HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_02242016 - Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 February 24, 2016
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair Christopher Watt
7 Linda Sanders
8 Laura Christensen
9 Mark Hilliker
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
14 Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the January 13, 2016 and January 27, 2016
26 meetings are included for review and approval.
27
28 Commissioner Christensen made the following correction to the January 13, 2016 minutes:
29 • Page 3, line 40, strike the extra `that.'
30
31 M/S Sanders/Hilliker to approve January 13, 2016 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0) with
32 Commissioner Watt absent.
33
34 Commissioner Sanders made the following correction to the January 27, 2016 minutes:
35 • Page 11, line 40, strike `proforma' and replace with `detail.'
36
37 M/S Sanders/Hilliker to approve January 27, 2016 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (3-0) with
38 Commissioner Watt absent and Commissioner Christensen abstaining.
39
40 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
41
42 6. APPEAL PROCESS
43
44 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
45
46 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE-Confirmed by Staff.
47
48 9. PUBLIC WORKSHOP
49 9A. Public Review and Input on the Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
50
51 Director of Public Works/City Engineer Eriksen:
52 • The intent of tonighYs workshop is to continue the effort of gathering public comments on the
53 Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Planning Commission conducted a public
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 1
1 workshop at the regular January 27, 2016 Commission meeting and requested another workshop
2 be conducted for further review of this document.
3 • Advised of other City commissions/boards/committees that have reviewed and allowed for public
4 comments regarding the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
5
6 Deputy Director of Public Works Seanor:
7 • Gave a PowerPoint presentation the contents of which have been included in the minutes as
8 attachment 1.
9 • Explained how the draft plan was more effectively publicized and readily made available for the
10 public to access for review and comment as specifically addressed in the staff's memorandum to
11 the Planning Commission, dated February 24, 2016.
12 • Talked about specific sections of the plan pertinent to:
13 ■ Existing Bicycle Facilities, page 19 of the plan.
14 There are existing bicycle facilities going north/south through town.
15 Showed the Class II Bicycle Lanes on Dora Street and how they interconnect with Grove
16 Avenue to Bush Street.
17 Demonstrated the location and routes of additional Class II Bicycle Lanes on Low Gap
18 Road extending from State Street to Ukiah High School; on Despina from High School
19 north to City limits; on Hasting Avenue from S. State Street to Commerce Drive; on
20 Gobbi Street from Oak Street to Oak Manor Drive, and on Orchard Avenue from Perkins
21 Street to Clara Avenue.
22 ■ Recommended Bicycle Facilities, page 51 of the plan.
23 Table 12 addresses Class I paths and the recommendations thereof; Class I bike facility
24 is a Caltrans designation and is physically a separate bicycle facility. The new pathway
25 constructed along the NWP Rail Trail is a Class I bike facility. A new Class I path was
26 constructed a few years ago in Oak Manor Park.
27 Table 13 addresses Class II bike lanes and the recommendations thereof. A Class II
28 bike facility is a striped bicycle lane with signage.
29 Proposed Bicycle Facilities, page 50 of the plan.
30 Explained the contents of the map. The City recently obtained funding to extend that
31 section of the Rail Trail south from Gobbi Street to Commerce Drive. There is a
32 proposed short section extending the Class II bike lanes on Gobbi Street to S. Dora
33 Street as well as other extensions of existing Class II bike lanes north on Orchard
34 Avenue to Brush Street and from Brush Street to State Street and south on Orchard
35 Avenue from Perkins Street to Gobbi Street. To construct the recommended Class II
36 bike facilities may require restrictive parking on one or both sides of a street.
37 ■ Recommended Pedestrian Facilities, page 69 of the plan.
38 Tables 22 and 23 represent recommended curb extensions and refuge islands for
39 certain streets to assist pedestrians become more visible to drivers and explained how
40 this would occur. The recommended refuge islands are similar to what was constructed
41 at the Rail Trail crossing on Gobbi Street and explained the purpose of this type of
42 facility and the benefit to pedestrians.
43 ■ Proposed Pedestrian Facilities, page 56 of the plan.
44 The corresponding map shows proposed pedestrian facilities and explained how to
45 interpret the map legend for the proposed pedestrian facilities in connection with the
46 existing structures and planned infrastructure.
47 • Orr Creek Greenway Feasibility Study, page 96 of the plan.
48 Is a more detailed map concerning the Orr Creek Greenway Feasibility Study. What is
49 envisioned for this project is a pathway that would follow Orr Creek through Ukiah. If
50 project is funded, the City would need to seek approval from Caltrans for utilization of the
51 Orr Creek box culvert crossing during the dry season. There are a few existing sections
52 where this path is in use from North Oak Street to Bush Street. There is also a section of
53 the path that extends from Orchard Avenue that follows along the south side of the
54 creek. There are also trails that follow along the Pomolita Middle School fields.
55 ■ Farmers Market Tabling of Comments, page 106 of the plan.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 2
1 The aforementioned tabling is an example of some outreach that was done for the plan
2 where consultants sought public input at the Downtown Farmers Market regarding the
3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
4 ■ Farmers Market Tabling Map and Comments, page 110 of the plan.
5 The aforementioned tabling map represents public written comments from people at the
6 Downtown Farmers Market marking areas of concern on the map.
7 ■ Appendix B. Community Survey Results, page 111 of the plan.
8 There were a number of questions asked relative to the community survey to get people
9 to provide some thoughts on bicycling and pedestrian activities in Ukiah.
10 • Welcomes questions/inpuUcomments from the Planning Commission and public.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders:
13 • Thanked the Public Works Department for increasing public outreach of the plan and making sure
14 the plan was more readily available to people.
15 • Appreciates the PowerPoint presentation.
16 • Asked if staff was able to determine the estimated cost of the Orr Creek Greenway Feasibility
17 Study?
18 • Related to the comments/questions that have been received regarding the plan primarily at the
19 January 27, 2016 Planning Commission meeting workshop and other Commission meetings,
20 asked about the response process to the public? It may be Walk Bike Mendocino or other
21 consultants can be contracted to respond to the comments/questions raised by the public,
22 commissions and/or other interested persons/parties concerning the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian
23 Master Plan.
24
25 Commissioner Christensen:
26 • Referred to page 110 of the plan (Farmers Market tabling Map and Comments) and asked if
27 these questions/comments are listed somewhere?
28
29 Deputy Director of Public Works Seanor:
30 • The information regarding the cost of the Orr Creek Greenway Feasibility Study was not provided
31 by the consultant and has no knowledge of the estimated cost at this time.
32 • The consultants will likely answer questions/respond to comments that Public Works staff is not
33 able to answer and/or address. Is of the opinion the process of how questions and comments are
34 to be responded to would be a question posed to City Council. The contract with the Bicycle and
35 Pedestrian Master Plan consultants has finished. An amendment to the contract would be
36 necessary to include any of the recent questions/comments and responses thereof. Additional
37 funding would be necessary to respond to these questions.
38 • Appendix A on pages 106-109 of the plan lists comments taken from persons at the Farmers
39 Market
40
41 Neil Davis, Walk Bike Mendocino:
42 • Participated as a consultant for certain components of the plan. One of his primary
43 responsibilities was to work on obtaining public comments.
44 • Is of the opinion every one of the comments that was received is listed in the appendix of the
45 plan. The comments were categorized to distinguish whether or not the comments pertain to
46 bicyclists or pedestrians and a determination made whether the comment was related to safety,
47 education, etc.
48 • The post-it notes represented on page 110 of the plan were individual comments that were
49 transferred and summarized on a spreadsheet.
50 • There is no funding available at this time to pay a consultant to respond to the
51 questions/comments concerning the draft plan. Walk Bike Mendocino has been considering how
52 to best pay attention to what people are saying about the plan. By categorizing the comments
53 helped to understand the `topics' people are concerned about with regard to the plan for City
54 Public Works staff to evaluate.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 3
1 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:23 p.m.
2
3 Neil Davis:
4 • Was involved in the process of formulating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and is of the
5 opinion `the bones' of the plan are solid.
6 • City staff has done a good job of getting the `big picture' material that is necessary into the plan.
7 • While he would like to see some things changed in the plan, basically, the plan is a good starting
8 point.
9 • Is of the opinion the plan lacks measurable outcomes.
