HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05/10/2001May 10, 2001
2
3 _ ~.
4
5
6
8
Vol. 36, Page t1'9
Thursday, May 10, 200.1
Council Chambers
~ The Petaluma City Council met on this day at :3:00. P:M: ih the Council. Chambers.
io e. .
it ROLL CALL.
12
13 PRESENT: .-Vice. Mayor Caller-Thompson., , Council Members Healy, Maguire,
14 'Moynihan, O'.Brien, Healy; Mayor Thompson; and Council Member Tor.l.iatt
15
16
i~ ABSENT: None
is
i9 PUBLIC COMMENT
20
21 Terrence Gamey; $3 Maria Drive, thought °the Council should completely .rescind its
22 campaign reform legislation; if was hastily devised,,.had insufficient research and input.
23
24 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, stated that campaign finance reform was something
2s the Council needed to address; otherwise, it gave: rise to corruption.
26
27 Vince Landoff, 12 Cordelia Drive, wanted to reiterate his request from Monday night
2s regarding curbing of speeding and possible installation of speed bumps and/or stop
29 signs on Gray-.Lawn Avenue.
30
31 He requesfed:.the Council leave the campaign finance reform the way it is and feels that
32 it will safeguard against' politicians being, bought and paid to represent only the. special
33 interest"`people instead of the City wide residents.
34 ' ' '
35 Mary G:lardon, 105:-Rushmore Avenue; voiced her disapproval of the direction and
36 actions ~of 'the new Council majority. She .criticized the -lack. of leadership during
37 meetings. and the manner in which the agendas were managed. She- fjelieved too many
3s "hot button". items were placed on agendas making it impossible for input and
39 discussion of major. community issues.
40 - ..
41 Diane Reilly Torres; Rainer Avenue, was discouraged by a new City requirement to pay
42 $.15 per page for council meeting packet materials. She encouraged the Council to
43 consider rnaking,~the information available online at the City's web site making. it
44 .economical.;and having it more readily available to the public.
45
:city of Petaluma, California
'Minutes: of a. Special
..City Council Meeting
Vol. 36 Page: 1`20
May 10, 200:1 `
i Couneil Me.mbec Torliatt stated that she was. in agreement with putting the agenda
2 items on-line to sallow citizens to view and make comments online.
3
,_~
4 Council Member Healy agreed with Ms. Torliatt s comments.: He announced that he had
s just received the .agenda packet for next ~ Monday's SCTA (Sonoma County
6 Transportation: Authority) meeting .and stated that ~if anyone .was interested in having. a
~ copy of the discussion on the project list they could pick it up today at 3OO~P.M. at no
s cost.
9
o Councif Member O'Brien stated fhaf one state agency he 'knew of charged $5.00 for:the
it front page and. $1.00 #or every page :after that; fie thought. $.15 per page was
i2 reasonab1e:
13
14 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson believed that copies should: be made available to, the
is public allowing them sufficient time fo review and respond before: -any given, Council
i6 meeting. She added. there were people who could not afford to purchase packet.,
i~ materials eery week. She suggested a checkout process through the public, library for
rs members of the public :wh`o were. interested. She then .referred to #wo letters she
received, one: from Linda Spiro of Rohnerf Park; and on,e from Debora;.. Fudge. of
20 Windsor;. regarding the LAFCO (Local. Agency ,Formation Committee'). app.ointm,ent:
21 The appointment was ~an item on the Mayors'' ,and G.ouncilmembers' agenda for that
22 evening;; she requested~that°-the Couneil make-a decision about who the Mayor was to
23 vote for in their behalf be added to the agenda.
24
Zs Mayor' Thompson atated that he submitfed a letter requesting .a postponement for~the
26 appointment until~'the next'M'ayors' and Councilmembers' meeting.
27
2s Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson thought that since if was to be voted on tonight, it
29 qualified as an emergency item and could be add°ed to the agenda.
