|
Date:
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 Staff: Steven Schmitz |
![]()
|
Agenda:
I. Introductions & Public Comments
(5 Minutes)
II. Approval of Agenda & Minutes
(5 Minutes)
III. Staff Reports
(10 Minutes)
- Western Avenue
- Santa Rosa Creek Trail
Class I Multi-Use Pathway Project.
- Requested Conditions for
Proposed New
IV. General Meeting:
A.
Proposed Policies and Programs (60 Minutes)
V. Other Business & Announcements
(5 Minutes)
VI. Next Meeting & Adjournment
(5 Minutes)
Next meeting of the Sonoma County BPAC is scheduled for Wednesday,
July 15, 2009.
May 27, 2009 Minutes
Members in Attendance:
Sherry Adams - 1st District
Mary Clemens - 1st District (Alt.)
Bernie Album - 2nd District
Joe Morgan - 2nd District (Alt.)
Vin Hoagland - 3rd District
Richard Burg - 4th District (Vice-Chair)
Tim Gonzalez - 5th District (Chair)
Nancy Rappolt - 5th District (Alt.)
Other Participants:
Janice Eunice - 1st District Resident
Mike Eunice - 1st District Resident
Gary Helfrich - PRMD - Planning
Ken Tam - Regional Parks
Steven Schmitz - SCBPAC Staff
Meeting Summary
Self-introductions were made. There were no public comments.
II. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
The agenda for the May 27, 2009 meeting was approved as presented. The minutes from the March 18, 2009 meeting were approved as presented.
III. Staff Reports
Staff reported that funding for the Western Avenue Class II bicycle lane project has now been fully secured and construction is scheduled for next summer. Ken Tam reported that a public hearing before the Regional Parks Commission was conducted on Monday, May 18. Approximately half of the public at the meeting spoke in favor of the project and half spoke in opposition to the project. While no formal action was taken during the meeting, the commission unofficially expressed their support of the project and gave staff direction to move forward. Ken said that the next step would be to post a notice regarding the Negative Declaration for the project. Then, the project would be bid with construction anticipated to begin in September or October.
Staff said that a letter to the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) was submitted on behalf of the committee requesting more flexibility in trail setback requirements proposed in the NCRA’s Draft Rail with Trail Guidelines. A letter of support on behalf of the committee was also provided to Regional Parks for their proposed Safe Routes to Schools grant for a portion of the Central Sonoma Valley Trail project. Ken Tam also mentioned that a Bikes Belong grant request to construct a short pedestrian pathway between the Colgan Creek Trail and an adjacent elementary school was unsuccessful.
IV. General Meeting
A.
Gary Helfrich distributed copies of the Sonoma County Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan Administrative Draft, including a proposed Table of
Contents, and a proposed Goal, Objectives and Policies covering
Administration, Bikeway Selection, Design and Maintenance,
Integration with Transit, and Pedestrian Facilities.
These were provided first because they are considered to be
the heart of the plan.
Regarding the proposed Goal, Bernie Album suggested and the
committee agreed that the words “bicycle and pedestrian network”
should be added to the language.
And regarding Objective # 6, the committee agreed that the
language should be changed to from “50% by the year 2020” to “2% per
year based on the number of trips.”
Sherry Adams questioned whether the proposed objectives
adequately address the connection between land-use and
transportation. Staff
pointed out that policy 4.08 under Pedestrian Facilities encourages
compact, high density pedestrian-oriented development in Pedestrian
Districts. Otherwise,
Vin Hoagland said that he could not find a policy regarding the
education of bicyclists and motorists about the importance of
obeying all traffic laws and sharing the road.
Regarding the proposed Bikeway Selection, Design and Maintenance
policies, staff requested that the word “and” be deleted from the
first sentence of Policy 2.01.
Bernie Album said that criteria # 4 under Policy 2.01
regarding pavement surface quality should address the negative
impacts to bicyclists of certain chip seal overlays.
Sherry Adams said that this issue would be more appropriate
to address under Policies 2.08 and 2.09, which
prescribe the minimum standards for Class II and III bicycle
facilities. Bernie
agreed and added that the accumulation of debris on bridges should
also be addressed as a maintenance issue under Policies 2.08 and
2.09. Ken Tam expressed
some concerns regarding Policy 2.07, which proposes a 10-foot
minimum pathway width for Class I facilities.
This would not be achievable as a Class I standard in many
areas, given right-of-way constraints.
Sherry Adams encouraged staff and the committee to consider devising a policy that prescribes standards for a “three-lane multi-use pathway” that could be provided at narrow areas of Class I facilities. Such a three-lane pathway, which has been designed on such pathways as the American River Trail, would separate pedestrians from bicyclists at narrow bridges. Gary and Ken said that they would research such a design standards and return to the committee with their recommendations. Sherry said that, on a similar note, a policy should be considered that would require that detours on Class I facilities must be similar to detours for motor vehicles on roadways. In other words, completely closing off a Class I trail during the day should not be acceptable, unless convenient detours are also offered.
Sherry also asked whether it would be appropriate to devise a policy
that would permit flexibility in zoning for land-use adjacent to
Class I pathways to allow for some types of retail development that
would provide services to trail users.
With no further comments regarding Bikeway Selection, Design and Maintenance policies, Gary said that he’d like to outline the overall plan adoption process and to the committee. After the committee has completed their review of the remainder of the policies, the plan will be packaged together with the list of projects and maps, as well as the other programs and background information which have been outlined in the proposed Table of Contents and appendices. An environmental document called a “Negative Declaration” would then be prepared and presented to the Sonoma County Environmental Review Committee (ERC), a process that is anticipated to take approximately 6 months. After approval by the ERC, the plan would be presented to the Sonoma County Planning Commission for additional feedback. The Planning Commission would then recommend the plan to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to consider it for adoption. Assuming no ongoing delay in funding for the environmental document, the plan could go before the Board of Supervisors for their consideration as early as February 2010
V. Other
Business & Announcements
Vin Hoagland mentioned that it appeared that construction on
VI. Next Meeting & Adjournment
Staff said that because feedback was only received from the
committee on the Bikeway Selection, Design and Maintenance policies,
the committee should review and be prepared to provide their
feedback on the Administration, Integration with Transit, and
Pedestrian Facilities policies during the June meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.
Transit Information: 707.576.7433 or 800-345-7433
Hearing Impaired (TDD): 707.585.9817
All Copy and Images Copyright © 1998-2008 Sonoma County Transit All
Rights Reserved.
Web Design and Hosting by
Great-Webs.Com