Agenda:

I.  Introductions & Public Comments (5 Minutes)

II.  Approval of Agenda & Minutes (5 Minutes)

III.  Staff Reports (10 Minutes)

- Draft Sonoma County Unincorporated Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan.

- Class II Bike Lanes on Western Ave. from Bantam Way to City Limits.

- Status of Chip Seal Work on Various County Roadways.

- Update on Request to Remove Santa Rosa Creek Trail from Plan.

IV.  General Meeting:

A.  Continue Discussion re: Recommending Mitigations for Proposed New Quarries on Geyserville Avenue and Roblar Road.  (60 Minutes)

V.  Other Business & Announcements (5 Minutes)

VI.  Next Meeting & Adjournment (5 Minutes)

Next meeting of the Sonoma Co. BPAC is scheduled for Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

November 19, 2008 Minutes                                                         

Sherry Adams - 1^st District                                 

Bernie Album - 2^nd District                                 

Vin Hoagland - 3^rd District (Chair)                     

Ken Cummings - 3^rd District (Alt.)                      

Richard Burg - 4^th District                                   

Bill Harrison - 4^th District (Alt.)                         

Tim Gonzalez - 5^th District (Vice-Chair)         

Nancy Rappolt - 5^th District (Alt.)                       

Other Participants:

Janice Eunice - 1^st District Resident

Mike Eunice - 1^st District Resident

Joe Morgan - 2^nd District Resident

Gordon Burns - 3^rd District Resident

Sheila Heim - 5^th District Resident

Jen Navar - 5^th District Resident

Donn Slizeski - 5^th District Resident

Richard Burger - Petaluma Wheelmen

Karin Burger - Petaluma Wheelmen

Dave Trumbo - Petaluma Wheelmen

Chris Culver - Son. Co. Bike Coalition

Steve Urbanek - Transp. & Public Works

Gary Helfrich - PRMD Planning

Ken Tam - Regional Parks

Steven Schmitz - SCBPAC Staff

Meeting Summary

I.  Introductions and Public Comments

Self-introductions were made.  There were no public comments.

II.  Approval of Agenda and Minutes 

The agenda for the November 19, 2008 meeting was approved with the following change; under the General Meeting, agenda item “A” was moved prior to agenda item “B.”  The minutes from the October 15, 2008 meeting were approved with the following correction; Ken Tam said that, in the last sentence of the third paragraph on page 4, the words “granted funding” should be changed to the word “funded.”

III.  Staff Reports

Regarding the Draft Sonoma County Unincorporated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Gary Helfrich reported that staff continues to work on finalizing the plan, which is on track to be brought before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors by next spring or summer.  Regarding recommending mitigations for the proposed new quarries on Geyserville Avenue and Roblar Road, staff said that further discussions would be postponed until the next committee meeting.  Staff also said that a memorandum will be submitted to County Transportation and Public Works prior to the next committee regarding the committee’s request to stripe and sign for Class II bicycle lanes on Western Avenue between Bantam Way and the Petaluma city limits in conjunction with the planned Class II shoulder improvements on Western Avenue between Cleveland Lane and Chileno Valley Road.  In addition, staff announced that Joe Morgan is scheduled to be officially appointed during the Board of Supervisors meeting on December 9 as the new District 2 alternative representative on the committee.

IV.  General Meeting       

B.  Discussion regarding impact to bicyclists of recent chip-seal overlay work on various County-maintained roadways. 

SSteve Urbanek, Pavement Preservation Manager for County/st1:PlaceType> Transportation and Public Works, was present to discuss the recent chip-seal work on various roadways in the unincorporated areas.  Steve said that similar chip-seal work would be completed on additional roadways over at least the next five years as a technique in pavement preservation.  He said that the new chip-seal technique recently completed on several roadways saved the County a significant amount of money.  It’s simply a matter of preserving the pavement on more miles of roadway with the limited amount of funding available.  The costs for traditional pavement overlays, which include both chip-seals and slurry seals or cape seals, have increased significantly with the dramatic increase in the cost of asphalt oil over the past year.

Members of the committee and some members of the Petaluma Wheelmen responded that the recent chip-seal work without the smoother slurry seal on top makes for an extremely rough ride for bicyclists, so much so that roadways such as Pepper Road and Occidental Road are no longer viable bicycle routes.  For example, Occidental Road received the new chip-seal work in the vehicle travel lanes but it also encroached into the shoulder areas.  Steve conceded that the chip-seal work on Occidental Road should not have encroached into the shoulder areas and that he would do everything to ensure that this does not happen in the future.  The chip-seal work should have ended at the fog line and left the shoulders untouched.  On roadways such as Pepper Road, Steve said that the gravel used in the chip-seal work should settle and become less rough over time.  Also, the issue of loose gravel can be addressed by increasing the frequency of street sweeping along the roadways that recently received the new chip-seal work.            