30
31 Council Member Healy disagreed stating that Couneil .had been on notice that this was
32 on the Mayors' and Councilmembers' .agenda for fonight and 'therefore did .not .qualify
33 as a Brown Act exception. H'e agreed with the Mayor to Have it properly: scheduled on
34 an upcoming:agenda.
3s
36 Mayor Thornps:on said 'that he would request the Mayors' and Co,uncilmembers'
37 posfpone the discussion .to the following week's .:meeting` so that it could b~e properly
3s agendized for discussion and action: ~ -
39
4o Councia Member `Torl.iaft said she did not think the Mayors' and Councilmember:.s'~ would
41 hold up their meeting because .one city did not give thei"r input.~and expressed thaf she.
42 thought it houl'd be added to the agenda tonight.
43
44 Mayor Thompson stated that; it; h.ad happened. 'in 'the past and the Mayors' and
4s Councilmembers' agreed to postpone an item to~ a subsequent meeting so that every..
May 10, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 121
1 city had the: opportunity to schedule it on their agenda for Council discussion and
2 "action.
3
4 Council Member Torliatt expressed concern that the Mayors' and Councilmembers'
s ~"would not postpone the decision.
6
. ~ Mayor Thompson replied that it was not an emergency; he wanted to move on with the
s 'meeting.
9
to Council Member Moynihan requested Mayor Thompson to work with City Manager Fred
11 Stouder to schedu a on an upcoming Council. agenda a discussion regarding AB 1600
12 compliance for the benefit of the public.
13
14 Mayor Thompson said that he would speak to Mr. Stouder as well as the City Attorney
is to find out what the legal concerns were for the City and report back to Council Member
i~ Moynihan.
1~
is Council Member Maguire expressed his opposition to Council Member Moynihan's
19 request. He stated that. Finance Director Bill Thomas previously reported to the Council
20 that the City of Petaluma. was not in jeopardy. He thought that the request was a veiled
21 developers. attempt to disrriantle the workings of the local government at was
22 detrimental to fhe well being of the public. He thought it-would be a waste of time for the
23 City and members of the Council.
24
2s .Mayor Thompson acknowledged Councilman Maguire's concerns and replied that he
26 wanted assurance from fhe City Attorney that the. City was .not in jeopardy.
2~
zs Vice Mayor Cader=Thompson thought requests of this nature had become a continual
29 problem since the new Council took office in January. In her opinion, it resulted in
3o Council manipulation and disrespect to staff. She wanted the Council to have a
31 discussion regarding Council. conduct; she did not believe that Council was conducting
32 the business of the public in a judicious manor.
33
34 Mayor Thompson. took- exception to the Vice Mayor's statements. He then reminded her
3s that she was .present at the last.-two or three agenda setting meetings with him and the
36 City Manager.,~He did not understand why she criticized the agenda when she played an
37 active role establishing it.
38
39 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson disagreed with the Mayor.
40
41- Council Member Torliatt requested the City abstain from any action the Mayors' and
42. Councilmembers' Association may take since Council had not determined who should
43 be~fhe LAFC.O representative.
44
Vol. 36, Page 122 May 10, 2001
1 Council Me ,tuber Healy, concurred. and requested the Mayor abstains should the Mayors'
2 and Councilmembers' move forward with the :appointment of a representative: to LAFCO
3 that night.
4
s Council Member Mo,,ynih-an expressed concern about-, processing :agendas and agenda
~ packets by the Gity Manager's office instead of the City Clerk's office: He referred. to the
Counci) Rules and Procedures and the Charter, ,which. defined the roles of the City
s Clerk and the City Manager. He did not think Phis change was appropriate, as the
9 Council did not agree upon or give direction to City- Management in the .matter; he
to wanted it corrected.
11
12 Council .Member O'B'rieh requested., scheduling. only one meeting per month during the
13 months of July and August so staff could have some sort of a vacation.
