Bicycle and Pedestrians Advisory Committee Thu, Dec 11, 2025 · Bicycle and Pedestrians Advisory Committee https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/491 == Executive Summary == The Bicycle and Pedestrians Advisory Committee held a meeting where they approved their agenda and previous meeting minutes. Key discussions included updates from Bike Santa Fe and the Santa Fe MPO, as well as a report from the Public Safety Advisory Committee. A significant portion of the meeting focused on the ad hoc committee for motorist accountability in collisions involving cyclists, with plans for its first in-person meeting and discussions about expanding its membership. The committee also addressed a constituent's request to improve a trail behind Viscaya Apartments, recognizing its potential for enhancing connectivity. They decided to refer the investigation of this trail connection to the Promotion, Education, and Communication (PEC) Subcommittee due to complexities involving private property easements and public benefit. Additionally, the committee discussed applying for a League of American Bicyclists Community Sparks Grant to host a statewide bike summit, with a motion passed to have staff prepare the application for review at the next meeting. The meeting concluded with discussions about the Zia and Galisteo intersection redesign, BPAC's role in project review, and the upcoming transition in committee leadership. == Key Decisions == - The investigation of the trail connection from Sawmill Road to Santa Fe Suites, potentially through Vizcaya Apartments, was referred to the Promotion, Education, and Communication (PEC) Subcommittee. - Staff (Romela) was directed to prepare the Sparks Grant application for the League of American Bicyclists Community Sparks Grant and bring it back for review and approval at the January BPAC meeting. - The Zia and Galisteo intersection design will be placed on a future agenda for deeper discussion. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Approved by voice vote (Aye). - Motion to approve the November 13, 2025 minutes — Approved by voice vote (Aye). - Motion to refer the investigation of the Sawmill to Santa Fe Suites trail connection to the Promotion, Education, and Communication (PEC) Subcommittee — Passed with a roll call vote (7 Ayes, 0 Nays). - Motion to direct staff (Romela) to prepare the Sparks Grant application and bring it back for review and approval at the January BPAC meeting, if time permits — Passed unanimously (7-0). == Public Comment == Genevieve Morgan from Bike Santa Fe provided updates on their activities, including their annual social event, and expressed interest in participating in the ad hoc committee on motorist accountability. No other specific public comments were noted, though committee members' discussions often served as input. == Topics == - Motorist Accountability - Trail Improvements - Rodeo Road Crossing - Zia/St. Francis Intersection - BPAC Role in Projects - Bike Santa Fe Updates - MPO Street Design Guide - Public Safety Committee - BPAC Strategic Plan == Full Transcript == All right. Sorry that we're running late, folks. So, we're going to try to open the meeting here of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. I guess it's about, oh, there we go. And I will hand the gavel over to the chair. Well, you made a quorum. Oh, we have a quorum now. Good. So, I won't tell you all the other things I was going to tell you. So, thank you. Could you do the roll call, please? Present. Present. Present. Present. Here. Keep rolling. Sure. Because I don't have the next item is approval of the agenda. Are there any changes from staff for tonight's agenda? Any members have any suggested changes? I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda. Good. I don't think we don't need roll call, right? I can just do all those in favor say aye. Aye. We got two, so we can split it up. All right. Next up, we've got approval of the minutes. Request for approval of November 13, 2025 minutes. Are there any changes from staff? No changes, Mr. Chair. Seeing none, are there any changes from members? And hearing none, what's the will of the committee? Move to approve. Second. Okay, we've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? None. Okay, minutes are approved. Communications from the public. Do we have any members of the public that would like to address the committee tonight? I don't think we have any folks online. I show no attendees online. Okay. All right. With that being said, let's go ahead and move on to communications from other agencies. First up is Bike Santa Fe, Genevieve Morgan. The floor is yours. Good evening, counselor and committee. My name is Genevieve Morgan, and I'm here to represent Santa Fe. I'm the newest board member of 10 State and also the co-chair now of the Advocacy Committee and the co-chair, David, is unable to be in attendance tonight. I'm also a daily cyclist as well. First of all, we'd like to extend our congratulations to Mayor-elect Garcia and other members of the council, and we really look forward to advancing support for bicycling in Santa Fe. We'd also like to thank all of you for your work this past year, and especially for your interest in the ad hoc committee that you've been discussing to take on the very difficult issue of motorist accountability in instances of cyclists in particular, and we'd like to be involved in that process. Other updates, we're continuing to do outreach on the Idaho Stop Law. And on Saturday, we'll be conducting bike valet for the Barley Police Dinner Walk. I believe we'll be there for the entire event. And we do have a date set for our annual social event that will be Saturday, January 24th, at Sky Cinema, formerly