Steve mentioned that it would also be helpful to received feedback from the bicycling community regarding the type of rock that is used in future chip-seal work.  The chip-seal work completed on Pepper Road and Occidental Road used more angular rock while the chip-seal work on Grange Road used more rounded rock.  It would be helpful to know which style of gravel is more preferred by bicyclists.  Chris Culver of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition responded that she’d prefer the use of the more rounded rock with future chip-seal work.  Also, the County should consider using shredded tires for future pavement overlays.  Nancy Rappolt added that her Homeowners Association uses smaller rock for their pavement overlays.  Steve responded that chip-seal work using smaller rock just does not hold up adequately on higher traffic arterial roadways.  He said that he’s not very familiar with the use of shredded tires in pavement overlays, but he would look into it as a possible future pavement preservation technique.   

Jen Navar, 5^th District resident, asked if it would be possible on roadways that do not have shoulders to focus the more heavy chip-seal work with larger rock toward the center of the roadway and use smaller and more rounded rock toward the edges of the roadway where bicyclists typically ride.  Or perhaps the County would consider including a slurry-seal only toward the edges of the roadway where bicyclists typically ride.  Steve responded that these seemed like very reasonable ideas and that he would research the feasibility of designing future chip-seal work using such techniques.  Steve continued that it sounded like the more rounded rock is preferred by bicyclists as opposed to the more angular rock.  Unfortunately, there is only one supplier of the rounded rock in Sonoma County while there are several suppliers of the angular rock.  So, the rounded rock is more difficult to secure for the County’s chip-seal work.  Regardless, Steve said that he’d make every reasonable effort to attempt to use the rounded rock for future chip-seal work.

Regarding the idea to add a slurry-seal only toward the edges of the roadway where bicyclists typically ride, Steve asked the committee members if they would be willing to dedicate a portion of the County’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funding toward such work in the future.  Chris Culver of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition cautioned the committee to be very careful about using any bicycle funding for roadway maintenance work.  That funding should be reserved for such things as constructing new shoulders and Class II bicycle lanes, not for routine roadway maintenance projects.  The recent “Complete Streets” legislation adopted by the State of California requires that all roadway improvements must consider all users, including bicyclists and pedestrians. 

With no further comments from committee members or other participants, Steve distributed copies of a book produced by the National Center for Pavement Preservation entitled “At the Crossroads, Preserving or Highway Investment.”  He said that he would look forward to working with the committee on improving future chip-seal work and appreciated the very helpful feedback from the committee.  The committee thanked Steve for attending their meeting and for providing additional information regarding the County’s chip-seal work.

A.  Consider request to remove Fulton Road to Willowside Road segment of Santa Rosa Creek Trail from Draft Bike/Pedestrian Plan list of projects. 

Ms. Sheila Heim introduced herself to the committee and stated that she is requesting, through a petition, that the Santa Rosa Creek Trail between Fulton Road and Guerneville Road be removed from the Draft Sonoma County Unincorporated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan list of projects. She distributed copies of the 23 page petition to the committee members, which includes an additional 39 pages of exhibits.  After a brief presentation of the petition and exhibits by Ms. Heim, the committee asked her to summarize exactly what the petition is requesting. Ms. Heim responded by referring to page 23 of the petition where it states that the petitioner requests that the Class I bike path designation be removed from the Santa Rosa Creek Trail, reaches F and G, and that it remain intact as is in the form of a gravel levee so as to best serve the needs of pedestrians, equestrians, off road bicyclists, special status species, and the environment.  The petition also states that if the committee decides to retain Class I bike path status for the trail, that environmental review occur before the finalized SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is submitted to the Board of Supervisors.  The request further states that environmental review of the Class I status is appropriate for Santa Rosa Creek Trail because special status species habitat has been identified since the previous bike and pedestrian plan was put into place ten or more years ago.  Finally, the petition requests a public hearing of the issues contained in the petition.

Ms. Heim further elaborated that one of her main issues with the project revolves around planning inconsistencies among the Sonoma County General Plan elements.  Class I bike path status for reaches F and G of the Santa Rosa Creek Trail are not consistent with the recently updated Sonoma County General Plan.  The updated General Plan indicates that Class I trails are for urban connectivity and should not be extended into open space and agricultural areas.  Reaches F and G of the Santa Rosa Creek Trail do not clearly connect two urban areas, like the Joe Rodota Trail Class I bike path between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol, for example.  Paving the Santa Rosa Creek Trail as a Class I bike path between Fulton Road and Guerneville Road will improve it for commuter bicyclists only.