10 • Supports revisiting the plan annually to determine the progress being made since the plan was
11 initially written in 1999. Would like to make certain updates are made such that it does not
12 become another 16 or 17 years before the plan is again revisited. Making progress with regard to
13 completing projects is important and if no progress is being made need to consider what can be
14 done differently.
15 • Essentially City staff has identified five major projects that will require funding.
16 • There is a lot of `little stuff' too that needs to be done and/or can be done in the way of smaller
17 projects.
18 • Recommends adding a sixth category that lists smaller projects that are more achievable in
19 addition to the five big projects that have been targeted. Big projects cost a lot of money and take
20 a lot of time. Is of the opinion there is a lot of`little stuff'that can be done in a short period of time.
21 Doing smaller projects appears to be a good goal.
22 • It is likely the plan does not address social equity in a way that it should. This issue has become
23 more and more apparent in bike and pedestrian advocacy circles in the last six months to a year.
24 As such, the focus is often on downtown areas without necessarily thinking about the challenges
25 certain people have that are walking/biking because they cannot afford a car. One point made in
26 the plan makes the comment that some of the best walking opportunities are in the Downtown
27 area and finds this comment to be a very social, cultural and economic focused statement. There
28 are more effective ways to address how social, cultural and economic groups fit into the plan.
29 • Is of the opinion the goals set forth in the plan are too weak. For example, the plan presently
30 states that in 15 years we want to double the number of people walking. Right now 3% of people
31 are walking so saying that we want to increase this number to 7% is a fairly `weak goal.' The
32 goals in bike and pedestrian plans from Portland Oregon and San Luis Obispo state that in the
33 next fifteen years 50% of their people will be walking, biking or taking public transportation.Would
34 like Ukiah's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to reflect a much higher number of persons
35 walking/bicycling in the next 15 year than what the current goal suggests.
36 • Related to the Orr Creek Greenway Feasibility Study would like to see the word `feasibility' taken
37 out. Acknowledged while we need feasibility studies for certain projects is of the opinion a
38 feasibility study for the Orr Creek Greenway project might not be the best approach to getting the
39 project to move forward since this project has been talked about for some time and no
40 improvements have been made. Also, expressed concern that a feasibility study for Orr Creek
41 Greenway project would be very costly where no study would likely be done such that the project
42 never moves forward. Whereas, breaking the project down into smaller components would likely
43 find that some parts of the project are doable and why not start a plan to this effect. Understands
44 may be the issue is one of semantics in that there is a difference between the concept of a plan
45 and a feasibility study. A feasibility study makes it sound like we are trying to decide whether the
46 project is possible or not. Is of the opinion there are parts of the aforementioned project that are
47 very possible where we do not want to see the project not move forward because we talking
48 about whether the project is doable or not. Would like for the Orr Creek Greenway project to be
49 categorized into four different sections in terms of looking at what is doable and what needs to be
50 done to make it doable. Breaking the project down into components would allow for a better
51 chance that something will get done and that progress is being made.
52 • A more achievable goal that may not be addressed in the plan is to have bike routes marked. The
53 City could designate bike and pedestrian routes by naming them Route 1, 2, 3, etc., and show
54 such routes on a map so a person can figure out the best way to bike or walk from one
55 designation to another.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 4
1 Chair Whetzel:
2 • Asked if there is a list of smaller projects.
3
4 Neil Davis:
5 • While the plan talks about many projects, there is essentially no list that specifically talks about
6 smaller projects that could be done and this would be one of the benefits of revisiting the plan
7 annually. We could approve the plan now as presently written and come back in a year to review
8 measureable goals in an effort to keep the process of moving projects forward. During this
9 process, we can establish a list of smaller goal/short term goals that are essentially
10 achievable/doable.
11
12 Jennifer Riddell:
13 • Acknowledged the comments made by Neil Davis.
14 • Asked about the possibility of creating incentives to encourage biking by installing bike parking in
15 front of businesses. It may be the City could purchase bike racks and install them in front of
16 businesses where feasible.
17 • Provide for a simple paint infrastructure to help drivers be aware of where bikes are moving.
18 When in an intersection, it is easy for a driver not to know where to look for a pedestrian or
19 bicyclist. Sometimes paint is the most cost effective way to go.
20 • Encourage City staff to walk and bike because staff would then be more aware of what is trying to
21 be accomplished.
22 • It is important to promote safe driving and bicycling. One of the reasons the City of Davis gets
23 platinum ratings from the American Bicycle Association is that the police officers actually ticket for
24 unsafe bicycling. When people are out biking at night without lights police not only ticket people
25 but give out bike lights which is the equivalent to the cost of a ticket. Simple things done to
26 enhance the safety of bicyclists are important by reminding them they have to ride safely.
27 • Investigating authentic road diets is already on the agenda for the conversions of wide roads to
28 roads with bike lanes but recommends looking at conversions of infrequently used parking areas
29 and/or street parking and cited some areas in the community that could potentially be converted
30 to bike lanes.
31 • Supports the concept of doing simple projects that can be completed for a small amount of
32 money and this would be a way to create some of those measurable outcomes and revisit the
33 plan next year to see the progress.
34
35 Bruni Kobbe:
36 • Thanked City staff for bringing the Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan back for further
37 review and comment.
38 • Presented the Commission with her comments as well as those of Pinky Kushner and Friends of
39 Gibson Creek that are incorporated in the minutes as attachment 2. With the proposed new
40 Courthouse site sees this as the opportunity to make Ukiah more pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
41 Related to the proposed street extensions for the new Courthouse site from Hospital Drive and
42 from E. Clay Street referenced the comments in attachment 2 and corresponding map (Figure 4:
43 Proposed Bikeway System) from the 1999 Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and would
44 like consideration given concerning these extensions to provide for bike/pedestrian facilities and
45 emphasized the importance of Ukiah becoming more pedestrian and bicycle friendly
46 • Further elaborated on the comments made in attachment 2 as it relates to the plan with regard to
47 the proposed new Courthouse project, proposed street extensions, other projects and/or other
48 potential project opportunities concerning ways the City could provide for foot/bike paths to
49 accommodate pedestrians/bicyclists in areas without putting `cars first.'
50 • Supports further review of the proposed street extensions for the new Courthouse project from
51 Hospital Drive and from E. Clay Street.
52 • The proposed plan is a good start to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists on existing
53 streets and provide for better connections to schools and parks and asked that thought be given
54 primarily to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists with regard to the construction of additional
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 5
1 streets for the Courthouse project as opposed to focusing on cars in an effort to make/promote
2 Ukiah a truly walkable city and emphasized the importance of`doing it righY this time.
3 • Is asking the Planning Commission to consider the comments in attachment 2 and requests these
4 comments are included in the plan and not in an appendix format where they can be easily
5 forgotten.
6 • Is of the opinion there are likely other changes people have made that are worthwhile to be
7 included in the plan.
8 • Related to the planned street extensions from Clay Street and Hospital Drive into the future
9 Courthouse project requests that the need for bike/pedestrian facilities in an effort to get people
10 out of their cars be included in any further Courthouse planning. Is hopeful the Planning
11 Commission participates in the early stages of the Courthouse project and understands the
12 importance that if new roads are necessary for this project that the plan in this regard should
13 include the need for pedestrian/bike facilities.
14
15 Chair Whetzel:
16 • Does not know how much inpuUdiscretionary review and/or involvement the Planning
17 Commission will have since the Courthouse project is a County and State project.
18
19 Bruni Kobbe:
20 • Related to the street extensions, the City likely has the plans for this. Would like to hear how
21 much input the City has with regard to seeing that bike/pedestrian facilities are part of the
22 Courthouse project. It is important to participate early on in the project and emphasized the
23 importance of being proactive to get what we want to see happen. There is a lot that can be done
24 and more than what one might think. We do not want to wait 10 to 15 years for something to
25 happen. Is asking everyone to `just try' to make things happen with regard to getting people out of
26 their cars and create a healthy environment for everyone.
27 • The Courthouse project is a big project and it is important to get in early on the planning process.
28 Asked that people not get discouraged because of the potential lack of funding or that the State is
29 in control of the project.
30
31 Scott Cratty:
32 • Has read the Ukiah Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and finds there are `a lot of great things' in
33 the document. Appreciates the work that has gone into formulating the plan.