the Violet Crown Theater. It'll be 2:00 to 5:00 PM. We would love for all of you to come. We will send formal invitations to Mayor Garcia and the rest of City Council, and we would love to have you there. We want to talk about our priorities for the coming year. Thank you, Genevieve. Any questions for Genevieve? Not seeing any. Thank you again, Genevieve. Next up is Santa Fe MPO, Leah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the committee. Apologies for this. This is my first time subbing for the liaison, so doing the best I can, but I actually don't think we have a lot of updates. We are continuing the work on the street design guide and the manual and integrating that next code update, which I guess I do have one update that that has tentatively been scheduled to be introduced at council in March. So hopefully everything is on track when that gets adopted within, hopefully, the next six to nine months. Yeah, I actually don't have any other updates at this time. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Leah. Any comments or questions? Okay, seeing none, let's go ahead and move on to the next agenda item. We've got Public Safety Advisory Committee, Member Pilchure. The committee has actually met twice since we last met. One was our regular meeting, of which we had a very good, lengthy presentation done about domestic violence and how it's been exposed here in the city and the people in the police department and other departments of the city, how they work on that particular issue. That was the main focus. Other than that, we had our normal police reports, fire department reports about things that occurred in the city. Then we had our first meeting on the 2nd regarding looking at re-reviewing the resolution which established the Public Safety Committee and actually going to develop some recommendations of how that might be amended to more clearly make it more clear what the roles and responsibilities are. That's probably well reflected in the agenda for next week's meeting, which is a business meeting where there's a lot of budgetary amendment requests. They look like they're all for the fire department, but that's an item that's not clear under the enacting resolution for the committee that that is a role of the committee. It makes sense to me that the committee would be providing comments on capital expenditures regarding public safety. There's one thing that's clearly not in our purview at this point in time. I think it's just maybe been more a habit as opposed to what's in writing. So those are some of the things we'll be working on. I think, remember, exact date, in the beginning of January, we'll be having another meeting to keep working on that resolution and updating our rules and responsibilities. That's it. Thank you, Member Pilchure. Any comments or questions? Thank you, Member Pilchure. Appreciate that update. Let's go ahead and move on to item seven, discussion and possible action items. First up is item A, discussion and establishment of scope and official name for BPAC's Ad Hoc Committee on Motorist Accountability in Collisions Involving Cyclists. Member Wang, this item is yours. The floor is yours. Thanks, Garcia. I think we were a little ambitious coming out of November. So, our first in-person meeting is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, where we'll discuss the name as well as the scope, anticipated scope of the white paper effort. Okay, sounds great. Good luck. Any comments or questions from the committee regarding this particular item? Okay, seeing none. Real quick, Member Pilchure, have you thought of a timeline, or is the group going to decide the timeline? I think the timeline should depend on the scope. We haven't discussed the scope. Yeah, I guess the agenda is name. What do we want to call ourselves? And then scope, and then I think based on scope, forming a timeline, because I think we'll probably have to do some data requests, so I want to build in time for all of that. I think if anyone here has ideas around how we want to time-bound it, I think ideally it wouldn't take more than a year, but I think when I initially started thinking about this, I was like, we'll just do a quick analysis in like a month or two. And now I'm like, I don't think anything's going to work on that time scale. Yeah, I'll be curious to hear what the ad hoc committee members think because I think I want to say Cal put together, maybe not a, I feel like he put together some large report in the past. So maybe folks as part of BPAC who have done something similar in the past can give a time estimate. Otherwise, I would arbitrarily probably say something like six months or a year. Gary. Oh, sorry, not my, not my job. You can call it membership. So, is the membership of this ad hoc committee, is it full? Is there room for others? And the reason I ask is I was talking with Bike Santa Fe today with the president of Bike Santa Fe, and we thought it might be good to have representation from Bike Santa Fe on this committee. Yeah, I think that'd be great. To be honest, I think I volunteered to do an analysis at one meeting. I missed the following meeting. Then when I returned, there was like a committee. There were three more people added to the committee, and it looked from the meeting minutes or I think the last list I saw that maybe there was room for one or two more people. I don't know if that's official or if it's just if there's like guidelines around committee size. But so, so I could answer that for you, Gary. So, what I would recommend is if you have anybody that's interested, feel free to push them my way. That way I can pass it on to whomever is the next chair after, because ultimately the chairperson