Road and Street Standards Email Chain
on the web at: https://sodacanyonroad.org/forum.php?p=1224
Gary Margadant | Apr 14, 2016

From: gsmargadant@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Napa County RSS
Date: April 14, 2016 11:51:25 AM PDT
To: David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org, Steve.Lederer@countyofnapa.org

David, Steven, Rick

Please see the following email with my comments to Nate Galambos concerning the Napa County Road and Street Standards. I believe this to be a modest proposal to help the residents, planners and industry begin a conversation on cumulative impacts that are beginning to appear on all roads in Napa County.

We, NapaVision 2050, are particularly interested in the impacts moving into the hills and watersheds off the valley floor, where the rural residents have their homes and the beauty of the Napa Hillsides. The health and safety of these residents depends on the roads for ingress and egress, especially during large events, dangerous events and disasters. Their safe travel can be impeded by cumulative impacts that slow and even obstruct their passage upon the roads.

Currently, discretionary use permit applications are vetted with a comparison of similar and nearby use permits of size (production limits) with the employee, visitor, event guests and staff noted, yet not used to indicate the increased use of the roads and the additional impacts. Rather, traffic analysis is completed under an engineering system of observation and estimation that is such a short window of analysis precluding any review of cumulative impacts after the completion of the project where the impacts begin to become evident. Napa County can do better.

The residents and public would like a more rigorous system of comparison that begins with a transparent discussion of the total activity moving into the hilly watersheds they call home. Road and traffic analysis begins in the NC Dept of Public Works, and we urge them to look to this comparative information as a starting point in the discussion.

Best Regards, Gary

-------------------------
From: gsmargadant@gmail.com
Subject: Napa County RSS
Date: April 13, 2016 3:02:13 PM PDT
To: ngalambo@co.napa.ca.us

Hi Nate

I want to add a last thought to the discussion on the NC RSS proposal.

Our group has spoken about the Cumulative Effect of traffic on rural roads, Soda Canyon is an example, with the increased use of the road for Residential and Commercial Uses.

Soda canyon is a long cul de sac, with 12 miles of road in various degrees of condition, slope, width, road surface, etc., and yet there is no Napa County evaluation of this road based on the RSS standards or CalTrans standards. Such evaluations would greatly assist the residents and businesses to evaluate their plans for using the road as their needs require.

The evaluation would be similar to the Mt Veeder Technical Analysis for road construction stability, but evaluated against the standards mentioned.

The cumulative effect becomes very evident during concentrated events and disasters. This is our concern and we want to county to do a better job of evaluating the problems during such events based on the occupancy of all uses throughout the road length. The concentrated events can be construction, harvest, winery events, large parties, earthquakes and fires. We suggest the county have a cumulative count of all possible residents, employees, possible construction, commercial activity, winery visitation, winery events, etc. to help them estimate the potential for difficulties to provide for the health and safety of all road users. This number would be used during the evaluation for discretionary use permits and the resulting addition to the recognized impacts of previous evaluations.

The comparison could simply be the Occupancy based on the uses, the length of the road and the conditions of the road. Essentially, a list of the cumulative impacts.

The current evaluation for Discretionary uses rests solely on the traffic analysis, which in my opinion are very inadequate and unreliable in determining the cumulative impacts. Simply observing the road traffic on one or two days per year and adding analysis based on estimates is is only a partial solution. Adding a cumulative analysis mention above, would go a long way and begin to provide the residents with some vital information to evaluate their situation.

Publishing this information would certainly increase aspirin use, but I feel the transparency is a vital ingredient for public trust and participation.

An educated and informed group of residents can certainly evaluate the situation and even participate in the preparations for difficulties resulting from these large events. CERT Training (Citizen Emergency Response Team) can provide local assistance when large events and disasters stretch emergency and County response.

Best Regards, Gary

----------------------
From: gsmargadant@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Napa County Road and Street Standards, Meeting 4/7/16, 9-12am
Date: April 11, 2016 10:43:03 PM PDT
To: David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org

David,

Again, thank you for your time and effort. As we see from our view, the tangle of cross jurisdictions, compartmentalization, public unknowns and assumptions, it is more than difficult to find the triggers and address the issues. It is certainly hard to find the keys to the cumulative impact door and register our thoughts and concerns to the party of record. I can only compare the search to a joist with windmills or fighting the blob; our path has not been clear.

You have proved to be helpful and consistent, addressing our concerns with thoughtful correspondence, and I thank you.

