priority
SMART Trail At-Grade
Crossing
Jennings Ave Jennings Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.03 $$$$ High-Priority
Sonoma Ave Farmers Ln Bobelaine Dr Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.33 $$$ High-Priority
Sonoma Ave Santa Rosa Ave E St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.26 $$$ High-Priority
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Sonoma Ave Yulupa Ave Hahman Dr Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.46 $$$ High-Priority
Sonoma Ave Hahman Dr Farmers Ln Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.12 $$$$ High-Priority
Sonoma Ave Bobelaine Dr E St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.87 $$$ High-Priority
Southeast Greenway Spring Lake Park Vallejo St Shared Use Path (Class I)

1.82 $$$$ High-Priority
Steele Ln US 101 Mendocino Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.41 $$$$ High-Priority
Stony Point Rd W College Ave Glenbrook Dr Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

1.45 $$$ High-Priority
Stony Point Rd Sebastopol Rd 3rd St Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.63 $$$$ High-Priority
W 3rd St N Dutton Ave Rusch St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.42 $$$ High-Priority
W 3rd St Fulton Rd Stony Point Rd Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

3.25 $$$$ High-Priority
W 3rd St Surrey Dr Stony Point Rd Study Corridor 0.37
Undetermin
ed
High-Priority
W 9th St 8th St Stony Point Rd Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.42 $$$ High-Priority
W College Ave Marlow Rd Dutton Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

1.13 $$$$ High-Priority
W College Ave Stony Point Rd Fulton Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.99 $$$$ High-Priority
W College Ave SMART Trail Dutton Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.13 $$$$ High-Priority
West Ave Hearn Ave Sebastopol Ave Study Corridor 1.10
Undetermin
ed
High-Priority
West Ave (Extension) Joe Rodota Trail Sebastopol Rd Bike Lane (Class II) 0.12 $$ - $$$$ High-Priority 13th St Morgan St North St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.38 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
4th St Farmers Ln Bryden Ln Bike Lane (Class II) 0.73 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
5th St Brookwood Ave B St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.53 $$$ Opportunity
Project
6th St A St Morgan St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.06 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
A St 7th St Morgan St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
A St Sonoma Ave 1st St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.08 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Administration Dr County Center Dr Mendocino Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.36 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Airway Dr Piner Creek Trail Hopper Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.19 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Alderbrook Dr Montgomery Dr 4th St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.57 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Allan Way Woodsage Way Brookwood Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.28 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Alvarez Ave Brunello Dr Louis Krohn Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.08 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Apollo Way Corporate Center Pkwy Challengers Way Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.60 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Appletree Dr Fulton Dr Peterson Ln Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.29 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Arden Way Redford Pl Marsh rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.17 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Arrowhead Dr Elsie Allen High School Hearn Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.39 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Aston Ave Hendley St Brookwood Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.40 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Austin Creek Trail El Encanto Way Middle Rincon Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