would appoint any of the ad hoc committee members to the committee. So that way there's kind of a continuity of information. So it's just given I'm in this capacity till the end of the year, happy to hold that information and pass it on to whomever the next chair is, and then ultimately it's that person's decision, and you can work with them at that point. Yes, Member Board. Thank you, Chair. I missed the last meeting. Are the members, was that already announced who they are? Do we know? Yeah, we've done, I think, two rounds of appointments, if I'm not mistaken, members and then community members, and then we had some other folks. I'll have Romela, what I can just have Romela or the interest of the committee just have the current makeup of the ad hoc committee membership be shared with BPAC. Yeah, I think the current list that I saw or who I've been emailing with are on BPAC, Member Shift Miller, and then outside of BPAC, Cal Spencer and Arena Aola, and then a slot for one or two more, I don't remember. But yeah, I think Bike Santa Fe would be a great addition. I'd be super happy to have someone join. Any other comments or questions? Okay, thank you for the update. Good luck with the meeting tomorrow. Item 7B, discussion of potential solutions to improve the trail behind Viscaya Apartments crossing the Arroyo en Medio. Member Gabrielle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We got a request from a constituent whose name is eluding me, but I think his name is Bob. He lives at the Viscaya Apartments, and there is a rough trail between the Viscaya Apartments that goes across the Arroyo, and it goes into the corner of the parking lot over by the apartments that are over there. I forget what they're called. They're for people in transition and... Oh, Santa Fe Suites. Yeah, Santa Fe Suites. So, it's the kind of the far edge of the parking lot. So Tony and I went out there, met Bob, and it seems like an ideal trail to enhance because people coming from Rodeo, the Viscaya area, can then get into the Albertson's parking lot and hook up with the Gail Reba Trail, the St. Francis Trail, and the Rail Trail, Chamisa Trail. I mean, it's a great connection. So, right now, I took pictures, and I was hoping, I sent them to Romela, I was hoping we would have them available. There is a dip. And there probably needs to be some kind of, not necessarily a bridge, but something because it gets really muddy. And I'd like to propose that we put this on our priority list because I think it would be low-hanging fruit, and it would be an excellent connection, especially given access to all those other trails. And as most people know, there's going to be a huge apartment complex over there. So that would further connect people who are going to live there. So I am asking how we do that, how we put something on our priority list that is not there. And perhaps people would want to take a little field trip and go out and look at it. Because it's not very long. It just seems like something that could be pretty quickly done. And Eric and Leah, you're aware of this connection as well. Do you have anything to say about it? Mr. Chair, Member Gabriel, thanks. Yeah, we have, and mostly Eric has been talking with the residents of this for a long time. It is a huge need, and also at the same time, we're trying to get a sidewalk along Saint Mill, and that would also help address this issue. We did put that on our Metropolitan Transportation Plan in District 5. Road would be the ones that would have to take ownership of it and do it. They agree that it's an important project, but I'm not sure. We haven't heard their, so I'm not sure where it falls. So the trail is still a good, definitely a good idea, but I guess my understanding was there were some issues with the way, and with the trail, it would still be pretty much exclusively a private community unless there was routing that I wasn't aware of. So, things to look into in terms of feasibility and using public dollars for that. I'm not sure if you guys have already talked about that or not, but yeah, definitely the. Yeah, we haven't talked about it, and you're right, it goes into the parking lot of this apartment complex. So, I don't know what would need to be done to figure out how to connect it to public land or work with the apartment complex, but it seems like something we should certainly look into. So, I'm not sure what steps we need to take. Maybe work with Eric some more. Yeah, I was going to just say one request could be to get further guidance from staff and revisit this item at the next meeting, and that way possible recommendations could be made from staff or even the body. Yes. So, if I understand correctly, we need to get an easement from multiple properties. It sounds like maybe if the concern is providing public access, maybe so people on Sawmill could walk through Vizcaya Apartments, walk this trail, and then get up onto the Santa Fe Suites. So there's at least three property owners, and I mean, that may be one of the first steps to find out, is it even feasible to get easements from these property owners? And the Santa Fe Suites is city-owned, right? Or no? Oh, no. We helped to fund the purchase, and we helped to fund the services that are. Oh, okay. Right. Oh, yeah. We do not own the facility. So, would that be a staff issue to find out about easements? Yes. Okay. Leah, thanks, Mr. Chair. One thing that we recently had been talking about, it's in like this fall, is that maybe going a different route instead of public funding for a trail because of all these complications is either work with volunteer groups or something like that and to, you know, build something that's maybe soft surface, but most build a staircase