Here is my takeaway:
    -Public Road Standards are addressed by the local cities and counties, not by the Board of Forestry.
    -Private Drive and Commercial Drive Standards (off the Public Roadways) are addressed by the Board of Forestry through their RSS as administered by their certified agent, Napa County and the Dept of Public Works.
    -Public Road Standards, established by the Counties and CalTrans, are the determining factors for the design, maximum capacity, speed and additional factors determining road safety.
    -Public Road safety for all conditions of use, including cumulative impacts and disasters, are regularly reviewed by the Public Works Department with each development application.
    -Private Drives and Commercial Drives, off the Public Roadways, under all conditions of use, including cumulative impacts and disasters, are regularly reviewed by the Public Works Department with each development application.

The fourth and fifth bullet may be open to some interpretation, but at the very least, it is the door, through which the Public, Private and Commercial Road cumulative impacts and disaster impacts pass, to be investigated and addressed.

Hopefully, there are no windmills once through that door.

Warmest Regards, Gary

-----------------------
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Morrison, David wrote:

Gary,

The State regulates private development. Public road standards are adopted by local cities and counties, not the State, which is why the Board of Forestry does not address them.

The "triggers" you are looking for are found in the standards established by the County and CalTrans for public roads. They take into account design, maximum capacity, speed, and other factors in determining road safety, and are regularly reviewed by the Public Works Department with each development application.

David

------------------------
From: gsmargadant@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Napa County Road and Street Standards, Meeting 4/7/16, 9-12am
Date: April 9, 2016 10:41:05 PM PDT
To: David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org

David,

Many thanks for the review and research on the parameters of evacuation and road adequacy. It was a thorough discussion, but it does bring up a very poignant point: If the Roads are OK to handle a large evacuation with ingress and egress of people, cars and emergency vehicles and personnel, then why is the CA State Board of Forestry so concerned with the Road and Street Standards for Private and Commercial Roads? It makes me wonder about their driving concern for the focus on this current need to re-certify all counties administering the regulations? Are the public roads conditions and construction of no concern to the movement during a disaster, and the focus is only on the private and commercial access roads?

The last several years of wildfires have put a different emphasis on the access to buildings and wildfire areas, yet the public roads do not seem to be a source of concern. If the road is overburdened by the cumulative additions of vehicle trips and congestion, then one wonders why it is even necessary to be concerned about upgrading the private and commercial access? There have to be some triggers that point to a disaster in the making and provide a stop sign at the cumulative Rubicon.

I can't say I could put on a Planners Hat to find the solution. Do you have any insight that might help or a reference for research and an answer? Is this a better question for Peter Munoa at the State level.

Gary

-----------------------
From: gsmargadant@gmail.com
Subject: Public Works Engineering Assessment of Mt Veeder Road
Date: April 8, 2016 11:37:44 PM PDT
To: protectruralnapa@gmail.com

After a discussion with Diane, I am passing on this NC Dept of Public Works stability assessment of Mt Veeder Road.

Here is the engineering review completed on Mt Veeder Road. The review only dealt with the stability of the underlying soils, the road structures and any weaknesses in the culverts carrying water under the road. It did not deal with the slopes of the road, compliance with the NC and State Dept of Forestry Road and Street Standards, pavement conditions and safety for any emergency vehicles or residents. It certainly did not deal with the capacity of the road during normal daily use nor emergency operations during medical or disaster emergencies. Cumulative impacts impairing road use are neighter discussed nor evaluated. It is simply a narrow report.

But this is a start that needs to be used as a stepping stone into the NC Risk Management Plan and the NC Hazardous Mitigation. There is more information to follow provided by David Morrison.

------------------------
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Morrison, David wrote:
Gary,

Barry, Nate, and I look forward to seeing you at the next NC RSS workshop.

Two-lane rural roads typically are able to accommodate hundreds of cars per hour at maximum capacity, even in mountainous terrain. I haven't yet seen any indication, from either the public or from Public Works, that capacity is being reached on Soda Canyon Road.

With regards to your request for a risk analysis of the road design for the SMR Vineyard Winery, I'm afraid we cannot assist you in that effort. To begin with, we don't analyze public and private roads for their maximum design capacity or prepare individualized evacuation plans for each road. That's not how emergency planning is carried out. The fire hazard section in the 2013 Napa County Operational Area Hazards Mitigation Plan (OAHMP) focuses on: (1) defensible space; (2) Firewise Councils; (3) fuel reduction; (4) EOC training; and (5) reducing fire ignition. In general, the focus of the OAHMP is to minimize the potential for wildfires, thereby reducing the risk and the need for emergency evacuations.

Similarly, the purpose of the Fire Management Plan prepared by Cal-Fire is to identify the high value, high-risk areas within the county so as to plan for reducing the damaging effects of wildfire. This is accomplished through a comprehensive approach designed to minimize the costs and losses due to wildfire by a variety of means, including response planning, cooperative fuel reduction projects, fire prevention, and education.