34 • Views the document as more of a `story' than a plan. Not much progress has been made in terms
35 of bicycling and walking since the plan was written in 1999. While `a lot of great projects are
36 mentioned' nothing is said about who is going to do them or when it is going to happen. There is
37 nothing in the plan that creates any momentum or mention that City staff will prioritize projects.
38 The document is essentially a description but not really `a plan' that states how, when and who
39 will get projects done.
40 • The plan talks about City streets and noted tomorrow night a public discussion will be held about
41 the streets and their condition. Supports the plan help turn the streets discussion into a
42 discussion about City transportation with regard to biking, walking and roads. Would like the
43 discussion to be about how we can maximize our efforts to improve our transportation
44 system/network and that essentially directs people to look at all transportation modes.
45 • It would be great if this was a plan that said in the future when the City is looking at infrastructure
46 improvements it will ensure that consideration is given to biking/walking and roads in an equal
47 way so that as time progresses a place is created is to effectively navigate around in, no matter
48 the income level.
49 • Would like the plan to reflect how and when projects will realistically get done such that Ukiah will
50 blossom into a friendly walk/bike community.
51
52 Mike Cannon:
53 • Is a Ukiah resident.
54 • Is pleased to see Ukiah has a bike and pedestrian master plan.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 6
1 • Related to the 3% statistic of people currently walking and the anticipated goal for walkability to
2 increase to 6% is of the opinion that if nothing is done at all, we would pass the 6% because the
3 trend nationally is in this direction. Finds this to be an unrealistic statistic. Cities that had 1% of
4 people just bicycling 15 years ago now have over 5% of people bicycling.
5 • Related to the national trend, some people are foregoing purchasing a car even for people who
6 can afford a car to bike/walk. This is a new trend that was not part of past generations. Also,
7 couples are purchasing one car instead of two before they want to bike or walk.
8 • In Europe 30% of the people commute on bicycles in many towns and cities. While the US is a
9 long way from this percentage is the opinion this country is headed in the direction of Europe.
10 • The towns/cities that have put up a real effort to promote/encourage bike/walk have seen a lot of
11 positive growth because people want to live in such town/cities. Towns/cities that
12 accommodate/promote bicycling and walking have a decrease in traffic on city streets.
13 • Agrees with other public members that there are `smaller projects' that are likely doable to
14 improve bikeability/walkability. Supports City staff continues to find funding opportunities for the
15 larger projects and do some things that can make an immediate difference in the short term.
16 • Supports naming a larger project that is doable after the late Doug Rosoff who died in a tragic
17 bicycle accident involving a vehicle. It is important for Ukiah to have appropriate bike/pedestrian
18 infrastructure for safety purposes.
19
20 Tom Zimlich, Advisory member for Walk/Bike Mendocino:
21 • Toured with City Public Works/Planning staff to review existing infrastructure as it relates to
22 bicyclists and pedestrians from a safety standpoint.
23 • Has worked with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition in an
24 effort to attain the same goals that Portland Oregon is trying to achieve of 25% to 30% bikeability.
25 • Surveys and studies indicate bike lanes and sign posts are very important elements to
26 maintain/sustain a safe and accommodating bikeable community. When working in the Silicon
27 Valley noted this area had many bike lanes but had no networking system in place. Silicon Valley
28 now has a networking system and this has made a huge difference.
29 • If a person wanted to ride his/her bike from the west side of Ukiah to Airport Park Boulevard finds
30 there is a wonderful bike lane on Dora Street and after turning left on Washington Avenue there
31 are no bike lanes, but when a person gets to the intersection of State Street and Washington
32 Avenue and crosses State Street there is a nice bike lane on Hastings Avenue. If a person
33 continues down Hastings Avenue to the stop sign and turns left on Commerce Drive, there is no
34 bike lane on this street. A beneficial approach may be to install a `sharrow' on Commerce Drive
35 where bicycles are allowed to share the travel lane with motorists along with some `sign posts.'
36 As such, we would have a bike route from the west side of town to Airport Park Boulevard.
37 • To address social-economic inequality, he rides his bike throughout Ukiah as his primary mode of
38 transportation and sees all kinds of people those that can afford nice bikes and those that
39 cannot. If the City had sufficient bike/pedestrian infrastructure in place where people are able to
40 get from point A to point B in a safe manner as well as begin a networking bike/pedestrian
41 system, this would be very beneficial to the community.
42 • Met with City Public Works staff about the bulb-out at the Fairgrounds and staff agreed to amend
43 the plan. Cited a `very bad' bulb-out scenario location in the County exists in front of Grace
44 Hudson School where the bulb-out comes so far out into the road that it forces bicyclists into the
45 road.
46 • Is fine with bulb-outs provided they do not go too far into the roadway. Related to the bulb-out at
47 Anton Stadium, if there was more traffic on Park Boulevard this would be a dangerous situation
48 because the bulb-out extends too far out into the road.
49
50 John Johns:
51 • Is a bike enthusiast.
52 • The idea of bulb-outs is a good concept.
53 • Cited the bulb-out on Hospital Drive as also too far out in the road and explained how the problem
54 can be corrected.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 7
1 • Has observed that bicyclists do not always follow the rules of the road/traffic laws when biking
2 and often ride through stop signs without stopping. Supports implementing some type of ticketing
3 program for those persons that violate the rules of the road when biking. Would like to see
4 signage on some of the bike routes to encourage people to abide by traffic laws and stop at stop
5 signs. It may be that educating bicyclists about traffic laws when biking is necessary for safety
6 reasons.
7
8 Commissioner Sanders:
9 • The public has made several requests about the plan and would like the other Commissioners to
10 respond in this regard.
11
12 Commissioner Hilliker:
13 • Was absent for the first Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan workshop but was able to watch it on
14 television.
15 • Related to the comment about prioritizing smaller projects that are doable asked if the Orr Creek
16 Greenway project is considered one of those projects?
17
18 Neil Davis:
19 • Supports the Orr Creek Greenway project be done in segments so that the project does move
20 forward.
21 • Acknowledged there are projects that can be done immediately and it would be beneficial to
22 prioritize them and cited a few examples of projects that are immediately doable such as putting
23 up signage to better assist pedestrian/bicyclists, designating bike routes, etc. It may also be that
24 construction of Individual bulb-outs, changing/adding signage for stop signs and the like are
25 examples of projects that are immediately doable.
26
27 Chair Whetzel:
28 • Asked about the concept of enforcing traffic laws for bicyclists.
29 • Requested clarification that development of the new Courthouse is the responsibility of the
30 County and State and while the City may have some development input, the project with regard
31 to design and financial obligation likely remains with the State and County.
32 • There is a pocket park located in the vicinity of the proposed new Courthouse site and asked how
33 the State will address this? Would the State be open to having a small park in front of the
34 Courthouse?
35
36 Jennifer Riddell:
37 • When looking at cities/towns that are very successful at incorporating cycling/walking into their
38 transportation plans noted one of things that is being done is creating policy with their respective
39 police departments where the police enforce traffic laws with bicyclists usually with much smaller
40 fines. Law enforcement officers often do not want to ticket someone on a bicycle with the same
41 fines as they would for vehicles because the consequences and associated costs are so high. By
42 setting up smaller fines and smaller consequences for persons on bicycles police are more likely
43 to enforce those laws. It could be that cyclists get off with just a warning for violating the law
44 depending on the nature of the violation and how many times an individual breaks the law.
45 Acknowledged that while bicyclists can be part of the problem educating people about the law by
46 issuing warnings, setting up smaller fines and talking to people about safe cycling is a good way
47 to reduce the number of violations that occur. The intent with the aforementioned policy is not to
48 punish people for violating the law but rather educate and help them learn about proper/safe
49 cycling. Cited an example about a city that helps cyclists where police officers give out night lights
50 for persons to purchase that are cycling at night without lights and this cost is essentially the
51 equivalent of a small fine so that the police department can be paid back for the cost of the light
52 and people do not have to take the time to go to a store to purchase a light for their bike.
53
54 Neil Davis:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 8
1 • If the County and State are independently doing the Courthouse project where and when would
2 we be able to hear about the development plan so the community can have some control over the
3 project?
4
5 Deputy Director of Public Works Seanor:
6 • The State is very interested in having the building located on a certain portion of the property and
7 this ties in with the City's concern for other possible developments on the site as well.
8
9 Director of Public Works/City Engineer Eriksen:
10 • The State would not choose a site that has no vehicle access.
