Meeting Announcement: Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 Time: 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Place: Sonoma County Transit 355 West Robles Avenue Santa Rosa, California Staff: Steven Schmitz Phone: (707) 585-7516 e-Mail: steven@sctransit.com

 

 

 

Agenda:

 

I. Introductions & Public Comments (10 Minutes)

 

II. Approval of Agenda & Minutes (10 Minutes)

 

III. Staff Reports (20 Minutes)

 

- Update on Environmental Analysis for Draft Bike & Pedestrian Plan.

- Status of Future Permit Requirements for Large Bicycle Events.

- Progress on Western Avenue Class II Bicycle Lane Project.

- Phase II “Share the Road” Caution Signs Project.

 

IV. General Meeting:

 

A.  Review and consider recommending approval of the Final Administrative Draft of the Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.  (60 Minutes)

 

V. Other Business & Announcements (15 Minutes)

 

VI. Next Meeting & Adjournment (5 Minutes)

 

Next meeting of the Sonoma Co. BPAC is scheduled for Wednesday, February 17, 2010.

 

November 18, 2009 Minutes   

 

Members in attendance:                                           

                                                                                               

Bernie Album - 2^nd District                                 

Joe Morgan - 2^nd District (alt.)                            

Vin Hoagland - 3^rd District                                  

Richard Burg - 4^th District

Bill Harrison - 4^th District (alt.)

Tim Gonzalez - 5^th District                               

Other Participants:

Other Participants:     

                                     

Ken Tam - Regional Parks

Gary Helfrich - PRMD Planning

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 18, 2009 meeting was approved as presented.  The minutes from the October 21, 2009 meeting were approved with Richard Burg abstaining.

 

III. Staff Reports

 

Gary Helfrich reported that preparation of the environmental document for the Draft Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is underway and, at this point, is scheduled to be brought before the Sonoma County Environmental Review Committee (ERC) in January 2010.  After the environmental document, which is called a Mitigated Negative Declaration, is presented to the ERC, the draft plan and environmental document will be released for public review and comments prior to public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.  

 

Regarding the status of requiring permits for future large bicycle events in Sonoma County, Joe Morgan reported that Yuba County, Napa County and Lake County all limit bicycle events to 1,000 participants.  These counties also require clearance from the California Highway Patrol and prohibit markings on any roadways.  Staff also mentioned that paint markings are prohibited on any Sonoma County roadways.  If paint markings are used, then they must be covered over by organizers immediately after the event.  Instead, chalk or powdered lime is recommended, which wears off with traffic in a few days.  As a condition of permitting large bicycle events in the future, the Transportation and Public Works Department would like to propose restricting the use of paint on roadways to mark bicycle events.  Staff said that this issue would be included for further discussion on the committee’s agenda for the February and/or March meetings.

 

Staff said that there was nothing new to report on the Western Avenue Class II bicycle lane project.  Staff also reported that Chip Roberson had recently requested that consideration be given to using alternative language for the “Share the Road” warning signs.  In the past, it has been suggested that the words “Watch for Bicyclists” might be more effective to accompany the bicycle warning signs.  Unfortunately, this specific language has not yet been approved in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  The Transportation and Public Works Department has said that they would not install traffic signs that do not adhere to the MUTCD standards. 

 

Staff recommended that phase 2 installations of the bicycle warning signs should be delayed until the “Watch for Bicyclist” language can be included in the updated Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.  After approval of the updated plan and/or inclusion of the language in the MUTCD, the committee could then decide which alternative language should accompany the bicycle warning signs for phase 2.  The committee agreed and directed staff to include the alternative language in the draft plan.             

 

Ken Tam reported that Regional Parks would begin construction of the Ross Station Road trailhead parking lot for the West County Trail in December.  Ken also mentioned that Mary Burns, Director of Sonoma County Regional Parks, would be retiring in November 2010.

 

IV. General Meeting      

 

A. Consider recommending that Measure ‘M’ funding be programmed to study Highway 101 bike/pedestrian overcrossings in the unincorporated areas. 

 

Gary Helfrich said that Measure ‘M’ includes $1,000,000 to identify key east-west access points for bicyclists and pedestrians across Highway 101 in Sonoma County.  The County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) is willing to take the lead on such a study.  The focus would be along Highway 101 between the Town of Windsor and the City of Petaluma, both in the unincorporated areas as well as within respective city limits.  The first phase of the study would identify needs and opportunities and potential locations, while a second phase would select specific locations and develop more design details.

 

Staff said that the Measure ‘M’ funding for the proposed study is not currently included in the five-year strategic funding plan.  The first step would be to request that Measure ‘M’ funding be included in the next update of the strategic plan.  This would take place through the Sonoma County Transportation Authority’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).  The Measure ‘M’ strategic plan is updated every two years and the most recent update was completed in 2009.  So, the next opportunity to request that Measure ‘M’ funding for the study is included in the strategic plan would be 2011.  And funding for the study then might not actually become available until 2015 or 2016.  Therefore, Measure ‘M’ funding would be more appropriate for phase 2 of the study.  Another funding source, such as a Caltrans planning grant, should be sought to expedite completion of phase 1 of the study.

 

The committee members thanked Gary and County PRMD for offering to take the lead on a Highway 101 bike and pedestrian overcrossing study.  They concurred that the focus of the study should be between Windsor and Petaluma including all of the cities and the unincorporated areas located along Highway 101 between those two points.  Staff was directed to prepare a memo on behalf of the committee to PRMD supporting their pursuit of funding to complete phase 1 of the study.  The committee also recommended that PRMD seek support from the Sonoma County Transportation Authority and all of the cities that would be involved, including Windsor, Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati and Petaluma.  

       

V. Other Business & Announcements

 

Staff said that a memorandum from committee member Bernie Album was distributed to the entire committee during the September 2009 meeting.  The memo discussed Bernie’s concerns with a couple of policies in Sections 1 and 2 of the Draft Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.  Bernie thanked staff and the committee for the time to answer his questions.  Regarding the question of how to appropriately stripe for Class II bicycle lanes adjacent to parallel on-street parking, Gary Helfrich said that Class II striping standards adjacent to on-street parking are different for commercial areas versus residential areas.  In commercial areas, a second 4-inch stripe or parking crosses should be included to the left of the on-street parking.  In residential areas, however, where on-street parking spaces are unmarked and turnover is low, no striping or markings is necessary to the left of the on-street parking spaces.  These different scenarios are illustrated in the MUTCD.  

 

Bernie said that policy 2.09 regarding the proper placement of refuse collection containers adjacent to Class II bicycle lanes is still very confusing.  Gary responded that he would continue to work on improving the language for this policy but requiring refuse collection containers to be placed “two feet outside the edge of pavement” would most likely be used. And regarding the recommendation in policy 2.09 to encourage parallel parking and/or reverse-diagonal parking adjacent to Class II bicycle lanes, Gary distributed a consultant study to the committee summarizing the benefits of reverse-diagonal parking. 

 

Bernie said that diagonal parking, reverse or traditional, encourages more motor vehicle parking, which runs counter to the goals of the bicycle and pedestrian plan.  Tim Gonzalez said that reverse-diagonal parking is only a tool for allowing for more flexible street designs, such as permitting on-street parking on only one side of the street.  Studies have shown that reverse-diagonal as opposed to traditional diagonal parking is safer for bicyclists.  With no further comments, the committee agreed that the original policy should remain as is, encouraging parallel and/or reverse-diagonal parking adjacent to Class II bicycle lanes.

 

VI. Next Meeting & Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.