14
is U.NFINFSHED BUSINESS ~ -
16
1~ 1. Discussion and Possible Direction to Sonoma. County Transportation Author'ify
18 Representative (Council Member Healy) Regarding Countywide Transportation
19 Plan Project List. -
Zo
Z~i Mayor .Thompson requested. Council Member ..Healy;. as th:e Council's
22 re resentative, :to lead the discussion in 'the absence of Suzanne UVilfocd of the
P
23 Sonoma County Transportation Agency.
24
Zs Council Member Healy distributed a draft project list to the Council: and .noted
26 that the City was 'in receipt of baekgroand materials that .sup,p'orted .its:
27 development. SCTA would be asked to approve the list at its meeting on
2s Monday:
29
3o Vice Mayor Catler-Thompson asked if staff had a presentation for discussion::
31
32 Council Member Moynihan requested. a. clarification from 'Public Facilities and
33 Services Director Rick Skladzien and Budget, Grants, and Projects ,Manager:;
34 James Ryan regarding .changes made at the last SCTA meeting; he wanted to
3s know if the, were ,satisfied that .all. the changes made were: '.included.. He
Y
36 continued, regarding the, segment: of .Highway 101 that dropped betweenEast
37 Washington and Redwood Highway, was a misprint. and SCTA. intended to
3s correct it. Also regarding the widening of Old Redwood ,Highway .North to Cotati,
39 the description Council had before ;them did not' indicate' that it went all 'the way
4o to Highway 101 and he asked for clarification.
41
42 Public Facilities and Services. Director Rick 'Skladzien suggested Council.
43 consider requesting fhe Go.unty to evaluate the two county roads fhat connected
44 to Highway 101 and present them as extensions:.
45
May 10, 2001. Vol. 36; Page 123
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2~
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3.6
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Council Member Moynihan explained that Mr. Skladzien was. suggesting the
county road at Penngrove into the City limits at Highway 101 and from Highway
101 back out of the City limits continuing through the City limits back to Highway
101.
Mr. Skladzien added. that it would go through ahe factory outlet mall and that
section would be included ~in the improvement p'rojecf.
Council Member Moynihan voiced his support.
Council Member Healy commented that the ,addifion of items 13 and 14 to the
proposed .project list unnecessarily increased the -total cost of the project and
wanted them removed.
Mr. Skladzien reported that at an SCTA Technical Advisory Committee meeting
staff of the eight cities; one town, and the county established priorities.
Council Member Healy did not think item 9 was an appropriate priority.
Vice Mayor .Caller-Thompson replied. the road was not safe and should be a
priority considering the amount of traffic it~ carried each day.
Council. Member Healy wanted to know if widening the road was the appropriate
solution or perhaps safety solutions would be more reasonable.
Council Member Torliatt suggested that each Council Member state. their
concerns and any changes they wanted, _ hear from the public, and then Council
would move forward with a negotiating process.
Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson:
/ Move forward with the bicycle overcrossing on Highway 101 from the
Kenilworth site. to Stuart. Drive.; it would be removed for the widening of the
freeway and. she wanted to make sure it was rebuilt.
/ Keep the northbound on ramp on Washington a top priority:
/ Add Corona to the Iist..She added that she received correspondence from
Caltrans that. stated even though Corona had been. retrofitted they would
have to make an exception .because of the width under the freeway for a
HOV (..High Occupancy Vehicle) lane. Currently, . Corona was not wide
enough fora bike path or pedestrians. and it would need to be
reconstruefed in 25 years.
/ Old Redwood Highway should be a top priority; it cannot handle the traffic
in its current condition.
Vol. 36, Page 124'
May 10, 2001
1
2 Council Member ~Torfiatt:
3 '
4 / B.icycle over-crossing on Highway 101 from, the Kenilw,.orth `site to Stuart
5 Drive:
6
~ / Add :Corona as a full interchange.,; in, the 25-Year Regional Transportation
s Plan, it can be a regional connector.