1.07 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
B St Mendocino Ave 1st St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.09 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Badger Rd Brush Creek Rd Baird Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.51 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Badger Rd Baird Rd Calistoga Rd Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.47 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Baird Rd Badger Rd Montecito Blvd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.35 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Baker Ave Corby Ave Beachwood Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.18 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bancroft Dr Glenbrook Dr Chadwick Pl Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.09 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Barham Ave Dutton Ave Corby Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.38 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Barham Ave Petaluma Hill Rd S A St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Battersea St Penbrooke Ave Brompton Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bay Meadow Dr Bodie St Bay Village Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bay Village Ave Bay Meadow Dr Marlow Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.18 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Beachwood Dr Baker Dr Cherrywood Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.09 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Beachwood Dr Beachwood Dr (southern
end)
SMART Trail Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.05 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Bear Cub Way Armory Dr Mendocino Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.49 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Beaver St Cherry St 7th St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Beaver St Dexter Ave Carr Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.06 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bellevue Ave Stony Point Rd SMART Trail Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.37 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Bellevue Ranch Arrowhead Dr Stony Point Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.27 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Bellevue Ranch Park Path Liscum St Arrowhead Dr Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.16 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Benicia Dr Austin Creek Montecito Blvd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.52 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Benjamins Rd Speers Rd Canyon Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.18 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bennett Valley Rd Southern City Limits Valley Rd Bike Route (Class III) 0.17 $ Opportunity Project
Bennett Valley Rd Santa Rosa Ave Brookwood Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.69 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Bennett Valley Rd Brookwood Ave Farmers Ln Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.56 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Benton St Morgan St North St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.77 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bicentennial Way Mendocino Ave Lake Park Dr Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.28 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Bicentennial Way Lake Park Dr Fountain Grove
Pkwy
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.15 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Blacksmith Way Silver Spur Dr Arrowhead Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.12 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Boas Dr Tunisia Ave Hwy 12 Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.45 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bodie St Waltzer Rd Bay Meadow Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.11 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Breeden St Hwy 12 Prospect Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.34 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Breeze Way Petaluma Hill Rd Tokay St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bridgewood Dr Montecito Blvd Greenmeadow Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.39 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Britain Ln Sebastopol Rd SMART Trail Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.20 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Brockhurst Dr W 3rd St Glenbrook Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.23 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Brompton Ave Battersea St Waltzer Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.10 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Brookwood Ave Bennett Valley Rd Aston Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.46 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Brookwood Ave Sonoma Ave Maple Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.48 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Brown St Maple St Sonoma Ave Park Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.38 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Brunello Dr Alvarez Ave Justin Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.13 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Brush Creek Rd Fistor Dr Badger Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.17 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Bryden Ln 4th St Montecito Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.30 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Burbank Ave Hearn Ave Lilian Dr Bike Lane (Class II) 0.43 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Burbank Ave 0.08 mi south of Hughes Ave Sebastopol Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.30 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Burbank Trail Channel Dr Hwy 12 Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.40 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Burgess Dr Bellevue Ave Rain Dance Way Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.42 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Burgess Dr (Extension) Dutton Meadows Rain Dance Way Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.15 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Burt St Madrus Rose St Santa Rosa Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.50 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Campoy St Louis Krohn Dr Sebastopol Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.16 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Canyon Dr Benjamins Rd Drake Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.45 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Carr Ave Franklin Ave Beaver St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.30 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Cavendish Ave W 3rd St Rush St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.06 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Chadwick Pl W 3rd St Bancroft Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Challenger Way Corporate Center Pkwy Apollo Way Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.11 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Chanate Rd Humboldt St Lomitas Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.15 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Chanate Rd Parker Hill Rd Montecito Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.45 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Chanate Rd Montecito Ave Fountaingroove
Pkwy
Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.15 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Cherry St Beaver St E St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.08 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Clairborne Cir (extension) Francisco Ave Trail Claiborne Cir/Francisco Ave
