Dear Council Members and City Staff,
In regards to item #12, I have the following comments:
1) Concentrate on fixing pedestrian gaps in sidewalks, widening sidewalks and fixing sidewalks (such as the ones in Ives and other places) so they are not trip hazards; 2) Morris Street should be utilized as part of the JRT multi-use trail. The Laguna side sidewalk should be widened and a wide bike lane should be put in to link the Santa Rosa Side of the JRT with the High School Road link. There needs to be a better connection to the JRT in front of Analy High school. This could be accomplished by creating a clearer connection in front of Analy or through Analy to the existing crosswalk. Perhaps making the sidewalk wider in front of the school to create a specific place for more pedestrians and bicycles.
3) Concentrate on fixing existing roads. Where is the money to improve pavement conditions so that bicycles do not hit potholes?
4) Do not create bicycle boulevards. The proposed streets are too narrow. We need to have streets where emergency vehicles can easily access homes and schools. The majority of parents use cars to drop off and pick up their children from school as they have jobs and obligations which require them to use cars in their day to day activities. 5) The bicycle lanes on 116/ Petaluma boulevard are rarely used and cause a tremendous amount of traffic. These should be removed and the sidewalks widened for greater pedestrian comfort and use.
6) Data from the presentation show that most potential bike riders – 63% - have concerns about safety and that 33% of residents have zero interest in bike riding. This should put bike lanes at a very low priority. This means that 93% of people have very little interest in bike infrastructure. Bike lanes and pathways that are built should be multi-use and separate like the JRT.
7) Due to the lack of interest in biking and safety concerns, support for the Apple Blossom and Gravenstein separate bike paths should be high.
8) This 2013 Study shows designs for integrated downtown and transportation corridors. It uses Morris Street as a connector. How does the proposal work with these ideas? https://www.brikbase.org/sites/default/files/sdat_2013_Sebastopol.pdf 9) There is a new plan to reimagine downtown. How does this proposal integrate with this downtown proposal? https://fp.mysocialpinpoint.com/sebastopol-reimagining-the-core 10) Can any of this consultant/ grant money be used to do simple upgrades in Ives such as replacing the 60 year old chain link fence and making the pathway ADA compliant? Why is the City always spending money on consultants for projects that don’t have funding when there are low-cost and straight forward needs that could be fixed with the money that is spent on “concepts” and consultants? The Rotary replaced the fence in Willard Libby. Can they replace the fence in Ives?
11) Can there be a plan to light the sidewalks at night so people can walk from the neighborhoods to downtown? Instead of bicycle boulevards, can we create a network of pedestrian corridors, which have lighting at night, trip free sidewalks, wider sidewalks and are contiguous? Spend more money on pedestrians as they represent 93% of the alternative transportation.
Thank you,
Kate Haug