9 •
io . ~ / Add. the Railroad Bridge to the list;` it was a regional. connector betwe.e,n
i i Marin and. Sonoma County,
12
13 / :Add the Petalu"ma_ River Enhancement .Plan Projects to the List as a part of
14 this so Council was able to ;request funding• when needed.
is
i~ / Prioritize:-the Rail Trail.
17
ig / Bursae :a Transportation Plan #or Sonoma County. She stated `that there
19 was a study done by SCTA sortie time.. ago but she was not sure: if the
Zo traffic counts and calculations: were true or accurate.
21
22 / Infrasfructure improvements to allow non-gas powered vehicles within the
23 county,.
24 '
zs Mayor Thompson:
26
27 / 1Nidening of Highway 10`1
2a
29 / Some sort of cross-town connector •
30
31 Council Member Maguire:
32
33 / Rail - he believed it would be'prudenf for rail to'occur first, o`there was an
34 alternative to relieve pressure: when work tarted to widen `tile freeway:
35
36 / Add Caulfield. as a cross-town connector to the ..list. He want'ed' to see the
37 results of. a cir,.culaton study.b,efore making any decision as fo adding it o:r
3s not; he was ~concerne'd that if ,Council specified :one location that it ;would,.
34 ~ ~affe.ct the objectivity of the circulafion study.
40' "
41 / Add porfions ,of. the Bicycle. ?lan to 'the list, .such as River` Enhancement
42 Ryan Project, Kenilworth over-crossing. .
43
44 / .Northbound onramp at VVashi,ngton,
45
May 10, 2001.. Vol. 36, Page 125
i
2
3
4
s
6
7
g
9
to
11
12
13
14
is
16
1~
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
/ Infrastructure improvements for natural gas,
/ Railroad Project
/ Bridge Project.
Council Member O'Brien thought Councils' suggestions .were good. However,
with the amount of projects and limited amount of money available`, a shorter list
would be better. The City might consider.a list of specific projects in line over a
25-year period. He added that he wanted:
/ Widening of Highway 101
/ Northern/southern cross-town connectors. He agreed with Council
Member Maguire preferred not to state a specific location. to another.
Council Member Maguire:
/ Trolley System; he thought it would be better environmentally, that is, it
was more cost effective and eliminated some traffic congestion.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bill Phillips; 824 Blossom Court, encouraged Council to have a circulation study
and not to make a selection that. would be costly to the community.
27 Vince Landoff, 12 Cordelia Drive, commented regarding a newspaper article that
2s stated the Planning Commission recommended to the Council recommitting to
29 the policy of waiting for the General Plan Traffic Analysis andModeling
3o scheduled to be completed this Fall. He agreed with .Council Member Maguire
31 about not: specifying a location fora cross-town connector but he did not want
32 Rainier to 'be .part of item #1. He replied to Council Member Healy regarding his
33 commenting that some people participating in the meetings just like to talk a long
34 time and stated that these are the people that -are interested im the`~,:governing
3s process of the City and all. the projects that come before Council for a decision.
36 -~
37 Mary Glardon, 105 Rushmore Avenue,, requested Council to leave options open
3s regarding the Countywide Transportation Plan Project List. She thought a
39 circulation study and review was necessary before. any decisions were made.
40
41 Rick Savel, 499 Adobe Road, asked when item #2, ~on Monday's agenda, which
42 was removed, would be re-agendized.