11 • The pocket park will remain. The location to the entrance to the Courthouse property will be the
12 extension of the centerline of Hospital Drive.
13 • Does not know where the corresponding crossing of Gibson Creek will be physically located to
14 get to the Courthouse property or whether it will be a bridge or a box culvert. While it is more cost
15 effective to implement a box culvert, it is unlikely that the Friends of Gibson would support this
16 approach. Acknowledged a bridge would actually enhance Gibson Creek entirely.
17
18 Commissioner Sanders:
19 • Related to the development plans believes there is a design concept that has been formulated.
20 • Asked whether the infrastructure for the roads to accommodate the Courthouse site involves City
21 resources or is it the responsibility of the State?
22
23 Bruni Kobbe:
24 • Referred to the 2014 site plans for the Courthouse project that show the location and
25 configuration of the associated roads that will be used for the project and asked who the
26 developer is for the project?
27
28 Director of Public Works/City Engineer Eriksen:
29 • At some point the City will likely have some discretionary review of the proposed project in the
30 way of a major site development permit. It may be the State will say, `it is a State project and we
31 make the development decisions.' However, it is conceivable the State will want to go through
32 some sort of discretionary review process and this is the time and/or opportunity for the public to
33 provide input.
34 • The developer is responsible for the cost of the road infrastructure. The City has no financial
35 obligation in this regard other than to maintain the roads.
36 • The developer is Guillon Inc. This construction company is based in Chico, California and has
37 done other developments in the community.
38
39 Bruni Kobbe:
40 • If Guillon Inc. is responsible for the site work asked who is responsible for the design of the
41 roads?
42 • Asked whether the City sold the property on the east side of the railroad tracks.
43 • Asked about the City's involvement in the area where the proposed new Courthouse is located.
44 The reason for asking about the City's involvement is to understand how we `best manage' what
45 goes on in Ukiah.
46 • Requested clarification with no financial investment the City has no say in how the site and/or
47 building is designed.
48
49 Director of Public Works/City Engineer Eriksen:
50 • Guillon Inc. will contract with Rau and Associates, Inc. to design the roads.
51 • The parcel on the east side of the railroad tracks is owned by the NCRA and not by the City.
52 • The City has no ownership of any property in the area where the new Courthouse is proposed.
53 The City's involvemenUrole in the development process is to make certain 1) the Courthouse
54 stays somewhere near the downtown and 2) the subject parcel is `de-blighted' such that the City
55 has no financial interest.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 9
1 • The hope is that the design is `something we can live with.'
2
3 Commissioner Hilliker:
4 • Related to the public request to create a list to do simple and/or smaller projects that are doable
5 asked about the possibility of doing some of the smaller projects such as making signs more
6 visible for bike routes and vehicles, etc., as a starting point.
7
8 Director of Public Works/City Engineer Eriksen:
9 • Confirmed making a list to do smaller projects is a good approach.
10
11 Susan Knopf:
12 • Asked that bicycle signage not be placed on sidewalks.
13
14 Commissioner Christensen:
15 • Asked about how the information being formulated regarding the plan will be processed and what
16 kind of action will be taken.
17 • Sometimes the public has the perception government `just talks about a lot of things' that never
18 really get accomplished. Appreciates the projects that have been completed.
19 • It is important government understands what people who use bicycle and pedestrian facilities
20 want so that funding can be pursued in order to complete a particular project.
21 • Supports the concept of adding another category to address smaller doable projects that can be
22 completed prior to seeking grant funding for the larger projects.
23 • Does not bike often and when doing so likes to feel safe and supports improving bike facilities on
24 a small scale, such as adding new signage for the purpose of designating bike routes for
25 bicyclists and drivers of vehicles. Supports making improvement to pedestrian facilities.
26 • Would also like a larger project to be named after poug Rosoff.
27 • Asked if the City has standards for bulb-outs. Is it possible to make bulb-outs bicycle friendly by
28 adding a ramp or does this defeat the purpose of a bulb-out that is intended to benefit the
29 pedestrian?
30 • If there were to be changes made in the way bicyclists are ticketed and/or traffic law enforcement
31 changes where would this program start?
32
33 Deputy Director of Public Works Seanor:
34 • The action that will be taken is at some point a final plan will be approved that will include input
35 and direction from City Council.
36 • Related to public input regarding the plan, City Council approval is necessary to extend the
37 consultanYs contract to do a plan amendment.
38 • The primary objective for having a plan in place is to assist with obtaining funding for various
39 projects. We have already used the plan to obtain funding for the next phase of the Rail Trail
40 project.
41 • Related to the projects that have been completed since the development of the 1999 plan takes
42 `exception' to the comment the plan represents a `story' rather than a working document. Since
43 the 1999 plan was adopted The City has added bike lanes on Gobbi Street from Orchard Avenue
44 to Oak Manor Drive. The City built a nice bike trail in Oak Manor Park that ties in with the existing
45 pedestrian bridge across Gibson Creek in that area that ultimately leads to the pedestrian
46 overcrossing on Highway 101. The City just recently completed the NWP Rail Trail from Gobbi
47 Street to Clara Avenue. In addition, the City constructed a sidewalk along the street frontage at
48 the Fairgrounds and sidewalk improvements along the street frontage at Yokayo Elementary
49 School and Mendocino Drive. The City has also built a number of ADA ramps throughout the City.
50 Explained the funding process for the NWP Rail Trail project.
51 • The City does not have standard plans for bulb-outs so to speak, but generally bulb-outs do
52 extend out from the curb line out to the edge of the travel lane. Bulb-outs are specifically
53 designed for the individual streets so as to meet grade differential requirements.
54
55 Director of Public Works/Civil Engineer Eriksen:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 10
1 • The intent of bulb-outs is to get the pedestrians as far out into the roadway as possible and still
2 be safe.
3 • Acknowledged possibly adding a ramp to a bulb-out to accommodate bicyclists would not
4 necessarily defeat the purpose of a bulb-out and is of the opinion such a ramp would not likely be
5 used. The other problem is if Ukiah does become a major walk/bike community do not want to
6 mix bicycle and pedestrian facilities for safety reasons. As such, a pedestrian accessing a bulb-
7 out could be hit by a bicycle.
8 • Bicycles are considered as `vehicles' and therefore, subject to the authority of the California
9 Vehicle Code and does not know if changing fines and/or the like is possible.
10
11 Lisa Gosselin:
12 • Is disabled and rides a recumbent trike that has a five-foot turning radius and finds the bike lanes
13 too narrow to accommodate her vehicle type. Is concerned that other senior citizens may
14 experience the same problem. A recumbent trike is about the same width as a double stroller.
15 Needs to be able to access all bike/pedestrian facilities.
16 • Would like to see bike/pedestrian networking systems linked/connected to other communities,
17 such as Potter Valley, etc.
18
19 Andrea Davis:
20 • Asked how the plan overlaps with safe routes to school plan?
21 • Acknowledged obstacles do exist in the sidewalk and noted part of the problem is overgrown
22 vegetation that extends into the public right-of-way. Would like to see the condition of sidewalks
23 improved for safety and access purposes.
24
25 Commissioner Sanders:
26 • Related to the comment that goals in the plan are not `ambitious' and lack measurable outcomes
27 finds this to be `pretty significant.'
28 • The comment the plan needs another category to support smaller more doable projects seems
29 reasonable.
30 • Related to the matter of connectivity with the existing paths where there are currently no bike
31 paths asked if this requires Caltrans involvement on City streets?
32 • For persons interested in the discussion about the condition of City streets tomorrow night will the
33 bicycle and pedestrian master plan be included in the discussion? What is the program schedule
34 for streets in terms of strategic planning? Will the workshop include a funding discussion for
35 improvements to City streets?
36 • Related to the request to lose the `feasibility' component of the Orr Creek Greenway Feasibility
37 Study project that is looked at being done in phases/sections finds this to be an effective to frame
38 the future plans for implementing the pathway and is hopeful consideration will be given to
39 looking at the Orr Creek Greenway project from this perspective.
40 • Appreciates Walk Bike Mendocino took public comments at the Farmers Market and incorporated
41 them in the proposed plan, noting that some of the questions were answered. Has no knowledge
42 if the City would support further effort in this regard. Is hopeful there is support from the City to
43 continue getting input from Walk Bike Mendocino.
44 • Inquired who designs the bulb-outs?
45 • Asked how many City employees ride bikes to work?
