I will say I was surprised by the staff report on this item, especially as (1) the council had voted at their last meeting to convert OSAC into the new commission that includes Open Space, Bikes (or active transportation, even better) and Sustainability; and (2) it appeared to me that the next step was to have OSAC discuss modification to the resolution and flush out the details on the work plan so they could go back to council for their review and decision making. I heard from the city manager after the last council meeting that he was going to recommend the council appoint two council members to an ad-hoc committee to come to OSAC’s next meeting to work with us. That made sense to me, but I don’t see that recommendation included in the staff report.
Given the “it’s complicated”, it sounds like having the council discuss items 1-8 is good. But items 9-17 are work plan questions, so I would expect they would fall into OSAC’s court to flush out what we propose on each item, including roles and then bring the work plan back to council to discuss further. I’m assuming we would also consider be adding active transportation and sustainability items to the work plan. I am also a bit confused by the “who decides” sentence at the bottom of the staff report – does that refer to the 17 questions there or to something else?
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition asks City Council to consider the following points as it discusses OSAC’s transition:
• We appreciate City staff’s thoughtful questions, and we request that City Council remain the decision-maker on the questions posed by City staff and on the ultimate question of who decides. These questions are standard with any evolving body, and typically staff would make a recommendation that answers the questions posed (or a small menu of options). City Council would then review the options and vote on the one it feels is best, as is or with amendments.
• We also ask that City Council consider responses that are less black and white than the format of the questions begs. For example, as with other advisory bodies, the priorities are not set by one entity or person, but rather are a combination of issues city staff and council believe to be important and issues that committee members would like to advise on.
• To be a true Active Transportation advisory body, we strongly recommend that Public Works is in regular attendance at these meetings in order to share the designs of roadway improvements and projects and receive feedback on those designs from the group as they pertain to bicycles, pedestrians, and Complete Streets. We also feel that “Active Transportation” rather than bicycles alone is best, as the most successful designs take into consideration the needs of users of all modes.
• We would like to see the addition of a new member to the commission to represent bicycle concerns and advice, in particular. We specify bicycles here rather than Active Transportation because while most people have the regular experience of walking, not all people are experienced bicyclists. As well, bicycle infrastructure tends to be somewhat more technical, evolving, and extensive, and some familiarity and expertise would prove to be helpful.
• As a reminder, these committees take on little work themselves. They typically “advise” much more than they “do.” The Climate Ad-Hoc Committee's Climate Action Plan (*assuming it will be a City plan*) would be primarily the responsibility of the City to implement as with other city plans like the Bike Plan.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our input. Biking and Active Transportation is a solution to some of the toughest health and environmental challenges we face, and elevating Active Transportation will result in a community that feels better and is more sustainable.
Thank you for your attention to this topic.
I will say I was surprised by the staff report on this item, especially as (1) the council had voted at their last meeting to convert OSAC into the new commission that includes Open Space, Bikes (or active transportation, even better) and Sustainability; and (2) it appeared to me that the next step was to have OSAC discuss modification to the resolution and flush out the details on the work plan so they could go back to council for their review and decision making. I heard from the city manager after the last council meeting that he was going to recommend the council appoint two council members to an ad-hoc committee to come to OSAC’s next meeting to work with us. That made sense to me, but I don’t see that recommendation included in the staff report.
Given the “it’s complicated”, it sounds like having the council discuss items 1-8 is good. But items 9-17 are work plan questions, so I would expect they would fall into OSAC’s court to flush out what we propose on each item, including roles and then bring the work plan back to council to discuss further. I’m assuming we would also consider be adding active transportation and sustainability items to the work plan. I am also a bit confused by the “who decides” sentence at the bottom of the staff report – does that refer to the 17 questions there or to something else?
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition asks City Council to consider the following points as it discusses OSAC’s transition:
• We appreciate City staff’s thoughtful questions, and we request that City Council remain the decision-maker on the questions posed by City staff and on the ultimate question of who decides. These questions are standard with any evolving body, and typically staff would make a recommendation that answers the questions posed (or a small menu of options). City Council would then review the options and vote on the one it feels is best, as is or with amendments.
• We also ask that City Council consider responses that are less black and white than the format of the questions begs. For example, as with other advisory bodies, the priorities are not set by one entity or person, but rather are a combination of issues city staff and council believe to be important and issues that committee members would like to advise on.
• To be a true Active Transportation advisory body, we strongly recommend that Public Works is in regular attendance at these meetings in order to share the designs of roadway improvements and projects and receive feedback on those designs from the group as they pertain to bicycles, pedestrians, and Complete Streets. We also feel that “Active Transportation” rather than bicycles alone is best, as the most successful designs take into consideration the needs of users of all modes.
• We would like to see the addition of a new member to the commission to represent bicycle concerns and advice, in particular. We specify bicycles here rather than Active Transportation because while most people have the regular experience of walking, not all people are experienced bicyclists. As well, bicycle infrastructure tends to be somewhat more technical, evolving, and extensive, and some familiarity and expertise would prove to be helpful.
• As a reminder, these committees take on little work themselves. They typically “advise” much more than they “do.” The Climate Ad-Hoc Committee's Climate Action Plan (*assuming it will be a City plan*) would be primarily the responsibility of the City to implement as with other city plans like the Bike Plan.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our input. Biking and Active Transportation is a solution to some of the toughest health and environmental challenges we face, and elevating Active Transportation will result in a community that feels better and is more sustainable.