43
44 Mayor Thompson replied it would come back to the'Council in July or August.
45
Vol, 36, Page 126
May 10, 2001
i _ Mr. Savel commented that the Bypass Study that Smith and Kerns authorized
2 was bad :news and circulation needed to be changed. We thought there were big
3 problems and that survival of that community depended on the happened. He
4 requested Council member Moynihan to explain his reasoning and what.. exactly
s what improvements wanted with regard to item #4. He thought that it was
~ impgrtant :have placeholders without particular titles. He was not happy with the
7 MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) process relative to the North
s .Bay Corridor'of 1°998..
to Paul. Johnson, 141 'Upham. Street, was confused. about the profocol. He asked
i i what was the, mechanism used to get across-town. connector ort'o_ SCTA`s
12 priorities list: ~ He commented that he thought Rainier smelled . like a '`South
13 Jersey swamp."
14
is Bill Paxton, North West Petaluma Concerned Citizens Group, spoke about. `the
16 impact to the. community and the. number of citizens who want to be involved irl
1~ the decision making process; he wanted to know how the City/county would. ask
is the public's. input for solutions. He commented about the traffic circulafi'on
19 problems in Penngrove and stated that he did not want to see that happen in
20 Feta9uma.
21
22 Diane ..Reilly -Torres., 165.7 Rainier Avenue,.. stated that the public could contact.
23 MTC. and..,give input until May 18th or attend the SCTA meeting. on the May 14cn.
24 She read firom an article that rated Petaluma'sstreets the worst in, the ..nine-..Bay
2s Area counties. She wanted existing roads improved :and the railroad. or a ferry
26 working. before building, new roads. She .supported the Old Redwood Highway
27 project and added that she wanted the Rainier Project taken offi every
2s transportation priority list; Council previously adopted a resolution that, was
29 supposed to remove across-town connector ~at Rainier from all such lists .and
3o apparently, it:was not done.
31
32 Bill Kortum, 1$0 'Ely Road, thought the list was discouraging., He -had.. been
33 attending meetings regarding the Novato Narrows and read from a Caltrans
34 letter that said 'they did not make: an exception on the Corona interchange:, but
35 they~would have~to make an exception because of~the center posts.. He thought
36 that. Corona should be ,on the:.. request list and that Council may be able to
37 negotiate. improvements ;i'n reconstruction.
3s
39 , Terrence Garvey,, :83 Maria Drive, asked how many Counci_I Members di'd not
4o want an expansion of Highway 1.Q1 because, it may cause growth: He questioned..
41 why Council thought light° rail would .not be feasible and suggested .the Council..
42 ~ ~ give it more consideration:.
43 '
44 Geoff .Cartwright, 56 ,Rocca Derive,, thanked Council.. Member .Healy for providing
4s ., the- list from thecounty:, He commented that Petaluma needed over $1-00 million
46 for necessary road repairs and none were on the list: He expressed concerns
May 10, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 127
i about across-town connector. He them addressed the EIR (Environmental
2 Impact Report) done for Rainier and stated that .Rainier was not about fixing
3 traffic in Petaluma, it was a. floodplain access road in the floodplain. He asked
4 Council fo consider whether they would rather spend, $33 million on a floodplain
s development project or put it towards the $i00 million of .repairs needed for
6 Petalurna's treets.
s John Mills, 1315 'D' Street, .agreed with the Mayor; the top priority should be the
9 widening of Highway 101 and across-town connector at an unspecified location.
io He agreed with Council Member Tgrliatf that- a .Rail Trail should remain one of
ii the top priority items on the list: He agreed with Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson.
12 that Corona should be on the list since it was on the 25-year project list but did
13 not agree that an interchange would be good at Corona Road. In the long term,
14 improvements were :required for the overpass to include bicycle lanes. He
is suggested Corona .Road -be added. to the list with, unspecified improvements. He
16 disagreed with having a bicycle over-crossing and stated that it was a
i~ .contentious issue in town and suggested that before it was placed on the list that
is Council should have a very clear plan:
19
20 He thought that widening, the shoulders: and installing Class 2 lanes was amid-
2i level. priority on South. Petaluma Boulevard, south of Petaluma since it did not
22 really service bicyclists to the .highway: He wanted that line item changed to a
23 higher priority, such as, unspecified funds, for cooperation with the Petaluma
z4 Bicycle Plan or ,Corona Road or Springhill Road; his highest priority was Corona
2s Road.