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.13 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Clover Dr Link Ln Jennings Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.74 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Coffey Creek Piner Rd Piner Creek Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.20 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Coffey Ln Bluebell Dr Walnut Creek Dr Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.41 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Coffey Ln Walnut Creek Dr San Miguel Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.11 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Colgan Ave Petaluma Hill Rd Santa Rosa Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.35 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Colgan Creek Connection Colgan Creek Colgan Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.02 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Colgan Creek Trail
(Extension)
Hearn Ave Meadows Park Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.20 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
College Ave Mendocino Ave Morgan St Bike Lane (Class II) 0.26 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Comalli St Lazzini Ave Hughes St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.16 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Common Way Rain Dance Way Common Way Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.05 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Common Way Flapjack Way Bellevue Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.17 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Corby Ave Earle St Barham Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.18 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corby Ave Barham St Hearn Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.86 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corporate Center Pkwy Sebastopol Rd Northpoint Pkwy Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.46 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
County Center Dr Professional Dr Administration Dr Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.47 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
County Center Dr Professional Dr Steele Ln Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.16 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Cox Dr Fistor Dr Greenmeadow Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Creekfield Dr Gamay St Santa Rosa Creek Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.10 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Creekside Rd Bethards Dr Cypress Way Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.97 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Cunningham Way Fairbanks Dr Redford Pl Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.44 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Cypress Way Hoen Ave Creekside Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.32 $$$ Opportunity
Project
D St Sonoma Ave 5th St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.31 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Delamere Ave Battersea St Francisco Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.11 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Delport Ave McMinn Ave West Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.17 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Dexter St Beaver St Mendocino Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.30 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Ditty Ave Coffey Ln Hardies Ln Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.38 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Donahue Ave Valley W Dr Brittain Ln Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.29 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Dowd Dr-Wijian Ct Bellevue Ave Hearn Ave Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.87 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Doyle Park Dr Santa Rosa Creek Trail Doyle Community
Park
Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.20 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Doyle Park Dr Santa Rosa Creek Trail Doyle Community
Park
Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.11 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Doyle Park Dr Talbot Ave Parker Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.12 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Drake Dr Canyon Dr Parkhurst Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Ducker Creek Trail Culebra Way Middle Rincon Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.44 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Duncan St Eastern End Florence St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.07 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Dutton Meadow Hearn Ave Bellevue Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.86 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Dutton Meadow Extension Colgan Creek Trail Dutton Meadow Bike Lane (Class II) 0.32 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
E St College Ave Sonoma Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.51 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Earle St Davis St Corby Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Earle St Santa Rosa Ave S A St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.17 $$$ Opportunity
Project
El Encanto Dr Austin Creek Trail Saint Francis Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.15 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Exeter Dr - Putney Dr Jennings Ave W College Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.41 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Fairbanks Dr Peterson Ln Cunningham Way Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.21 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Farmers Ln Hoen Frontage Rd Bennett Valley Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.29 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Finley Ave Fresno Ave S Wright Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.52 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Fistor Dr Bush Creek Rd Cox Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.20 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Florence St Duncan St Hewett St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Forestview Creek Fulton Rd Guerneville Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.52 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Forse Ln Kawana Springs Rd Tokay St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.17 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Fountaingrove Pkwy Brush Creek Rd Chanate Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.59 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Francisco Ave San Miguel Ave Peterson Ln Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.24 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Francisco Ave Fulton Rd Delamere Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.74 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Francisco Ave Orleans St San Miguel Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.04 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Francisco Ave Fulton Rd San Miguel Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.37 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Franklin Ave Terrace Way Carr Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.20 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Franklin Ave Chanate Rd Lewis Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.24 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Franklin Ave Crest Dr Poppy Dr Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.41 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Franquette Ave Montgomery Dr Spring Creek Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.39 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Franquette Ave Southeast Greenway Spring Creek Dr Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.36 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Franz Kafka Ave Yolanda Ave Kawana Springs Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.29 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Fresno Ave Sebastopol Ave Finley Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.35 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Fresno Ave Alvarez Ave Sebastopol Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.10 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Fresno Ave (Extension) Finley Ave Northpoint Pkwy Bike Lane (Class II) 0.41 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Fulton Rd Northern City Limits Guerneville Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