46 • Asked if City staff can respond to any of the points made in the letter from Bruni Kobbe, Pinky
47 Kushner and Friends of Gibson Creek in attachment 2 of the minutes particularly with regard to
48 the proposed Courthouse project and possibility incorporate the points made and corresponding
49 responses into the final master plan.
50
51 Neil Davis:
52 • Related to the Orr Creek Greenway project has concern if a feasibility study is pursued for this
53 project that this might inhibit construction of the trail, particularly in the section by the Wagenseller
54 Neighborhood. Is of the opinion that pursuing a feasibility study would prevent the project from
55 progressing with doing smaller components of the project that are workable. The argument with
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 11
1 pursuing a feasibility study is to seek funding from MCOG and questions if funding is even
2 obtainable.
3 • Would like to see staff review the plan annually or in a couple of years to see how projects are
4 progressing with the potential of adding addendums and/or updates as necessary.
5 • What we have in the way of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is `terrible'. At the rate we are
6 going we will never get the necessary infrastructure in place. Sometimes pedestrians and
7 bicyclists become frustrated with the desire to get things done to improve existing infrastructure
8 and provide for new and better infrastructure and cited the condition of sidewalks in our
9 community as an example of infrastructure that badly needs improvement. Is of the opinion bike
10 and pedestrian persons are essentially `second class citizens' because the necessary
11 infrastructure is simply not there. The money is not there. Right now the State of California has
12 budgeted 120 million dollars in grant money for projects and noted there were 800 million dollars
13 in projects last year that were unfunded. At the rate we are progressing with projects identified in
14 the plan we are not even close to meeting any of the goals and this is why pedestrians and
15 bicyclists are frustrated. Some projects have been on the books for years and never move
16 forward for lack of funding and/or for some other reason. Is making the aforementioned
17 comments because they need to put out there. It is not `okay' that the necessary infrastructure is
18 not in place. We do not do ourselves a service by pretending the infrastructure is excellent when
19 it is not.
20
21 Commissioner Christensen:
22 • If there were to be an annual review of the plan, is of the opinion the review would have to be
23 specific about what we are asking for and asked Neil Davis to comment in this regard.
24
25 Deputy Director of Public Works Seanor:
26 • The consultants did consider safe routes to school when preparing the plan and cited an example
27 of a project proposed at Gobbi Street and Dora Street at Yokayo School in this regard.
28
29 Public of Works Director/City Engineer Eriksen:
30 • Caltrans is not involved with the operation of City streets so issue with standards is something the
31 City must address.
32 • Related to the series of workshops pertinent to utilities and waste water, etc., the focus of the
33 street workshop tomorrow night is about the `health' of the City streets and is not about ways to
34 improve bike/pedestrian facilities. Would like to have a workshop that specifically addresses bike
35 and pedestrian facilities.
36 • Acknowledged at tomorrow nighYs street workshop some funding options will be presented on
37 how improvements/repairs to City streets are paid for.
38 • Related to the Orr Creek Greenway project and the idea of doing `small pieces' of the project
39 supports the concept of leaving the project as a feasibility study in order to be eligible for MCOG
40 transportation planning funding.
41 • There is really no set standards for `bulb-outs because all bulb-outs are different. City Public
42 Works staff together with input from civil engineers Rau and Associates essentially determine the
43 design of a prospective bulb-out.
44 • Has no knowledge about other City administrative staff, but noted three City engineers ride their
45 bikes to work.
46 • Would defer public comments in attachment 2 including possible corresponding responses
47 thereof to City Council.
48 • Has concern with potential annual plan updates in that this might affect the original integrity of the
49 plan. However, if it becomes important enough to the community to review the plan annually in
50 order to formulate some kind of ineasurable goals and outcomes, it should be a scheduled
51 process.
52
53 Neil Davis:
54 • Related to having an annual review of the plan would like to see documented measurable goals.
55 For instance, having a discussion about how many miles of sidewalks does the City have and in
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 12
1 what way have they been improved. Complaints from pedestrians talk about how many
2 obstructions exist in City sidewalks making it difficult to navigate. The kinds of discussions that
3 would likely occur at an annual review of the plan would be: 1) Has the City removed any of the
4 sidewalk obstructions? 2) How many gaps are there in the sidewalks? If so, how many gaps
5 have been closed?The plan indicates there are many gaps in City sidewalks 3) How many miles
6 of bike lanes does the City have? 4) Have any new bulb-outs been installed in City streets? If
7 so, how many?
8 • It may be the plan should be approved as it is if we can come back in a year and do some review
9 of accomplishments and talk about future measureable goals and make suggestions about what
10 we can do. This is the reason for his interest in pursuing an addendum to the plan. What we do
11 not want is for the plan to go for 20 plus years without an update. We need to have a plan that
12 we can work from and a plan that has goals established that are doable and attach a timeframe
13 to. Would recommend formulating a list of doable projects that can be done immediately in
14 addition to the long range goals that have been identified and documented in the plan.
15 • He was contracted to do work on specific portions of the plan and if he had to do this again
16 would look at bike and pedestrian master plans from other cities to get an idea what other cities
17 are doing and how successful these particular plans are. He did not look at other plans and
18 wishes he had for Ukiah's plan. The process does not have to be overly onerous. It may be
19 review of the plan can be bi-annually rather than annually.
20
21 Andrea Davis:
22 • Acknowledged there is more work to do on the plan.
23 • While more work is needed, much has been accomplished in the last three years with the NWP
24 Rail Trail and Oak Manor Trail.
25 • We are on a `roll' with regard to getting projects done and supports keeping up the good work.
26
27 Commissioner Hilliker:
28 • Related to median islands, has concern that fire fighters/emergency responders cannot drive past
29 the refuge island that was recently installed on E. Gobbi when traffic is stacked up.
30
31 John Johns:
32 • Supports bike parking be covered.
33 • Would like to see lockers for bikes for employees.
34 • Would like to see a bike rack by the dumpster at Mendo-Lake Credit Union on School Street.
35
36 Quintin Roland:
37 • Is a resident of Ukiah.
38 • Lived in Europe for six years and is experienced with riding a bike through roundabouts.
39 • Cited Carmel, Indiana as a US City that is bicycle-friendly and has 90 roundabouts. As such, has
40 been in the processing of replacing all of their traffic lights in favor of using roundabouts.
41 • Spoke highly in favor of roundabouts and noted they help reduce vehicle speed to
42 15—20 mph. Does not get `the fear' about the concept of roundabouts.
43 • Roundabouts are safer for bicyclists and pedestrians because they force drivers of vehicles to
44 lower their speeds.
45 • Recommends looking at the benefits of implementing roundabouts and cited
46 `roundaboutsUSA.com' as an educational source to look at.
47 • Explained the concept of providing for protected bike lanes where bike lanes are against the curb
48 and parallel parking is adjacent to the travel lane as shown in attachment 3 of the minutes.
49
50 Tom Zimlish:
51 • Bush Street and Low Gap Road is not the place for a roundabout.
52
53 There was a general discussion concerning the intent/benefit of roundabouts in terms of how they provide
54 safety to bicyclists and pedestrians, examples of which were discussed and how roundabouts create a
55 condition where vehicle traffic flows more smoothly and much slower. It was noted it would be too costly
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 13
1 to install roundabouts in Ukiah because of the IayouUdesign of Ukiah streets and that the associated
2 infrastructure is already in place.
3
4 Neil Davis:
5 • Is of the opinion the matter of roundabouts should not be in the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan.
6 • Having roundabouts in Ukiah would not work because of the layout of Ukiah and the existing
7 configuration of City streets.
8 • Does not support the installation of a roundabout at Bush Street and Low Gap Road.
9
10 Erich Sommer:
11 • Cited the City of Fort Bragg streetscape project by the middle school on Harrison Street as an
12 example of some wonderful work done having many features that enhanced the beauty of the city
13 and safety of its citizens.
14 • Recommended people visit Fort Bragg and look at the street improvements.
15
16 Chair Whetzel:
17 • Is hopeful staff can compile the public comments from the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan
18 workshops with updates to the Planning Commission.
19 • Is of the opinion workshops are an effective way to discuss plans and make suggestions for
20 improvements to infrastructure.
21
22 Commissioner Sanders:
23 • Can support moving the plan to the next level if it can include measurable outcomes and a way to
24 bring forth some of the recommendations we have heard from the public annually or every two
25 years.