26
27 Council Member. Torlaft clarified the reason fo,r the Petaluma Boulevard. South
2s improvement was that pit was a regional connection to the Petaluma Boulevard.
29 South and East 1Nash'ington Street.
30
31 John.. Mills. stated at that. ponf it would be annexed .and would be paid for by the
32 developers.. He. thought it was better use of the funds for another project closer
33 to~ home. '
34
3s Mayor`Thompson read a letter from Patricia Tuttle Brown as public comment for
36 the record. Ms. Brown was unable to attend the meeting as she was the Chair of
37 the Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee and 'had to attend a SPARC (Site Plan
3s and Architectural Review Committee) meeting scheduled at the same time.
39
4o Ms. Brown's etter, dated May 1:0, 2001, read as follows:
4I
42 As current chair, of the. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee
43 (PBAC), 1' had intended to speak on both he issues o.f SCTA list of
44 projects and the bundling of Rainier with the Narrows for funding
4s purposes. Unfortunately, the SPARC meeting, which 1 am
Vol. 36,. Page 1.28
May 10, 2001..
committed to attend, is at,theesame time: as the Council meeting, sa
2 l have hurr-edly.puf my comments in writing.. .
3
,•.
-
4 1. PBA~C Position` Repar..ding SCTA..Priorities for'Petaluma
5
6 / Irmplementation of SMART's Plan.
~ / .Implementation of the five priorities. in the adopted Petaluma
8 ,Bicycle Plan.,
9 / .Rail Trail: Bike/pedestrian path :alongside active. ra-1 line-.
o .
Petaluma Boulevard: An important north/south connector.
it ,_:
/ Petaluma creeks and river pathways;, including
i2 implernentafon. of River Plan,. opening all available cree"k
13 corridors etc:
14 / ,Safe ways to and through schools..
1s / Safe Washington Street travel corridor of
i 6 bicycles/pedestrians:
i~
rs N' ote: PBAG agrees with the wisdom of giving up Class ll
~ lanes on East ,Washington between McDowell- and' Prince.
20 Par„k and instead caking .bikes through a bike boulevard on
21 Lauren,, jogging it ~ouer tq l!Vashington Creek- .just before:
22 Sonoma Mountain Parkway„ crossing Sonoma Mountain
23 ~ Parkway, and confinuirig on Iashngton, Greek into Prince
24 Park: From. 'there; Class ll lanes fo Old Adobe Road This:
25 one change saves the ~ ,project $7Q0, 000 plus ;greatly
26 enhances safety. It should be ..noted that since. Washington
27 ~ Greek Village. was conditioned to provide bike paths along'
2s ~ Washington Creek into Prince Park, .thee cost of the.creek
29 portions to the City will' be minimal.
30 '
31 / Inclusion of Corona as an interchange s-te;~ Due to. fhe
32 debate; we must keep fhe option aline in the .SCT,4/IVI'T, C's
33 IIStS:
34 / Getting an accurate map. of the entire right-of.-.way along the:
3s Northwestern Pacific's rail. line:. 'This is essential' to gall.
s6 discussions of the .Raif Trail: VVe must make getting this
37 ~ information a, priority, even if it takes some money to. wrest:
3s this information out of the railroad: Someone must know and
`39 ~ we have to have this information to creation:the Rail Trail we
4o all would like and #o conv~nee funding sources ~if i"s a feasible'
41 .path site:. .
42 ~ •
43 .•
44
May 10, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 1`29
1 PBAC Position Regarding Inclusion of Rainier with Narrows Project
2
3 The PBAC considers Corona. Reach to be a previous
4 pedestrian/bicycle urban park and wildlife corridor. Its potential
s is such that Petaluma could .have its own "Central Park" or
6 "Golden Gate Park" if we are all visionary enough. It has the
7 potential also to provide off-.road through travel between east
s - _ and west Petaluma, enabling people to walk or bicycle to places
9 heretofore only considered available by car, e.g., going to the
to DIVIV from downtown. The a"rea is an .aesthetic gem and the
11 PBAC does not want to see it developed as an automobile
12 through corridor of interchange.