2.08 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Fulton Rd Placer Dr Hall Rd Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.36 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Gamay St Jennings Ave Creekfield Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.34 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Gardner Ave Marble St Lombardi Ln Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.21 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Glenbrook Dr Bancroft Dr Heather Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.80 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Gloria Dr Dutton Ave Westland Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.42 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Greenmeadow Dr Bridgewood Dr Cox Ct Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Griffen Ave East end Corporation Center
Pkwy
Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.22 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Griffen Ave Trombetta St Western End Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.13 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Griffen Ave Trombetta St Western End Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.47 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Griffen Ave Griffen Ave Griffen Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.05 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Guerneville Rd Western City Limits Fulton Rd Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.68 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hahman Dr Spring Creek Dr Hoen Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.23 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hahman Dr Montgomery Dr Sonoma Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hahman Dr Sprink Creek Dr Sonoma Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.24 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Hardies Ln W Steele Ln Butte Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.74 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Heather Dr Cavendish Ave Glenbrook Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.18 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hendley St Aston Ave E St Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.43 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Hendley St Wheeler St Sebastopol Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hewett St Umland Dr Florence St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.09 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hidden Valley Dr Terrace Way Chanate Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

1.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hoen Ave Sonoma Ave Cypress Way Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.86 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hoen Frontage Rd Cypress Way Farmers Ln Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.37 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Hopper Ave Coffey Ln Barnes Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.51 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Hughes Ave Comalli St McMinn Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.28 $$$ Opportunity
Project
IIlinois Ave Armory Dr Elliot Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.22 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Illinois Ave Armory Dr Steele Ln Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.03 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Jack London Dr Austin Creek Trail Tanglewood Park
Trail
Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Jack London Park Trail Claiborne Cr (extension) N Village Dr/Van Patter Dr
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.45 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Jennings Ave SMART Trail Range Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.11 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Jennings Ave Exeter Dr SMART Trail Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

1.36 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Joe Rodota Trail Sebastopol Rd Fulton Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.19 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Jose Ave Josefa St Donahue Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.12 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Josefa St Pacheco Pl Jose Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Justin Dr Brunello Dr Sebastopol Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.17 $$$ Opportunity
Project
King St King St Royal St Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.04 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Lake Park Dr Russel Creek Trail Terra Linda Dr Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.05 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Lazzini Ave Comalli St Marble St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.39 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Leo Dr Westwood Dr Dutton Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.37 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Leonard Ave Talbot Ave Shortt Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.40 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Lewis Rd Franklin Ave Humboldt St Bike Lane (Class II) 0.11 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Lewis rd Humboldt St Mendocino Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.17 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Liana Dr West Ave Burbank Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.36 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Link Ln Trowbridge St Clover Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.38 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Linwood Ave Brookwood Ave Aston Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.10 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Liscum St Bellevue Ave Bellevue Ranch Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.33 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Liscum St (New Road) Bellevue Ranch Hearn Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.26 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Lombardi Ln Gardner Ave Sebastopol Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.24 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Lomitas Ave Mendocino Ave Humboldt St Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.52 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Lomitas Ave - Mendocino
Ave
Lomitas Ave Mendocino Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.02 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Los Alamos Rd Fawn Dr SR 12 Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.73 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Los Alamos Rd SR 12 Melita Rd Bike Lane (Class II) 0.19 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Louis Krohn Dr Campoy St Alvarez Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.26 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Ludwig Ave Llano Rd Stony Point Rd Shared Use Path
(Class I)

2.43 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Ludwig Ave Bellevue Ave Stony Point Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.28 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Madrus Rose St Winterhaven Ave Burt St Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.09 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Magowan Dr Yulupa Ave Hahman Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.45 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Marble St Gardner Ave Lazzini Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.10 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Marsh Rd Peterson Ln Marlow Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.63 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Mayette Ave Franquette Ave Wyoming Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.87 $$$ Opportunity
Project
McConnell Ave North St Mendocino Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.50 $$$ Opportunity
Project
McDonald Ave Terrace Way College Ave Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.57 $$$ Opportunity
Project
McMinn Ave Hughes Ave Delport Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.15 $$$ Opportunity
Project
McMinn Ave Hughes Ave Joe Rodota Trail Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.37 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Melita Rd SR 12 Montgomery Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.69 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Melita Rd Hwy 12 Montogemery Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.97 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Mendocino Ave 10th St College Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.16 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Mercury Way Corporate Center Pkway Apollow Way Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.19 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Monte Verde Dr Calistoga Rd Garfield Pa rk Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.06 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Montecito Blvd Benicia Dr Brush Creek Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.31 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Montecito Blvd Middle Rincon Rd Calistoga Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.72 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Montecito Blvd Middle Rincon Rd Benicia Dr Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.26 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Moraga Dr San Domingo Dr Aston Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.36 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Morgan St 9th St Ridgeway Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.50 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Mountain Hawk Dr Hwy 12 San Ramon Way Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.76 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Mt Olive Dr Bringham Ave Vallejo St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.60 $$$ Opportunity
Project
New Road Petaluma Hill Rd Bennett Valley Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

1.99 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Newanga Ave Newanga Ave Summerfield Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.70 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Nightingale Dr Valdes Dr Cunningham Way Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.20 $$$ Opportunity
Project
North St College Ave Poppy Dr Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.86 $$$ Opportunity
Project
North West Community Park
Path
Hilliard Comstock Middle
School
Ridley Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.07 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Northpoint Pkwy Stony Point Rd Corrigan St Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

2.64 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Northwest Community Park
Path
Ridley Ave Steele Ln Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.30 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Occidental Rd Stony Point Rd Fulton Rd Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