26
27 Chair Whetzel:
28 • Questions how the Commission would like to see public comments in the plan. Should the
29 comments be entered in the form of an amendment?
30
31 Commissioner Sanders:
32 • It may be the plan should be considered as an action item such that if the plan is adopted by City
33 Council that there is a process to incorporate public comment into the plan so that the plan does
34 not become `stale.' There is too much lacking in the plan for it to be adopted in its current form.
35 • Adoption or not is the decision of Council.
36 • Agrees with Walk Bike Mendocino the plan needs some measurable outcomes and recommends
37 the plan be reviewed annually or bi-annually. Further understands additional funding would be
38 necessary in order to create the final plan. Is hopeful the public comments regarding the plan are
39 incorporated into the final draft and should include measurable outcomes.
40 • If the comments are not to incorporated into the plan, then the plan needs to be reviewed
41 annually or bi-annually so we can start seeing some of the smaller, more simplified and doable
42 projects completed in our lifetime.
43
44 Staff confirmed the Commission meeting tonight is a workshop and no action and/or recommendation
45 regarding the plan is required.
46
47 Commissioner Hilliker:
48 • Would like to see goals established in the plan in order to get projects completed that would
49 include information and/or an established list that addresses short term doable projects.
50
51 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:54 p.m.
52
53 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
54 Principal Planner Thompson:
55 • There will likely be no regular Planning Commission meeting on March 9, 2016.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 14
1 • Will be taking the RFPs for the City-owned property located at 345 N. Main Street to the regular
2 City Council meeting on March 2, 2016 for review and direction.
3
4 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
5 Commissioner Christensen:
6 • Asked for confirmation regarding the `Ethics' training on March 8, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at the County
7 Administration building.
8
9 Chair Whetzel:
10 • Planning Commissioners are required to have their Form 700 completed by April 1, 2016.
11
12 12. ADJOURNMENT
13 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
14
15
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016
Page 15
�!r � - - - - . . . � � _ �_ ��`ci, �')
�� 1
ii: _ ` .
�'� -- — M1��
4 titI � ' � (c�1 ��
i � �'��.��, �� -Y�'. �__..
: ;� f � ���f
:' �r -
.. .1- •JF� b �• _ i�' >;
,3. _' C . �-�i F':•. i I• " :��, �� . .
• '� � `,Di ��'
"y,
�, �.
Y�' ■ Q'R s � . .
FR�,- 'd.'c ( �r r
� ' ,�Y.�"� �i .___"'
�� � �
�� '0. / ��,.
��' ! y�•! '� .
;�`��;��+r t' - �' .
� �
� ��
a�, �, ' .,�- -=* ���
�=x���' � �-
,;�_ � �„� �"�_.
,x. . -
��,�z � � � �� � �`'`-.
F� ,:. . . �: � # �Et�fr
sti' J - •
. r �
,,, . � ���
�}I; . ��''J
�. � . ` r.
3��
-E : . � E ; � �
' � � � s �.�.
;
• _:i; ,...•
_ �: _� `�. �ry f�
, v — 4.
�i �� —. • r`.
; � ���
, �
,,,.r,,,4� .�i�.l —• .
, .- ' �
�!e� f.; ,: �. •
,• -'�•�sr `■:
� �l A�-_ _. - ��.
� � � �.
r
�
�
. C'�
--�.
�
�
�
�
�� �
r
� � $
.�� `� �
�,�, �:��n
� ,�,� ' mr�v9�r' w,�noircK •v° o
� r
Of[��R� � �,���p�� �� �
I ,cbtlP/St �
� Q M x � � �. � �� . .uw�"�'���..�. # v
& = 3� Ix �d 1La3i4��r""" �1..�.�., �
.�.....�.. ;:a�� ,un ES«�� �SI���� , .r •a � .
v � �
... - . S��l.. H t�. .• .�5�����¢ � � .� , t m
� _ a� . * �'� �r'�e�A s'� � � C
�� �X��z�� � � � � � �
urt�n� � � � �` �'
� ,�,�, � � �� �►�...�.- ,� �. �
� � � �� � ° �
� � - � � � � - � � � �,
� ,�,a � � � � LL.
� �
� •
� �
�
0
$ � � �
� � � � � ��.� � � � �
�: � � � � � ��� � � � � �� o
� � I I � . a Q : �i�;?� �
�
(;3 W W
Z J I_
I-- C� J
� � C.�
� V Q
W m Lt�.
. �t1
. �
�
�
0 �
W W
� W —
Q J H
� V J
O � _
� (� C�
a. 00 IQ
�
.�
�
Y -
�° g � �`
._ __,y��_.. �
� � �drtx frtKa•'PA 0 ..•"^
rr
Cra �Q�:.,r,� .� -- �� pd �'��� ti�'y'y �
i�
���'� � •• + ���rr.,�•
O � � [�y p�Ct110 � q
5 �� ��,. 8 ��` '���'rvw�'��' � Si
' � �
�,«�..� �..5. '�'�`�r �rrww��.wr�yw� �' y�k i
� � � �ir-�. . �
.�� � �
; y � R1XR ay�� � •`q!!Y -- . + q �
-4'i Y
S� �: a �$�� �� . �. , . �� �
• . � •�y�' '
s +
' ! �K '�'- � �9A�l�+ ,
�`' . � -+�'���`� � . a �
� • ..■� �. . . �K �
�: � ,� o
• ' �� � � � �
o LL
f
' _ €'
� � � � �
s3 � � � x x_ 3 0
� � � � �� ������ �� ���� � n
0
� � � � � �� a���� � ������� ��€ o
3� : : 1 : : I I I � ° � : 111 m
. V'
9�
o rv °` a e n � °i � � �
C O 4 O �? O � �r
� � .� �
8 � � � .�
� � �
�
� � � �
� � �
� � N � aa p+'
4 E E c �n �i .d.
_ -� J p G N V1 G.7
� � ' € � � a � a � �
�' � � � � .�
� A � g � �
8 V °' � � i7 �
g � � � � � �' ` �{ � �
C in d �' A y� +�
� v «'. :°. � � a y7
� v�i v v � � � � B � � �
� � � � �� � �
� � � � � � �
� A � 'C d
� ~ � � � � � � �
� � c � d �p� °� $gj
n � e • �" $ � e� `� 7 �n � '+�
0� Q � ^ � � � � � � � � � $
� � a u �., m d e � � • ..
��� g �' '� �, � � 9 y � � '° „
� � � �
��I 4 ` 4 � � Y 1° � � �
.. m � m �l �„
�°�� � � a � a� » � � � � � ^ M � � � �
W� � � d � � .�'a � m 4 � 4 v � � b' � .� o�c c3 �
��� ° � � �,
� �' � � � � . �
�� d � d � �
� � a � 'e
� � V q t�.
� � � � � ��
� � � � � � � �
� a
�� � � � ° � � � W
� � : 0
�� � � � � $ �
� .� � - m � � � .��' Z
� � F� � s �� ��
� W
�� � � � � � W
� �
� � - � � � � W —
M � 8.„ � � � �� ,_I I--
.� ��� - - � m � .� � � -
r d' ty� A � �
� � � a� Q .�
� � � � � _ v � � � �
� � � ' � � � ,� " ° �.L� V V
� �� � V � �� � � Q
� m �
. �
�
. �
�
Z
0 Q �
W � W
� � —
Q � I_
� W J
� Q _
� W �
� � �
� � �
��
� ° ��, �
, a�e�,'{� a�"►�: ���nt�t�+ �- '� �
s'`°� � A
� O rS�C . � '���.� ���y,aCW���j mWY'n' �
y ¢��71 � ��� .1"�s.., '��Y��pp �
....��...� y.y�r y�y�p�ytr'W��N� •� Cx � • • ��l�`� � M
.nr', � yj��'y,y�y�"f.� •�� �i�L+� + � � � � 6�
�� ��
.��� ���;��.�_ �..� �� . �
�
yr
k .�. �,� �'
••-� ..r .�% ' �� � kysA�
g ~ � � ��� � t�
�s � � � � �
� ��•� ' � �.