13
14 Because the proposed Rainier interchange%rosstown
is connector goes right through this area, the PBAC feels it is a
16 tactical error to include Rainier with the Narrows project for
17 funding purposes. The Narrows work is substantially less
is controversial: Bundling Rainier with it will needlessly muddle the
19 debate. You will be asking for a terrible fight. We do not think
20 this is wise.
21
22 Patricia Tuttle Brown
23 Current Chair, PBAC
24
2s END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
26
27 Council Member Maguire asked City Management why the City asked for less
2s money than Santa Rosa for transit improvements.
29
3o Mr. Ryan explained this is a 25-year plan and the buses that we purchased are
31 12-year buses so we are just starting the process of looking at new buses at a
32 cost of $250,000 a bus. Ln twelve years we'll be getting new buses and at the
33 end of that will be 25 years.
34
3s > Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Ryan to work with Mr. Skladzien and put
36 together a wish list with the understanding that not everything may be funded.
37
3s Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson spoke with Caltrans and they made their purpose
39 , .clear; they would work on regional traffic issues and not those of service to local
4o areas. They were unaware of the rail tracks,. the wildlife habitat, and how big the
41 project was. She stated that Caltrans wanted to promote the use of express
42 buse_ s and carpools; they were clearly looking at more traffic on Highway 101
43 with the addition of an HOV lane. She requested again that Corona be added to
44 the.., list and continued that Mr. Skladzien looked, into the cinema area
4s redevelopment, the Highway 101 overpass, and Redwood Circle and thought it
Vol. 36, Page 130
May 10, 2001
1 necessary to improve the area so it would not result in traffic bottleneck.
2 Shoulder improvements and bike paths should be on the list..
3
4 Council Member Torliaft stated that categorizing was a wish list and. not a
s Transpo.rtafion .Plan. If were going to talk about it as a wish list and use it as a
6 wish list. I don't have a problem. specifying Rainier just as long as we specify Old
~ Redwood .Highway,, Corona, Rainier and a Southern Crossing at Caulfield and
s I'm happy to put all four projects in there if people want to do that. I just don't
~ want. to lose the opportunity of having the ability to go after funding. for any of
to them. I do notice on page 6 in the middle of-the page it says Petaluma Southern
11 Crossing ofi the Petaluma River.. She also suggested prioritizing all of them as
12 number 7 on the list.
13
14 Council Member Maguire requested taking a straw vote regarding Council
is Member Torliatt's suggestion. If people want to be specific that's the safest way
16 to do it.
17
is Council Member Healy stated that he was comfortable with the. draft list. He
1~ 'thought that the ,language about= across-town connector and interchange is
Zo sufficiently .general and he agreed with Council Member Maguire that when the
21 City comes to a conclusion as to precisely what it wants and where, that that
22 would be appropriate. He agreed with leaving the Southern Crossing of the
23 Caulfield overpass, over the Petaluma River, in the General Plan. He does not
24 support specifying. Corona or Rainier and. expressed that there was a lot of
2s community visioning and discussion that has to happen before that kind of
26 decision was made.. Leave the .language general and do ,not; specify.
27
2s Council Member Maguire suggested a reference about other nonspecific over-
29 crossing improvements, whether it becomes the "interchange or not, there is
3o going to be in 25 .years likely some work required on the overpass.
31
32 Mayor Thompson suggested adding language to stated, "..,.infrastructure
33 improvements, both pedestrian and bicycle, to all existingover-crossings."
34 -
3s Council Member Moynihan thought that the draft proposalseemed reasonable.