1.54 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Old Stony Point Rd Hearn Ave Stony Point Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Olive St Sebastopol Ave Railroad St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Olive St Earle St Sebastopol Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.22 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Pacheco Pl Josefa St Valley West Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.04 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Parker Hill Rd Existing bike lane north of
Sleepy Hollow Dr
Chanate Rd Bike Lane (Class II) 0.47 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
Parkhurst Dr Calistoga Rd Drake Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Paulin Creek Cleveland Ave Piner Creek Shared Use Path
(Class I)

1.83 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Pearblossom Trail Burbank Ave Stony Point Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.68 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Peterson Ln Laylani Ct Orleans St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

1.37 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Pierson St W 3rd St W 6th St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.18 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Piner Creek Airway Dr W College Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

3.59 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Pinercrest Dr Piner Rd Peterson Ln Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.72 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Pressley St Hendley St Petaluma Hill Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.36 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Prospect Ave Breeden St Schiappino St Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.06 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Queen Anne Dr Melita Rd Hwy 12 Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.15 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Railroad St Olive St W 3rd St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.15 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Rain Dance Way Burgess Dr Tuxhorn Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.22 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Range Ave Bicentennial Way Guerneville Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.14 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Range Ave Guerneville Rd Edwards Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.14 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Range Ave Edwards Ave Jennings Ave Study Corridor 0.10
Undetermin
ed
Opportunity
Project
Rea Park Path Brown St D St Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.03 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Redford Pl Cunningham Way Arden Way Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Ridgeway Ave Existing Class IV west Mendocino Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.15 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Ridley Ave W College Ave Guerneville Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.51 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Ridley Ave Northwest Community Park Guerneville Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.17 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Rinconada Dr Mission Blvd Middle Rincon Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.42 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Rose Ave Burbank Ave Stony Point Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.33 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Roseland Creek Trail Ludwig Ave Roseland Creek Trail Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.72 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Royal St King St Wright St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.07 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Rusch Dr W 3rd St Cavendish Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Russell Ave Range Ave Ditty Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.54 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Russell Creek Bicentennial Way Piner Creek Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.64 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
S A St Earle St Barham Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
S Wright Rd Northpoint Pkwy (Extension) Sebastopol Rd Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.35 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
S Wright Rd Northpoint Pkwy (Extension) Finley Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.35 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
S Wright Rd (East Side) Ludwig Ave Northpoint Pkwy
(Extension)
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

1.53 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Saint Helena Ave Spencer Ave Bryden Ln Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.11 $$$ Opportunity
Project
San Miguel Ave Fulton Rd Francisco Ave Bike Lane (Class II) 0.31 $$ - $$$$ Opportunity Project
San Miguel Rd Francisco Ave Banyan St Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

1.02 $$$ Opportunity
Project
San Ramon Way Mountain Hawk Yerba Buena Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.33 $$$ Opportunity
Project
San Sebastian Ave Fulton Rd Wren Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.13 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Santa Rosa Creek Trail Santa Rosa Ave E Street Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.94 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Santa Rosa Creek Trail Shadow Ln Santa Rosa Creek Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.15 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Santa Rosa Creek Trail Hartley Dr Santa Rosa Creek
Trail
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.07 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Santa Rosa Creek Trail Farmers Ln Shortt Rd/Marian Ln Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.64 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Santa Rosa Southeast
Greenway Extension
Spring Lake Park Sonoma Valley Trail
(planned)
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.63 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Santa Rosa West County
Connector
Joe Rodota Trail Santa Rosa Creek
Trail
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

1.48 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Schiappino St (extension) Austin Creek Bridge Montecito Blvd Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.04 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Sebastopol Ave Hendley St S A St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.45 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Sendero Ln North end Sebastopol Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.45 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Shadow Ln Santa Rosa Creek Trail Montgo mery Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.12 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Shortt Rd Sonoma Ave Santa Rosa Creek
Trail
Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.41 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Silver Spur Dr Hearn Ave Blacksmith Way Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.30 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Skyhawk Trail Skyhawk Trail Sunhawk Dr Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.20 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Skyhawk Trail Grayhawk Pl Skyhawk Trail Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.14 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
SMART Trail Connection SMART Trail Range Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.13 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Sonoma Valley Trail Melita Rd Shady Acres Ln Shared Use Path (Class I)