;,� : 'd� �.Y � � � 7
� �
$ �C C y W y
1 y � C Cp r.r
n q �
��������� �� �� ��'��� � � � o
�— � �
� �� �9� � E� '�L+.��� '� � � q E °
9 � �������������� � �d�$�� � � � �- o
�� - � : : :- . *:�: � � � I � 1 : 111
_ . . ;,. � �
. �
. 9�
�
�
nT r} fV IV r+} e`1 �`f N �'f ^I r`f V 4 4 Q �+1 V rn � rY N 00
N
�C4
Q�[ '�ppC C C�p C�p C
� �6 !0 'C 'G '�
'� .� .r a v v
,� v a,
V � W W .� � W W W � W � � 2 Z Z Z � Z � � � � � � � � � .'�L �
�p � Z z � � Z � Z v � ,��, a � �
� N � a � � � 5�/! �7_,. � 4�l1 � v�i v�i u�i u�i � v�i � � � � G G G � �
� z z z � z z z z z z 3 oG �' �+ '� ` y ` a
� Z � � � � � �
� �
� � � � �% �;
h � �' =
m �
a°1 � � � � �
� ry � � � � � �
¢ j .� 0 � ' a' a4: G nf � a1
� a a; a v . "' � '� C e m .: v1
J�' l7 4 �y' . c N � Q a a . . N v� vf � � N � �' � �t � r �
S 3 � � v+ ,5{ � � � Nf in � � r � ,y eo � G O
� � 3 � �e � v � s�' �+ .� e � c 3 E �7
� � .y'�� � a � 41.S � � n� E L�" d t v '0 �E�1I Q " �,r � �
�ry � � � � � � M T � N � �! � �t � � � w[ 'S �+ C C �
G C V1 Vf Vf VI � � � N � V1 N f%1 N V1 N Vt Vl Q a d d
� � � � � .Y� .L � m � W N M W W �N, � � � � S1
gg � � -� ZZ ;� � � � � � � � $ � m m
• y }
4 4 � � �y �
. � � �
a+ a w y
•• l? l7 V�! Y�t V�T 1% 1-
�
W
� Z
Z Q
W _ (n
� � W
H
� � H
Q W J
W � V
� a. LQl.
. �
'�'
. �3 ,
�
�� y �.; -. �f; .. - __ . . _.. _,_
•.�, . � -
•�' - :3;����+Z►���.��
� ' .h r�^ _,'. . �3�f�s�: - _ �
'�' .
� -
�"� - :. • z .
— x� �; �. � ti �
� , � �
�"rt�'- r .f
'q "
� �J .T. �� � i � I
� ,� � � � _ -. -��,�.,, ,
{ � !� � � � � '�' . �. -�ly �:'R ���
.i � � oe � � . �'" �,
� � � � � � t . �' -�� ��
� �� � �' �
� � I� I� � � .M1 a y;^ P
s�S �
� i d i�i] ■I -_: ... . 4. ; -
� � d ig* #i c1 ��'. : ' ..�II�' � �
� ■ � r 9� - ; �. .... .Y .� .. � ;�4
Z � _�� �G .
� ��Ri ��.�-�� _ '
� 99 - ,
� � � �� �. . ' . �
� � �'`''� ,� ' • �" ' 1
� �y n� L, .'� ,�:�� � x a y_ l
� y� }� � �� K t1s - 4 -
- � � � �' r�� �; v 'r '� -`�I ��,; .�
� ad a�n� � 8CI �i�l:�• �a. - •,.
� � � � ` �',r_�_ �
� I � � � � � , _�
,� _ - _..__ s �� � ����'�
� � _ � }�: ...
�� � it �' r. ;�►� .�± � _ L -
- ''•, 3 ,a~,�� " .v, .
V "� - =1 }' -.�a `r �
[E , � ii�' 4�.. �� �..
. f 'r -�'a .�
�� �w � '�: �4 �
:� _ ,
_ � .�4
.,��. -
n
- 'g'.�.��
�µ• M� r
� � ��
1 � �,'Z:�.�
�� .
' , • ��}'- �Y
� � i' '� . <F ��. _ �- �,,�
� � � � ��
� �; ,° � "� � -
� �. -
� � ; �^1
S.+ �' f!x 1� ;'
� .
� �� _ � �
� �,s
. S�
. Q�
�
�
�' �
Y y �
3 -� o � v
� � N ,q�, 'o
�° � � • � o
� � at � .� � �'�
�—' „ n _`o, E .� o
� �
� � o �' Y � = � �'
c .o _
� `� z° 9�' � �' 3 T � � �; v
N � � � � v � � N
g` ' � «° °'�`' ; q p '� � � �
� � � ` � L N
� � � N v � d � q
E ,� 8 ; � Y �, � 3 � ¢ v
y t m W '� vi � � O � � � L N
N L s � � � $ v .. � �+ �
C � C q � fp V C � � � � � E ��
^ �7 � V V1
� � � s a � � � - $ �a� � � � Y � g p �
t �. �a .ie d O N � � C v _ q y t tii Vt � � � '� T
� �+ 3 � 3 = :: �$ v ° .�'�. � �+ '4� :: :: '� � ° $ ,�
'° Q � :°. °' a, — x m m �v �
� °' rd v v� d �7 L C1 � � � t/1 Vl N � Z �
a,
� !� � � W � O L � � � io �n � _O 9 t O
= c °� � Y � ,�, c �o � � m � e �' N m '° � e ; c �
Q Y � � � E h � VI = v 10 g! gJ �J N � 10
N � � Y � q C � C �' r � v � CC! � N N
� ,�,� � � �, � � y � C� Z g� �L" � ci ° � > •_�a ` � °
� � E � ¢ � s `l�j �—° � �' � -� ,� � C K " S', � s s v ' �° '0 j � ,� ;,
7t A � E q � O � � � q �! � �� T .Z. L � d � � 3 � t M C .`�
6� q J �O y
N � -� l7 Q '_ � Z � « 'Y ` ty+ z � � e�e � d �,��, C � � � N O � �� � �1
� i � g �! O � � `�p y � � > � � S�a J yC C Y YS N y � � � :n
U� �" 9 � U� N � y� � "' Y r0 N L V O � N �O �O � Y C � f0 � � �y{
''�`� � 3 v �o 'v �e d :` Y y Y � � °i � a� � � .4�� y�' -o # 3 � � Y �'� r� c
�^ ` L � VV W 3 � 6! « C V N � � N � � �� y �
Cr y � N � N � � � � � � .Y � �1 � � a C � 3 C 7 � N
A
�O � C C y _
� V O. v � � O � g� C ,�., �p � � > O y m �! y � " Y
� O Z � 4 t= � �i u� � `� g V u'S � c` v �� a m m q E E E c V � � $ 8 a � ��
v v v a c v v c v v v v v v v v c v v v v v v v v c v v v a
R R � R � � R � � R R � R N R � � � � R � R � F� R R R R R �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
. a a a a a a a a a aa a �, a a �, �, „ a �, ,, ,, ,, ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,�
. ; � ; � ; : ; � ; ; ; � ; ; ; ; ; = = = = = = = = = � = = =
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
'n �n �'f �l rn n� �n ,n .r� fn m e�v 'n 'n
�`'1
�
=
_ - . - �--�-���,��l� ,1'4',���,,'i:`��.t:.�i:y •
.`i�l y��r:«�tizF..��.����
��j
��
��
j� �
�, ���._
�f'
r-._•_;.
C1
- ��
����
�} .
�, -
��
r...�_.
hr
I�-�,
�'�
�A��
��� .
- �'! � , � �
� •. _1
: � � I�.. � �u�=.
..� �' .
. .. .. �•�; i .-'r�•. . -�. tr--: . . . �/ 'S
`•i ... y••.Y. �f . - •,ti _�l.�
_ __ _.[�•�L=v.'���c�'ld7.`_i}..�.3��e�i7- - � '�.'�r
���.����=.
�r
�—-
r... 11
����]�
-'.`�.!
�-�'
_i�
i��
I
f�-
• r
�.
w
�
�
O
Qf
T
�
O
�
�
Y � �
V �
� ^
V
v �
.0 .� O
� � � �
aC
� ..: a�
Vl G e ,s �
� �^ R
� � '� � i..
� � � Y ''� O
(� V � � 1' . . 1 v
� � I�:�
� � `� `� "�
C � � ae
O .'� a Y� °
� � � 3 M
W �
� �, � ' N
t,;;, 1
�I � _ y.}.