36 He agrees with Council Member Healy's suggestion #o remove the Santa Rosa
37 bypass and tunnel alternatives. He requested Mr. Skladzien change the
3s language on Page 5, where it said, "County%Cotati to County/Cotati/Petaluma" to
39 "Old Redwood Highway improvements from Petaluma to Cotati." Maybe we
4o could ask for a separate. line item to make sure that they include .the northern
41 bound. city limit line crossing Old Redwood Highway all the way down south past
42 the Factory Outlets to the next city limit .line crossing of the Old • Redwood
43 Highway.
44
4s The majority of the Co.uncit supported Councilmember Moynih`an's suggestions.
46
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
s
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
May 10, 2001
Vof: 36, Page 1`31
Council Member Moynihan requested City Management submit the draft letter as
interpreted to Council Member Healy for review before sending it to SCTA.
Rick Savel, 499 Adobe Road, suggested that item .be treated as a separate line
item so it did not end up being under funded or increase the dollar amount.
Council Member Maguire requested a straw vote to see if there was majority
consensus to specify:
Option '1) a Rainier project, a Corona project, .versus an Old Redwood Highway
project, and Caulfield project.
Option 2) .Improvements to existing over-crossings that would include Corona,
Caulfield and Old Redwood Highway by definition and not specify names.
Mayor Thompson agreed with Option 2.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson agreed with Option 1.
There was not a majority consensus.
MOTION: Councilmember Healy made a motion to leave the line items for Old
Redwood Highway and for the unspecified cross town connector and for the
southern .crossing and then ,add the Mayor's language of "infrastructure
improvements, both pedestriari and bicycle, to all existing over-crossings. "
AYES: O'Brien, Healy, Maguire, Moynihan; Mayor Thompson
NOES: Torliatt, Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson.
MOTION: Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire to draft a
letter to the SCTA with the following recommendations:
Specify Rainier,. Corona,. Old Redwood Highway and Caulfield.
B. Improvements to existing over-crossings r
Leave line item Old Redwood Highway as unspecified connector.
1. Implementation of Petaluma River Enhancement Plan, Yes
2. Railroad Bridge (currently being reconstructed for Flood Fix No
3. Study and implementation of infrastructure Zero emission/ No
Natural gas vehicles Yes
4. Transportation Modeling Flan (put in cover letter in terms of Yes
prioritization otherwise your spending all your money on planning)
5. Kenilworth; replace at a most appropriate .location Yes
Vol. 36, Page, 132 May 10, 2001
1 6. Trolley (include under rail) Yes
2 7. East V11ash,ington Corridor Bike/Pedestrian Yes
3 8. Safety Improvements/L.akeulle No
4
s Councilmember Torliatt asked Council to: separately rote on whether or not we include
6 all four specified cross town connectors.
7
s Councilmember Maguire stated that Council did a straw vote that did not fly.
9
to Councilmember Torliatt J understand `that but I think that there is a minority opinion on
1.1 the Council that needs to b.e expressed..
12
13 Councilmember .Maguire stated to make a note. that: there. is a minority of two that feel
14 that is the preferred, way to go?
15
16 AYES: O'Brien, Healy; Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,. Vice Mayor Cader-
17 Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
is NOES: None
19
20 Councilmember Torliatt noted for the record that if you start adding up these, projects
21 the difference between what were spending on .Highway projects and, what we're
22 spending on alternate modes ofi transportation even ..including the rail project, it so 'far
23 outweighed on Highway projects and it is something that. we are going to have to deal
24 with. as a county in .the .next 25: years where ourspending priorities are arid. I will at the
2s next meeting read some information out of some articles based on that.
26 '
27
2s ADJOURN
29
3o Mayor Thompson adjourned the .meeting at-5:05 P.M.
31 .
32
33 Ep Clark Thompson, Mayor
34
35 ATTEST:
36
37
3s' Paulette Lyon, Deputy Ci aerk
39
40.
41 -