embankment. I don't know if humanity could do something like that, but that could be faster and less complicated, but I think we could all be involved in that effort. I know Eric said, "I'd love to just go out there and crank it out in a weekend." It's not a very, it's not a very big space, but that's another option. Folks can do that as long as they're not representing themselves as. Yes. I just have a comment on that. I'm happy to hear that. I'm super familiar with it because I've walked it. I've tried to find my way from Sawmill to Albertson's, and I knew it was back there. So, and it does get muddy. But this is an example of how we call it low-hanging fruit, but it absolutely isn't because of all the complications of the easements and the ownership, etc. But I wholeheartedly support EPAC championing this and requesting, you know, more information from staff, and like that we chew on this. These are connections that make a big difference, right? Just walk to the grocery store if you live in the apartments. But I also know one of the issues, I mean, I'm sure it's also touchy because it's an area where folks migrate through that area and kind of camp out and stuff. So that's probably going to be, you know, front and center too. Opposition. So anyway, thanks. Thank you. Member W. I guess just to clarify, Leah had said like it might be complicated if this connection mostly represents a benefit to a private apartment community, but do you imagine just looking at the map, I feel like there's other residents who might benefit from it too. So I, I guess I wanted to ask you directly, Member Gabriel, if, I guess if in your mind this is mostly to benefit people living at Vizcaya, or if it just happens to run through Vizcaya, and you, you think the benefit is for like a broader public. I think so because on Sawmill, there's other housing on Sawmill Road, and they would maybe have to go through Vizcaya, but yeah, it's sort of access to that part of town that I think could be really beneficial. So, and I, I understand your concerns about people moving through there. I think that was one of the issues that the management of Vizcaya was resistant about. So, you're right, it's really not, it's complicated. Okay. So what's the will of the committee? Can we propose to refer this to staff? I'm not sure what we're, what exactly we're asking them. Are we asking them to check into easements or do something else? I think we are, we're asking to get more information about it. So, and status and what's involved and recommendations like staff, you know, since Eric's been working on this and you know this situation too, let's just look at it and see what solutions, how we can approach it. So, that would be my long motion. May I ask a question? Of course. So, when we say staff, are we including you guys or are we talking about people in Romela's shop or Public Works? It's not clear to me who we mean by staff. It's, that's, that's what would need to be clarified in the motion because we can't just say staff because there's no direction given to anybody. My, my, my thought would be to refer to one of our subcommittees and try to determine which subcommittee can do the legwork that can bring the information back to the committee. And we've, I mean, the three we have doesn't really fit in any of them, whether it's technical review policy. I mean, it might fall in policy, but not, I mean, education. I mean, I, I'll let you all decide what it. Well, Mr. Chair, it kind of got assigned to promotion, education, and communication somehow. I mean, Romela asked me and Tony to get involved in, I don't know if you were asked as well, but in some ways it could be a promotion task because building trails helps promote cycling and walking. I was thinking technical review could have a role as well, but would love to hear other people's opinions. I think technical review would be willing to have a role, but probably more appropriate once there's some sort of potential design. Any other comments? Sure. To your question of, you're right, don't assign it to staff. Absolutely. The MO because you guys are already on it. So you're like for sure, and then Romela, I guess that's, is that Public Works? But yeah, and you know, a coordination, some kind of a coordination, but expressly MO and expressly Public Works. So. So what I would recommend is that it gets assigned to the subcommittee, and subcommittee members can work with entities like MO or, I don't, I don't know if this committee really has the full authority to direct staff to do that. That's, that's where my poser comes in. Whereas we can direct our, our own committee to go work with staff. So that's, that's the way I would look at it. Assign it to the subcommittee, subcommittee that work with whether it's Leah or Eric or whomever it is, Romela, but then get the information needed to come back here to figure out a best path forward. Especially because this involves private property, you know, because part of it might even be engaging the private property owners to see if they're open to it. That might eliminate any process from the onset, and that could be some of the first initial investigative steps. It's looking, looking at who, how it impacts private property, communication be done with them, and if private property owners are willing to kind of look at a collaborative solution, that, that would be the first steps before anybody starts looking at potential designs, etc., to see if the property owners are even open to it. So, I understand the, and I completely understand the, the benefits, but as we're seeing with some of the other, in particular, one other location in our community that was utilized by the public, and now the private property owner is wanting to cease access, and it's becoming problematic. And so I would want us to do our due diligence before we kind of take many steps further. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when we say subcommittee, I assume we're talking about promotion, education, and communication. Yeah, I, I would, and it doesn't specifically fit in that committee, but it's the best fitting because it's not technical review. It could be policy. I mean, ultimately it could fall into the policy because the committee could be recommending policy to move forward in regards to how to request resources. Because if even if it's beyond that and it becomes a priority project, it would get implemented into the strategic plan. Correct? If I'm not wrong. So, so, it could be policy. I mean, it can be referred to both. I mean, I'll let the committee determine what, what hole best fits the peg, so to speak. So, it, thank you, Mr. Chair. If nobody has any objections, it seems I would like to move that promotion, education, and communication subcommittee start the investigation of this. If we need to bring in other members, we can. Is that an okay motion? That's a motion. So this matter is being referred to. Is there a second? We got a second by member. Any discussion? You can hear none. Then can we get a roll call vote, please? Member Frell. Yes. Member Piltchure. Yes. Member Garcia. Yes. Member Schiffmiller. Yes. Member Bordigay. Member Gabriel. Yes. And Member Wang. Yes. Okay. Any other discussion on this particular topic from committee members? Seeing none, let's go and move on to item C, which is the League of American Bicyclists Community Sparks Grant. Romela is not here, and in her absence, Leah, I think you were taking this one. Okay, floor is yours, and just make sure the green light is on. So, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. So, the Sparks grant is a League of American Bicyclists grant opportunity. Bike Santa Fe applied last year to put on a statewide bike summit, and they, they didn't get it. I think there was collaboration on that grant last year, and they want to apply again, but have it be the collaboration continue, but have the application come from BPAC in the hopes that having it come from a city agency will give it better points or have it score better. And the ask for this grant would be $2,000, and they would like to do the summit in May or June of next year. And I think that's about all the information I have, but if you have any questions, then I'd be happy to try and answer them. Thanks. And so I think Romela's request was that if it, if there is the will of the committee that the committee adopt a motion to have BPAC apply for this grant, and in essence, that's what the action has been requested, and so it would be in a form of a motion. Any questions or conversation around this topic? So, we're going to apply for the grant and do the work ourselves, or like Santa Fe is going to put it together. We're just going to kind of put our seal of approval on it. Mr. Chair, Member Chair, it, I believe that it's Romela and Mike Santa Fe. I'm actually not entirely sure, but she did not tell me that she was needed me to recruit people to help work on this application. And because they submitted it last year, I think they probably already have a lot of the questions answered that they can probably just reuse that. So I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that the idea is to put an additional burden on committee members. So, I'm going to read from Romela's email just to give you some clarification. She says, "Since BPAC is a city committee, we may have a better chance of obtaining the grant. If it becomes a city event, we would also have support from OED, which is Office of Economic Development, the Communications Division, and could partner with Santa Fe Mo, Bike Santa Fe, and others. Covering any funding gaps would be much easier as a city could assist us." And I think in essence, the spirit of collaboration is there. I don't want to speak on behalf of Bike Santa Fe by any means. I think the hope is that should this grant be awarded to the city, then there would be the intention of outreach for collaborative opportunities with entities like Bike Santa Fe Mo, et cetera. Yes, the responsibility would fall on BPAC because they're the entity applying for the resources to ultimately kind of lead the charge, but it's kind of with that philosophy, power in numbers. You have more people engaged, you collaborate. The heavy lift is not solely on BPAC. It's a collaborative effort. Hopefully that helps my approach. Is there enough time in the timeline for BPAC to review the application once it's prepared? I think the request being given tonight, the direction was to request that Romela apply. So I don't think there would be—I don't know what could be included in the motion is if there is time before the application is due that it be brought back before BPAC. It can be worded that way. That way if there is the time, it can be brought back, but if there is a time constraint, I think it's up to the committee if that's okay with the committee that she just submits. So, again, just kind of provide some additional context for folks. Any other questions, comments? The will of the body? Member Gabriel: I think it's a great idea to have the city apply. I think it would be appropriate for us to review the application and see what we are committing to as a committee. And I would be happy to work with Romela on that, being a liaison or whatever, because I'd hate to have BPAC's name all over this without us having any input or even working on it a little bit. So, do we know when the grant is due? I don't. But what I like that train of