|
Meeting Announcement:
Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Time: 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Place: Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Deptartment
2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA
Staff: Steven Schmitz
Phone: (707) 585-7516
e-Mail: steven@sctransit.com
|
|
Agenda:
I. Introductions & Public Comments* (10 Minutes)
II. Approval of Agenda & Minutes (5 Minutes)
III. Staff Reports (30 Minutes)
- Western Avenue Class II Bicycle Lane Project.
- State Highway 116/Stage Gulch Road Bicycle Route.
- Countywide Bicycle Route Numbering System.
- Proposed Permitting Requirements for Bicycle Events.
- Policy Amendments to Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
- Review of Roads & Regional Parks Capital Project Plans.
IV. General Meeting:
A. Presentation on Expansion of the “Cool Schools” Program. (30 Minutes)
B. Review of Preliminary Draft 2012 Three-Year Funding Plan. (30 Minutes)
V. Other Business & Announcements (10 Minutes)
VI. Next Meeting & Adjournment (5 Minutes)
The next meeting of the Sonoma Co. BPAC is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2012.
*Public Comment on Issues Not on the Agenda. Please limit comments to 3 minutes each. The Committee will hear public comments on non-agenda issues within the Committee's scope of authority. The Committee will hear public comments on non-agenda issues for up to 10 minutes, at which time they will hear scheduled agenda items. Any additional public comments will be heard at the conclusion of the agendized items.
October 19, 2011 Minutes
Members in Attendance:
Bernie Album - 2nd District
Joe Morgan - 2nd District (alt.)
Vin Hoagland - 3rd District
Ryan Stashak - 4th District
Tim Gonzalez - 5th District
Erick Ratliff - 5th District (alt.)
Other Participants:
Gary Helfrich - Bicycle Coalition
Robert Mota - CHP
Cheryl Wallace - Bike Monkey
Richard Murphy - EcoRing
Matt Wilcox - 3rd District Resident
Steven Schmitz - SCBPAC Staff
Meeting Summary
I. Introductions and Public Comments
Self-introductions were made. Richard Murphy encouraged the members of the committee to visit the EcoRing website to learn more about the organization’s mission to promote eco-friendly tourism in Sonoma County.
II. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
The agenda for the October 19, 2011 meeting was approved as presented. The minutes from the July 20, 2011 meeting were approved with corrections from Sherry Adams and Ken Tam, respectively, which were submitted to staff via e-mail. Sherry requested that the third and fourth sentences in the first paragraph on page 5 be changed to the following; “Sherry said that the jurisdiction that has had the most hazards reported, thus far, has been the County of Sonoma, which maintains roadways located in the unincorporated areas. She noted that the County of Sonoma has been very responsive.” Ken requested that the words “way finding” be deleted from the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 2 and that the words “directional signs” be added after the word “and” in the same sentence. Ken also requested that the word “my” be changed to the word “by” in the first sentence of the first paragraph on page 3.
III. Staff Reports
Staff reported that, according to Transportation and Public Works staff, a notice to proceed has been given to the contractor for the construction of phase 2 of the Western Avenue Class II bicycle lane project. Staff also reported that, unfortunately, Caltrans did not award a State Bicycle Transportation Account grant for the proposed Class II bicycle lanes between the cities of Sonoma and Petaluma. And regarding a proposed countywide bike route numbering system, staff reported that further discussions with City of Santa Rosa staff and Sonoma County Transportation Authority staff are on hold until early next year.
In addition, staff responded to Bernie Album’s recent questions related to the need for road maintenance compliance with Complete Streets laws. Staff referred to existing policy 2.15 in the 2010 Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which requires that bikeway improvements be included as part of all road maintenance or improvement projects along road segments with existing or proposed bikeways to the maximum extent feasible. Gary Helfrich, who wrote policy 2.15 when he worked for the County Permit and Resource Management Department, pointed out that the important words in the policy are “to the maximum extent feasible.” This language, which was taken directly from the California Environmental Quality Act, allows road maintenance projects not to include bikeways improvements if adequate findings are presented to the committee. Staff said that policy 2.14 also requires committee review of all roadway maintenance projects for consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Bernie thanked staff and Gary for pointing out these policies and their relevance toward compliance with Complete Streets laws.
Staff also mentioned that comments were submitted on behalf of the committee for several projects, including the proposed Arnold Drive round-about at Agua Caliente Road, the Sonoma County Airport Master Plan, and a new traffic signal at the intersection of Airport Blvd. and Fulton Road. Comments were also submitted regarding the closure of the off-ramps from Hwy. 101 at the Fulton Road overpass and the need to extend the Class II bicycle lanes across the overpass.
Finally, on behalf of Ken Tam of Regional Parks who was unable to attend the meeting, staff reported that Regional Parks is working on a permanent fix to the lateral cracking along the Santa Rosa Creek Trail between Fulton Road and Willowside Road. Regional Parks is also still working on a fix to the lateral cracking issue along the new Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail between Hwy. 12 and Occidental Road.