� ` �+
1—��.r�
�ie.I �
� O r�Ji� �
� =a. � ■
•� '._ !�.l� O
� � �@ ` V 6f : l9 � � 7 61
� L � ��c � O � � �� � �
� � r � � �
� � ; � � e m 8
� � � o� �
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�..=r --.- . . . - _
��� '
�, ,
,�� _
��.. �
� - . . , .
i_r-. . . � .� . . .
��; �� . . . � �
�1
Y. �
��'�• -• .� l�4 � ' .
��' . I i .. ..
��, � - � � � I �
��•^.ryr.� }i .,i 1,� . �».- . I . "
'i''� �. �I�
1I�T1. f i
=�r� : . N
4'i���;'�y.i�I'�'.� `.'�F_-. _ '� . 's`:
���?i�:�• '-� -�'. . '• ''- i
.t�► �-r;'y ��2�• .� . .. '�I
_ rsfi:�'•.t: �S y -��i4�' , �!hi
�-•}��y.� ,�- -IJ, ,r�, _y1 •Y • ��
u�,��.'. _ _ ,�il , — - � -
ym'!�j-�,C r��� , �� _ — � ,k.• , �I
�y�y'u�``"..i, r+Y. � �' f''T��i -' �
� . �`�
'i�� ' � - ,1 .
�j'. f�� � -f � �
���: � , . .. ' ... .
h4�• �' • '
�'��
�:. .
��' �� � ':..
�;�' .
:t �
���.. •
AsL�� ` - . �. .
iiy -..y . • .- , .t .
�;�� '
�-'�
�. :2: � � . _. .
Y'
a �
i�`
1..-: ;
li�;
�.�f. , .:
1
�.i`fQC�lt1'T,�,,�t # �
Rick Seanor, Tim Erikson �--
City of Ukiah
2/3/16
Rick and Tim,
Below we focus on a major aspect of the comments we made about the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan DRAFT at the Planning Commission meeting on 1-
27-2016. Many speakers had valuable suggestions, and we encourage you and
other City staff to take them into account when moving forward. We request that
the suggested changes be incorporated into the body of the Plan, not just added
in an appendix. Several speakers lamented the lack of transparency and
publicity about the Plan. We participated in the 2014 Farmers Market survey,
which was not an environment for thoughtful study. We found out about the
public comment period of the current draft only indirectly a few days before the
Planning Commission meeting. We were not aware that the City had obtained
permission for a vehicular railroad crossing at Clay Street; we were long told that
such a permission would be nearly impossible to obtain.
Our main concern is the underlying assumption that the City has to
accommodate CARS FIRST, then find a way to protect pedestrians and bicyclists
from cars. If you are still pushing for new road building, how can you expect to
get people out of their cars and create a healthy environment for everybody ?
The case in point are the planned street extensions from Clay Street and
Hospital Drive into the future court house site. Both extensions should be Class I
dedicated pedestrian/ bike paths ONLY (see attached map) Here are several
reasons:
1. Cars can easily access the courthouse site from the existing entry through the
railroad station or from Leslie Street. Both access routes would only require
some improvement, certainly less costly than new road building (Leslie needs a
new, fish-friendly culvert/bridge over Gibson Creek anyway, accomplishing two
goals with one effort).
2. A fooUbike path from Clay Street into the court site would encourage foot
traffic from and to downtown (for lunch, shopping), helping the downtown
businesses survive the loss of the current court house. (Once your car is parked
at the court house, you are just as likely to drive to Starbucks or other businesses
near the freeway.)
3. Keep [permit] parking in existing parking lots close to downtown; additional
[permit] parking could be negotiated with private, underutilized lots along Main St.
This approach requires less parking spaces at the court house, allowing a wider
creek setback and more green spaces for courthouse visitors and employees.
4. Help the Grace Hudson Museum: foot traffic will create interest in visiting the
museum; a calm environment on Clay Street along the Museum grounds will help
1
. 2
visitors enjoy the new garden exhibits in tranquility free of additional car noise
and air pollution.
5. A foot/bike path easily crosses and connects with the existing Rail Trail
section; another street crossing would yet again create a safety issue for
pedestrians/bicyclists on the Rail Trail.
6. The Hospital Drive extension across Gibson Creek --strongly opposed by
many at the charrettes ("charades") years ago-- would destroy the only
successful creek restoration in the downtown area (see attached photo), make
the adjacent pocket park less inviting and usable.
7. A foot bridge, together with the pocket park, provides an easy connection to
the Rail Trail across Perkins St., as well as to the Hospital and medical offices on
Hospital Dr. An additional path from Perkins/Mason St. along the day-lighted
section of Gibson Creek from Mason to Main St. (see Gibson Creek Habitat
Enhancement and Public Access Study, 2001) would be a critical connection to
the library parking lot, currently used by many court employees. Funding for such
improvements could be included in the courthouse project.
As the consultants have pointed out, you get a much better return on your
investment with walk/bike paths than with streets. Implementing the outlined
pathways would be a major improvement in connecting downtown to the new
court site, instead of letting a car-centric court site shift business and attention
yet again away from downtown.
The current Plan is a good start to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists
on existing streets and provide better connections to schools and parks. But
please reconsider the need for additional streets. Thinking outside the
engineering box and beyond the funding limits from street-oriented sources (like
Caltrans) would greatly help in making Ukiah a truly walkable city. Let's go on a
real "diet", not just "diet" State Street a little-- we'll all be healthier for it.
Thank you.
Bruni Kobbe
Pinky Kushner
Friends of Gibson Creek
att.: map, 2 photos
cc: Sage Sangiacomo
2
�
T �� _
T �
1
Lovers Lane '
� 1 y
T �
�
� i �
KUKI Lene T �
� � Ford Roed �
y� �Empiw Orive � ------�
� � �
`� N Fafryrounds ,.
� ��? �� i 1�1�
.'\�+_� � N � T
� 5 T
•1 � T
w>v
.•,••�••,.�•••-•y-..•• ��er+,an Stroet
• ��ow p Road 1 _
. ' . + st,
Y
T
' - . �
�`�J• � y Clers Avonue i
Y � �� a:.,�:
� u on �'�'�
N
�°'h wn 5 a y'��asP' , �,.�
� i � ��
C�Lbyd�`���' �` � ,� � .,�",�,� '�a� s�
� d S � ` � l�q ' ��.
�,`�-:G��_.'t•o- - `v� , `. ��
� �
tl
� 1 p0� .,,,,:: � ' GobW B1f8St
� M� ' ,,.,�,.s.�.v.. �
� ��� } \ �� �
+�'_ , _
.,:�" ' � .
'�-' § �^ t�
�r � � .
� �� 5
ry .r �
� � . . _._ _ _ �.,�
� � ,'� Y
N rth �-�-�{ � r�
� ^ - .-rsc ' _.h!; __
- - �rin '
Not to Swle '�. , T •Rosd
VHashinpton Avenue�� Haslings Ro �
�
LEGEND
Class I Bike Path T
T
- Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route ,
Figure 4 Proposed Bikeway System
Bicycle and Pedesfrian Master Plan
r.T R.,�, Whitlock&Weinberoer Transportation Inc. Cit of U kiah
UI000l.DRW 7/i8
�; u.1�:c�1�. Q�i<,.,t r.2A. I�a5�er ��c�.�� ����
.. . . . ��ro p os ed ua.SS Z c.o v.4.e.c�{;�� , �o G L �-116
A�tachm�ynt #
�i
•
ro ec e � e anes
All over the world where cycling is a priority, protected bike lanes have proven to increase
ridership, safety and comfort. Take any street that has room for bike lanes crnd parked cars and
locate the bike lane next to the curb and the parking lane next to moving traffic. Presto! Wifh
relatively little expense we get fewer incidents of "dooring", cyclists separated from moving
traffic, built-in traffic calming, and increased ridership.
F
� '� - �
_-
a=
- - �,_ - -�����
.�--
fi:
r,�, ,,'..
J
i,
" .���.��.#�-T�-. til
:T�.� ,y r< _
Y -...-_ � ��
� I f . ' � ' ' . .- . '
i•
" a r' � � :�
y1, . - --. . . _ .. . . .... -:f�:
. � . . _. '. .'�
%2wr+�r f? .
R
/ � � e# i
�
� ��`
'jn
tiy .�1'�.s �.r'A .. ���'[..
ti'J,�.i� -�...... ...... .._...'�_'...�__.r_ �ti '