thought, Member Gabriel, we could assign one, two, maybe three folks that if they're open to it, that before submission, that it goes through some oversight of this kind of couple member committee members to review. Then we can make that part of the motion. Member W: It looks like the deadline to apply is January 27th. So, Oh, so it could be brought back before. But that begs a question because I was going to raise this later. My thought is there still will be a January BPAC meeting. There most likely won't be a governing body member. That means Member Piltchure, you'll be leading the charge. So I think if it's not due till then, you can make the motion to direct Romela to apply to bring it back for approval during the January meeting. Thank you, Member Wang, for doing that quick investigation. So we know no additional assignment to folks needed at this moment unless they want to reach out to Romela and help. Any other discussion? Mr. Chair, I'm actually interested in being involved in some way. I think it would be appropriate to have somebody just reach out to her, and I'm happy to be that person. Okay, sounds good. Any other comment, discussion? Okay. So, what's the will? I would move that we ask staff to proceed in preparing the application from Sparks Grant and to bring that application back at our January meeting if time permits. Okay. So, there's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Leah, I know you're probably writing down the motion. I'll wait. I know taking the motions can take a moment. Mr. Chair, I think I got it. Okay. Member Frell, Yes. Member Piltshire, Yes. Member Garcia, Yes. Member Schiffmiller, Yes. Member Bordigay. Member Gabriel. Gabriel. Gabriel. I know. Gabriel. Yes. Member Wang. Yes. Okay. Anything else? If not, let's go ahead and move on to subcommittee communications. First up, Policy, Planning, and Law. Member Piltchure, We are eagerly awaiting. Romela tried to put a meeting together for the three chairs of the committees to talk about dating the strategic plan. I don't know. We got snowed out, conflict in schedules, but whatever. Anyway, the meeting didn't happen, and we're going to meet early next month. Did she give us a date on that? So that's a—we're kind of treading water right now. Okay. Thank you. Next up is Promotion, Education, and Communications subcommittee. Member Gabriel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're treading water, too. Okay. Technical Review. Member Schiff Miller. Thank you, Chair Garcia. I've attended a few meetings in the last month about projects, but actually before I get to that, I just wanted to introduce our newest member of the subcommittee, Todd Cannon. He is attending tonight, and I really appreciate that. And so I attended two meetings of the Acequia Trail extension and one meeting of the Rail Trail crossing. The Acequia Trail extension meeting is focusing mostly on right-of-way issues and drainage issues, and so I don't have a lot of expertise in that. So I've been just monitoring it. One thing I will say is there's been some discussion as to whether the trail will be 8-foot wide and asphalt or 5 to 6 feet wide and concrete. And I haven't really weighed in on it, but that's one of the technical issues that they're talking about. 8-foot wide and asphalt because greater width is good, but then it's more expensive, and asphalt is cheaper than concrete. So, it's kind of a trade-off. Concrete is less maintenance than asphalt. So, there's the trade-offs there. The Henry Lynch Road meetings have been suspended for now, and the Rail Trail crossing meetings, they're focusing on four crossings of the Rail Trail at Rodeo Road, Siringo Road, Second Street, and at Paseo de Peralta near the Farmers Market. And we've been talking about whether or not to put a flashing beacon at Rodeo Road, and that sort of thing. We talked about the possibility of rumble strips or rumble strips at Siringo Road, but we're leaning against it to residential neighborhood. We don't think that would be such a good idea. Options at Second Street are somewhat limited. I think the crossing that's sparking the most concern and discussion right now is the Paseo crossing. It's by far the busiest. Lots and lots of pedestrians and bicyclists cross there for the Farmers Market and for the railyard in general. And the proposal right now was to have it sort of a two-stage crossing. First cross Cayuga Street, that street that's just across from the Farmers Market, and then cross Paseo de Peralta, and it would cross two traffic lanes and one left turn lane. And most of us didn't like that proposal. So, we're trying to figure out something else. Possibly using the island that the train gate is on right now as a pedestrian refuge and moving the train gate was a possibility that's being discussed. So, the other things that we've been talking about are there are projects that don't come through Public Works that are city projects that potentially affect bicycles and pedestrians that we haven't gotten any formal notification about. And we're wondering, you know, I know that Romela is our liaison. She works for Public Works. So most of the projects we get are that route. But for example, there's a proposal now to redo a lot of the trails and such around Fort Marcy Park, and this affects pedestrians and bicycles, and we haven't received any official notification of this to review it, and we would like to. And I'm not exactly sure how to go about getting notified about things that don't come through Public Works. Another project that was under our radar that we would have liked to have had an opportunity to chime in on is the realignment of the Acequia Trail behind the Mandela school, which has already been done, and a