IV. General Meeting
A. Continue Discussion of Proposed Permitting Requirements and Standards for Bicycle Events in Sonoma County.
Staff distributed a staff report describing a proposed process for permitting bicycle events in Sonoma County. The proposed process would involve a thresh hold that would trigger the need for an encroachment permit or a special event permit from the County. As a condition of being issued an encroachment permit or a special event permit, the County would require bicycle event organizers to follow specific procedures and adhere to minimum standards. A private sanctioning association could then be created that would sanction bicycle events as meeting minimum standards.
Staff said that some potential next steps would be for the bicycle event organizers to meet and prepare bicycle event guidelines that would include specific procedures and minimum standards. The proposed bicycle event guidelines would then be submitted to the County Permit and Resource Management Department and County Risk Management for their review and acceptance. Bicycle events that require an encroachment permit or a special event permit would then need to agree to comply with the procedures and adhere to the minimum standards included in the bicycle event guidelines.
Robert Mota of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) agreed that a permitting process would be helpful because some bicycle event organizers are skirting the notification process. While groups like Bike Monkey and the Santa Rosa Cycling Club have been very proactive in working with the CHP and other emergency services agencies in planning their bicycle events, other bicycle event organizers have failed to simply provide notifications. A permit requirement would clearly define when and how notifications would need to be made by all bicycle event organizers. At a minimum, a thresh hold preferably based on the number of riders should trigger a review process involving the CHP and other emergency services. Depending on the size of the event, then a permit may be required with specific conditions.
Gary Helfrich said that it seems like a new County permit needs to be developed for bicycle events as opposed to an encroachment permit or special event permit. Perhaps it would be appropriate to propose a new “road event permit” that gives some discretion to County staff in deciding what conditions would be necessary depending on the size of the bicycle event. From his recollection when he worked at the County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD), Gary said that such a new “road event permit” would need to be proposed through the PRMD Forms Committee, then reviewed by County Counsel, then approved by the Planning Commission, with final approval from the Board of Supervisors.
Robert said that it is important to establish thresh holds that are well justified as opposed to just being random. Staff may want to check with the County of Santa Clara for their thresh hold rationale, which he recalled as being set at 200 riders for a review and notification requirement and at 500 riders for a special event permit with conditions. Santa Clara County also established a one-stop shop for bicycle event organizers to meet with planners and emergency services agencies to review upcoming bicycle events. Such a one-stop shop for bicycle event coordination would also be very desirable in Sonoma County.
Staff said that the appropriate PRMD staff would be contacted to discuss the next steps toward establishing a new permitting process for bicycle events. Staff also agreed to contact Santa Clara County regarding their permit thresh hold rationale. In addition, staff said that a meeting amongst the bicycle event organizers needs to be scheduled to establish bicycle event guidelines and standards that could be made conditions of the new “road event permit.” Joe Morgan mentioned that the Santa Rosa Cycling Club and Bike Monkey should be involved in such a meeting, at a minimum.
B. Review Proposed New Policies Related to PRMD Staff Involvement & Amendments to the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Staff distributed two proposed new polices for the committee’s consideration, which would be included in the Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Staff said that the language for the first new policy regarding proposed Permit and Resource Management Department responsibilities could be added to existing policy 1.04, as this policy already relates to the responsibilities of Transportation and Public Works and Regional Parks pertaining to the development and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the unincorporated areas. The additional language for policy 1.04 would state that the Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) shall be responsible for the development of new policies or revisions to existing policies in the Bikeways Plan. Gary Helfrich said that he would recommend that it be proposed as a stand-alone policy and that additional language should state that any policy revisions to the Bikeways Plan must be reviewed and recommended to the Board of Supervisors by the BPAC prior to a hearing by the Planning Commission. After some further discussion, the committee agreed with Gary’s revisions and directed staff to submit the proposed first new policy to PRMD for consideration.
Staff said that the proposed second new policy would state that an amendment to the Bikeways Plan shall be approved administratively if it revises the priority level or makes a technical correction to a proposed project. Gary Helfrich recommended revisions to staff’s proposed language for this policy and also suggested additional language regarding a notification process for amendments to the Bikeways Plan. Gary’s revisions to the proposed policy would state that technical corrections and/or raising the priority of a project may be made administratively, subject to review by the BPAC. Additional language would state that the directors of the Permit and Resource Management, Transportation and Public Works, and Regional Parks Departments shall be notified of the proposed changes at least 30 days in advance of the scheduled review by the BPAC. If comments are not received by the posted hearing date, approval by the department(s) is automatically granted. Vin Hoagland said that the word “raising” in the first sentence should be revised to the word “changing.” With no further comments, the committee agreed with Gary’s revisions and directed staff to submit the proposed second new policy to PRMD for consideration.
Gary also mentioned that existing policy 2.15 in the Bikeways Plan, which was discussed earlier during the meeting’s staff reports, is actually not consistent with policy CT-3t within the Circulation Element of the Sonoma County General Plan. Policy CT-3t erroneously withholds the words “maintenance or” and the words “to the maximum extent feasible.” These words will need to be added to policy CT-3t as a technical correction to the General Plan. Gary said that this is an important correction since the planning and zoning code mandates that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of the Transportation and Public Works Department must be consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Staff said that this error would be submitted to PRMD as a technical correction.
V. Other Business & Announcements
There was no other business and there were no announcements.
VI. Next Meeting & Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 16.