3.53 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
South Ave Dutton Ave West Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.20 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Speers Rd Benjamins Rd Middle Rincon Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.05 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Spencer Ave 4th St Mendocino Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

1.10 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Spring Creek Dr Franquette Ave Hahman Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.25 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Spring Creek Trail Franquette Ave Hahman Dr/Rock
Creek Dr
Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.27 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
St Francis Rd Hwy 12 Yerba Buena Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.73 $$$ Opportunity
Project
St Mary Dr Tanglewood Ct Montecito Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.48 $$$ Opportunity
Project
State Rte 12 Farmers Ln Melita Rd Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

7.17 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Steele Creek Ridley Ave Marlow Rd Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.29 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Steele Creek Zinfandel Ave Marlow Rd Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.09 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Steele Creek Trail Tumbleweed Ct Zinfandel Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.09 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Steele Ln Cleveland Ave Illinois Ave Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.20 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Stony Point Rd Hearn Ave Bellevue Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.71 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Summerfield Rd Bethards Dr Woodview Dr Bike Route (Class III) 0.60 $ Opportunity Project
Summerfield Rd Sonoma Ave Montgomery Dr Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)

0.42 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Summerfield Rd Bethards Dr Sonoma Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.98 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Tachevah Dr Bethards Dr Mesquite Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.76 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Tachevah Dr Mesquite Dr Bennett Valley Rd Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.15 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Talbot Ave Doyle Park Dr Parker Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Talmadge Dr Talmadge Dr SMART Trail Shared Use Path
(Class I)

0.02 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Tanglewood Park Trail Tanglewood Park Trail St Mary Dr Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.05 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Tanglewood Park Trails Tanglewood Ct Oak Lake Ave Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.46 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Terra Linda Dr Lake Park Dr Chanate Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.42 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Terrace Way Parsons Dr Franklin Ave Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.30 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Thistle Creek St Burt St Yolanda Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.21 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Tokay St Forse Ln Breeze Way Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.78 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Trombetta St Giffen Ave Lazzini Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.25 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Trowbridge St Umland Dr Link Ln Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.11 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Tuxhorn Dr Dutton Meadow Silver Spur Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.27 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Umland Dr Hewett St Trowbridge St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.06 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Vallejo St E St Southeast
Greenway
Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

1.29 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Valley West Dr W 3rd St Wren Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.70 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Ventura Ave Bicentennial Way Paulin Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.14 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Ventura Ave Administration Dr Paulin Dr Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.21 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Ventura Ave Bicentennial Way Russell Ave Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

0.07 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
W 3rd St Morgan St N Dutton Ave Separated Bike Lane
(Class IV)

0.55 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
W 6th St Pierson St Davis St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.28 $$$ Opportunity
Project
W 9th St Cleveland Ave Simpson St Buffered Bike Lane
(Class IIB)

0.75 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Wallace Rd Badger Rd Deer Trail Rd Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.20 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Waltzer Rd Bodie St Brompton Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.70 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Westland Dr Westwood Dr Hearn Ave Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.13 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Westwood Dr Hearn Ave Leo Dr Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.24 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Wheeler St S E St Hendley St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.09 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Winterhaven Ave Petaluma Hill Rd Madrus Ro se St Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.10 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Wren Dr San Sebastian Ave Valley West Dr Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.07 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Corridor From To Recommended
Bicycle Facility
Length in
miles
Generalized
Costs
Prioritization
Category
Wright St Royal St Benton St Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.11 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Wyoming Dr Summerfield Rd Mayette Ave Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.07 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Yerba Buena Rd San Ramon Way Calistoga Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

1.19 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Yolanda Ave Santa Rosa Ave Petaluma Hill Rd Shared Use Path (Class I)

0.50 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Yulupa Ave Montgomery Dr Yulupa Cir Bicycle Boulevard
(Class IIIB)

0.16 $$$ Opportunity
Project
Yulupa Ave Bennett Valley Rd Princeton Dr Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)

1.88 $$$$ Opportunity
Project
Zinfandel Ave Santa Rosa Creek Marlow Rd Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIB)

0.37 $$$ Opportunity
Project