lot of us have some issues with the way the design came out. We would have liked to have been able to, you know, offer our opinions on it before it happened. So, I'm not sure what mechanisms exist to enable us to review these projects that do affect bicycles and pedestrians but aren't Public Works projects. So when it comes to like Fort Marcy, that should be Public Works still because that's parks, and parks is under Public Works right now. And so one thing I can carry forward in the future because I will be working directly with the Public Works Director is adding some reinforcement that when there are any projects that deal with bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure development, that BPAC be consulted. So that's something I can carry forward as the incoming mayor and make sure that whomever is the new Public Works Director has that on their foresight. Thank you. You got it. Okay with—Yes. Sure. Sure. Absolutely. You were talking about the crossing at Rodeo for the Rail Trail. Isn't there already a flashing crossing there, or am I thinking of a different spot? I think you're thinking of a different spot. There is one. Okay. I'm not that familiar with it. They're talking about moving the crossing, I believe, further east. Have it cross Rodeo Road and then go cross back over the railroad tracks. Right now, it crosses the railroad tracks south of Rodeo Road. And they're going to be proposing to cross north of Rodeo Road. Did I get that right? So it would be more of a straight across instead of going like this and then crossing. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. If I could ask a question to Gary, has there been any discussion about eliminating one of the lanes on Rodeo? I noticed—look at the aerial photograph. I think there's just a short stretch right before the trail crossing where westbound Rodeo widens to two lanes. And to me, it's always a little bit more challenging as a bicyclist. I mean, what the—the concern is that far lane of traffic slowing down and waiting for you when the light's flashing. I mean, the left lane may stop, but then you're left wondering, well, do they see—well, the people in the other lane, and there's—it appears from again, looking at the aerial photo here, it's just a very short stretch where there's actually two westbound lanes. It doesn't seem like it'd have a huge impact on overall traffic flow, if any, but I don't—you're working with Public Works on this or— Yeah, I don't remember right now exactly the details of it, and I could send you some photos with proposals if you're interested in seeing it. Yeah, because that's been always one of my concerns at that crossing is are you going to—you get out there, you—do they—if the car in the left lane, which is closest to you, is stopped, what's going on in the right lane, and you can't see it that well because cars are stopped. Yeah, that's always a concern at every crossing. I've seen many times where a car is stopped and a pedestrian is crossing, and the car in the next lane blows through it, which is illegal and stupid and dangerous, but people do it. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Member Piltchure. I can answer that. So, that's actually the advantage of moving the crossing to the east as Member Schiff Miller mentioned is that there's a—there's a hard median there, or there will be one. And so, it'll just be one lane and then a median pedestrian and bicycle refuge island, then another lane. So, there will still be a left turn lane onto Galisteo, I think, or where the current left lane is right now, but the crossing will be much further away from that. So, really, you shouldn't have that issue at the proposed new. Okay, Member Border. Thank you, Chair. I just, maybe this is a request for information or discussion here, or I need to talk to staff, but so much has gone on in that area. Big changes at Zia and St. Francis with the new development. Is it reasonable to ask if we could see this, like a site plan of how this traffic pattern has changed? Maybe I just needed to see the plans. But it's pretty confusing, and I don't think there is a left turn into Galileo anymore. It's a real big change, and there's a lot of opposition in that neighborhood about it. Maybe it's just a public information campaign because this is happening. That project took practically 20 years to get going, and it's just sour grapes, et cetera. I don't know, maybe it would do the project more justice if somehow that information got out, you know, how that intersection's supposed to work. I mean, I've heard lots of complaints, and there's new islands, and there's not the same ability to turn left westbound off of, does anybody know about this? I guess one of my neighborhood contacts. Intersections. So, that development is in flux right now. It's not complete. And the way, from my understanding, because I've heard many concerns from constituents about what's currently been developed, it's not the final product, so to speak. And so, to get to your answer of the final product, there are site plans, and that's available publicly, and I think staff, we can work to get that to the committee if they want to request that. It is going to take education on behalf of the city once it's done because it is going to be new. It's going to be a new flow of traffic than what folks are used to prior to this construction starting. So, I see BPAC could help play a role in that. So, okay. I don't want to get too much down a rabbit hole because technically all these items are just report outs, not conversation, but I did want to spur some good convo because it is important that we allow for folks to, because I think these type of conversations could lead to agenda items