Neither the County nor Cal-Fire have evacuation plans, as they would need to be specific to the type and location of the disaster. An evacuation plan for a wildfire will be different than one needed for a flood, and both will be different than one needed for an earthquake or hazardous materials spill. In short, there are too many potential scenarios to effectively prepare detailed contingencies for each possibility. In general, the goal of wildfire evacuations is to maintain egress routes while continuing the reduction of sources of ignition. The ability to move is important for not only the public safety but for the fire resources to mitigate the incident.

The third place to look would be the General Plan. Two policies may be of particular interest. The first policy notes that safety hazards are only considered when involving projects serving 50 people or more in hazard-prone areas. As such, facilities such as the SMR Winery and others would not meet this minimum threshold. The second policy indicates that traffic ingress/egress is only one consideration to be used when assessing the fire safety of new development.

Policy SAF-3: The County shall evaluate potential safety hazards when considering General Plan Amendments, re-zonings, or other project approvals (including but not limited to new residential developments, roads or highways, and all structures proposed to be open to the public and serving 50 persons or more) in areas characterized by:

1) Slopes over 15 percent,
2) Identified landslides,
3) Floodplains,
4) Medium or high fire hazard severity,
5) Former marshlands, or
6) Fault zones.

Policy SAF-20: All new development shall comply with established fire safety standards. Design plans shall be referred to the appropriate fire agency for comment as to:

1) Adequacy of water supply.
2) Site design for fire department access in and around structures.
3) Ability for a safe and efficient fire department response.
4) Traffic flow and ingress/egress for residents and emergency vehicles.
5) Site-specific built-in fire protection.
6) Potential impacts to emergency services and fire department response.

In summary, neither PBES, Public Works, Risk Management, or Cal-Fire currently perform this type of analysis, because it is not germane to how we approach emergency response. Preparing a study like this would require diverting staff resources from established County and Board of Supervisor priorities.

Please accept my apologies. I don't recall making a reference to the Sacramento Land Use Commission, nor am I sure what group to which you are referring. Local Government Commission? Council of Governments?

The NCOAHMP is about 25 MB is size. The County email system cannot accommodate including such a large attachment. We can burn you a CD or thumb drive of the file, if you would like.

Unfortunately, we cannot assist you further with your request, but look forward to continuing the dialogue regarding appropriate road standards within the State Responsibility Area.

David


------------------
From: Gary Margadant [mailto:gsmargadant@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Morrison, David
Subject: Napa County Road and Street Standards, Meeting 4/7/16, 9-12am

David

A short note to outline my areas of concern and proposals.

As I have related in the past, the Risks of isolation to rural areas like Soda Canyon (a good example) with residents along the road and a sizable concentration at the top (Foss Valley) with heavy coverage of Vineyards and a the attached agricultural operations. Wineries are in attendance with plans to expand visitor numbers, all adding to the traffic load and Risks for this long cul de sac.

Soda Canyon is the Ingress/Egress for all these operations and residents and the neighbors are concerned about the ability of the Road to carry this traffic during a disaster, which includes the added traffic of emergency personnel and vehicles attending to the needs in the area.

What is the Tipping Point when the amount of people and activities will overwhelm the Road's ability to provide adequate travel for all the needs during a disaster. Essentially, the road is unable to provide for the Health and Safety of these people and the emergency personnel.

You mentioned, in another meeting, that the Napa County Risk Management Plan might be the vehicles to evaluate the capacity of such Roads as Soda Canyon. I think this method holds great potential and I want to suggest an evaluation of two recent RSS projects to porovide examples of this analysis: Phelan Residence - P12-00265-UP, and 3646 SMR Vineyards Winery Use Permit #P14-00327. Both required extensive road work and exceptions based on the old RSS Standards.

Is this analysis something that Kerry Whitney or his department could provide?

I would like a copy of the NC Risk Management Plan to begin research on this promising avenue.

-----------------
On Mar 27, 2016, at 10:15 PM, Gary Margadant wrote:

Helene, Barry and David

Many thanks for your help and participation at the meeting to discuss the Road Risks and the use of RSS.

We are very interested in continuing the discussion in addition to our participation in the April 7 Stakeholder meeting on the NC RSS proposals.

Hopefully, research into the NC Hazard Management Plan and our desire to find the tipping point when the roads become a hindrance to safe ingress and egress during an emergency event. I would like to see such an analysis of such risks for the road design into 3646 SMR Vineyards Winery, Use Permit #P14-00327, for a broader discussion the same overall practical effect and the technical nature of Risk Management withing NC.

Is this something performed by Kerry Whitney? Perhaps a meeting to discuss the subjects?

David mentioned the Sacramento Land Use Commission proceeding might be helpful in our discussion. Any pointers for search subjects?

Thanks again for your time and efforts. It was a very useful meeting.


copyright © sodacanyonroad.org