Ken Tam of County Regional Parks said the Santa Rosa Creek Trail Class I pathway is a joint project between Regional Parks, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space District.  Environmental documentation was completed for the Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan in 2006, which included Reach F of the Santa Rosa Creek Trail project.  Regional Parks plans on responding to Ms. Heim’s petition by January or February after consulting with a biologist to determine whether or not the current environmental documentation for the project is adequate.  Regarding the issue of the trail’s connectivity between urban areas, Ken pointed out that reaches F and G of the Santa Rosa Creek Trail will eventually connect with a future planned Laguna de Santa Rosa Class 1 pathway beginning near Guerneville Road, which will provide a connection south to the City of Sebastopol and beyond.    

Gary Helfrich of the County Permit and Resource Management Department clarified that the Sonoma County Bikeways Plan, adopted by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in 1997, is consistent with the recently updated Sonoma County General Plan because it is incorporated into the General Plan by reference.  The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which is referred to in the Ms. Heim’s petition, is a different document that has not been adopted by the Board of Supervisors.  The Sonoma County Bikeways Plan is being updated by the committee and has been re-named the Draft Sonoma County Unincorporated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.  Gary said that this is the document that should be referenced in Ms. Heim’s petition. Ms. Heim said that she would appreciate a copy of both the Sonoma County Bikeways Plan and the Draft Sonoma County Unincorporated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.  Staff said that copies of both plans would be forwarded to Ms. Heim as soon as possible.

Chris Culver of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition asked Ms. Heim what policy she is referring to that states that paved Class I pathways are primarily for urban connectivity.  Ms. Heim responded that it is a policy that is in the SCTA’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.  Gary Helfrich reiterated that the SCTA’s document has not been adopted by the Board of Supervisors and that she should be referring to the Sonoma County Bikeways Plan, which includes the currently adopted policies for bicycle facilities located in the unincorporated areas.  Richard Burg added that the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian bridges along the north side of the Santa Rosa Creek Trail along reach F already provide access to northern trail spurs that didn’t exist previously.  So her argument that paving the trail will impact the agricultural lands to the north does not seem to be valid since the bridges are already in place and are already theoretically impacting the agricultural lands to the north.        

Bill Harrison respectfully requested that Ms. Heim consider omitting the many personal opinions contained in her petition.  The committee needs to be able to make a decision based on documented facts and including personal opinions in the argument does not help her cause.  Sherry Adams interjected and pleaded with both the committee members and Ms. Heim to try and keep the discussion civilized.  Ms. Heim has submitted her petition and it is now the responsibility of the committee to ask questions about the content of her petition in order to reach an informed decision.  Staff added that it would not be appropriate for the committee to make a decision, at this point, since Regional Parks is in the process of conducting additional research related to the adequacy of the project’s environmental documentation.           

Jen Navar cautioned the committee not to forget about the needs of persons with disabilities in making their decision regarding the Santa Rosa Creek Trail.  If the trail is not paved as a Class I bikeway, then many persons with disabilities would be unable to utilize the trail on bicycles as well as with wheelchairs or other mobility devices.  Bernie Album inquired as to whether or not it is required to provide access for persons with disabilities along the Santa Rosa Creek Trail per the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Ken Tam responded that compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act in the design and construction of the trail is required.

Mike Eunice said that he’d prepared a presentation regarding the Santa Rosa Creek Trail project but, given the limited remaining time for the meeting, he would submit the presentation to staff for distribution to the committee members and to Ms. Heim.  With no further comments or questions, Ms. Heim thanked the committee members and staff for their time and attention and said that she would be submitting additional documentation for their review prior to the committee’s meeting in January.  The committee thanked Ms. Heim for her presentation and said they would look forward to continuing the discussion with her toward a possible decision during their meeting in either January for February.

V.  Other Business & Announcements

Staff announced attending a meeting hosted by Sonoma County Health Services regarding their “Healthy by Design” initiative.  During the meeting, Health Services staff indicated their desire to become more familiar with the SCBPAC and how the committee works with PRMD to help ensure that proposed developments are bicycle and pedestrian friendly.  It would be a good idea to invite Health Services staff to a future committee meeting to answer their questions and discuss any possible collaboration with them on their “Healthy by Design” initiative.  The committee agreed and asked staff to invite Health Services staff to a future committee meeting, perhaps in December or sometime next spring.    

VI.  Next Meeting & Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.