where we can actually continue to get more work done later. So, thank you for the updates. Matters from staff, any updates? No, thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Matters from the committee. I'm just going to go left to right. Member Wing, Member Gabriel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is related to what I think you were talking about. You're talking about Zia and Galisteo, correct? Okay. Right. Right there. So, my question is, is there any recourse for the way that road was designed? It's insane. I brought it up before. Probably large vehicles, definitely not a bus, can make that turn. A cyclist, or I know there's a sidewalk for pedestrians, but if somebody is cycling on that road, there's just no room. How would one go about suggesting that that be revisited? I mean, I know you can't like dig up the road, but could they take the little island out? I think this is a really important issue for that area. So, I don't want to get into conversation because this is just matters from the committee where it's kind of one-way communication. If folks want to have a deeper conversation, I would recommend putting it on an agenda item. But to give you an answer to the question, again, because I've worked on this for nearly five years, it's gone through a very thorough review process. There were many, many considerations taken into the process, and that's the response given from staff to us. So, to take that deeper dive, and if the committee wants to do that, I would recommend that the committee put it on an agenda item. It's been approved. And as far as the question in regards to what could be done, that's a question that could be explored. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I would like to recommend this go on a future agenda. Thank you. I do have one other matter. I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your leadership, and I know this is our last meeting. I really appreciate how you are so responsive and respectful to everybody, and I just think you've been a great chair, and I really appreciate having worked with you for the past several years, and I hope you will continue to work with BPAC as the mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate Member BGA. I'm just going down the line. Matters. Not calling you out for any praises by any means. I'm just matters from the committee. So, I'm just going left to right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. Member Piltchure. Maybe another future discussion item for us could be what role does BPAC play in reviewing major development projects that might, so I assume all this road reconstruction on Zia is being paid for by the developer. It wasn't a city project, it was a developer's project. What I, I use the word, we call the street frontage. I don't think so. If BPAC could have a role in street frontage improvements to make sure bicycles should be likewise. Thank you for chair, none. Okay. Matters from the chair, just likewise reflection back to y'all. It's been an absolute, it's been fun. We, I think we've truly got some work done in this committee. I can't, you know, I look back over the years, and I try not to do this, but it's kind of like you get competitive when you chair a committee. We're doing some work, what are you doing? And so, over the years, I'm just proud of the many things this committee has done, and not only the committee, Mike Santa Fe, members of the public, because it's definitely not done just us up here. This is a whole collective, and you know, I think if you look at what we've done, whether it was starting off with changing the resolution, and for those that weren't with us then, this committee for the longest time was referred to as BTAC, Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee. And when I came on board, we updated the resolution and kind of reshaped the focus of the committee. Then, you know, with the help with several members of this committee, and then I see former Member Eisenstein out there with her true leadership, we developed a very, very strong strategic plan. I think, and as the kind of proud chairperson of this committee, I think it's the strongest strategic plan of any of the citizen advisory committees, you know, and that just kind of continued on with the momentum, whether it was the e-bike ordinance or the maintenance resolution, the Vision Zero resolution, or just the many advocacy efforts that BPAC put into some of the broader legislation that the city considers. It definitely has had an impact that has been felt on city policy. So, please applaud yourselves. This is all due to the work that, again, not only the folks up here on the dais, but folks in the audience and folks in the broader community. There definitely is much more work to be done. I'm sorry, but you guys are my little Thursday night family. We, you compete with the governing body in regards to how long we meet. There's no advisory committee meetings that meet for three, four hours. So, maybe the next chair can wrangle you all in, but I'm not about to stop you all from getting work done. So, I don't know who I am appointing. Feel free to recommend any folks. There's eight people I will be selecting from. There's five current city councilors, two incoming. I haven't even appointed my replacement yet. So, that will be coming in January. As I mentioned, Member Piltchure, because I have not appointed the replacement, you will have to chair the meeting. There's no reason that the committee work shouldn't be done as long as there's six of y'all. So, with that, good luck. Let's see. Next meeting, January 8th, 2026. We're adjourned. I was going to say you're no Mike Johnson, and we all be thankful for that.