Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/09/1998February 9, 1998 Vo1.31, Page 291 z~ 1 IO'IIN~JTES ., z OF A~GULAR t1DJOURNED MEE~'ING 3 PET'ALiJNdA C~'TY COiJNCIY~ ~ 0~ a 1VIOIVDAY, FE~1zUE4ItY 9, 1998 ~ ~ 5 1tOLI. CAI,I, 7:00 n.m. 6 Present: Torliatt, Keller, Hamilton, Read, Stompe, Vice lviayor Maguire, Mayor Hilligoss ~ Absent: None ~ 9 Also Present Members of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors: io Linda Buffo, Kathleen Doyle, Phyllis Hart, Bryant Moynihan, Karen Spwgeon, Sheila Bride, Doug Garrison, i i Brian Sobel, Ethan Hirsch, Ton Knutsen, Colleen Mahoney, Sylvia Puccioni, Onita Pellegrini Executive i2 Director ia Fred Stouder, City Manager is Gene Beatty, Assistant City Manager i6 Pat Bernard, City Clerk i~ Allan Tilton, City Traffic Engineer is Vin Smith, City Principal Planner i9 Phi1 Erickson, Project Manager Calthorpe Study, now of Two Co. Zo Peter Bluhon, Facilitator is STA~F, COIVSLTL'Y'AN~'S. FACILIT'AT~It si PLEIDGE OF AI.I~EGIANCE zz JOINT 1VIEE~'ING WITH C~AlVI~ER OF COlVIMEI2CE s3 Welcodne: Za Brian Sobel of the Chamber of Commerce and Mayor Hilligoss welcomed the people to the as meeting to discuss U. S. Highway widening and the proposed sales tax measures to partially z6 fund the widening. P~J~I.IC SFEAKERS Za Mike Kerns, we need a comprehensive plan for the voters to decide what their wishes are. z9 Calthorpe's plan doesn't give many benefits to the South County residents. We need 3 lanes so each way for traffic flow and traf~ic safety. We need to widen from Windsor to Novato. 3i Michael Davis, Why doesn't CALTRANS look at the entire route. Allow people who have sz to go to Novato each day to vote on it. We won't get the rest of the county to pay for the ss South County upgrade after their traffic issue is fixed. Let the people choose the project they 34 want. Go all the way down to Marin. ss Don Bennett, thinks there was premature judgment when the original Council vote was 36 taken. He is still studying the issue. You have seen 3 polls; they all convince me that as it 3~ stands now, it will not pass. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmem6er Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 292, Vol. 31 February 9, 1998 i PiT~LIC SPEA~1tS cont'd. 2 Sam Crump, Citizens for Better 101 - a rush to judgment was made. The roadway to the 3 south wasn't included originally. People really do want to see this widened. Polls show a people prefer that Petaluma to Novato is their preferred area for traffic improvement. The s Sonoma Board of Supervisors will put this on the ballot. 6 Jerry Price, there is public support for the Calthorpe Plan; tlus gave something for everyone. ~ Do we want to use sales tax dollars to pay for tlus widening instead of State and Federal a funds? 9 Bruce Hagen, he commutes to San Francisco by van pool and bus. The most effective way to io reduce traffic congestion is to get people out of single person vehicles. How to best fund ii this: the State has tens of billions of dollars to spend. He talked to CALTRANS. We should iz fund wittun the County and show we are a self help area and then we can go after the State. ~s Beth Meredith, echoes Jerry and Bruce. If widening would relieve traffic congestion, she ia would support it but it won't. Studies show congestion will return to the same level once the is widening is complete. She is surprised the Chamber of Commerce supports a sales tax issue i6 to widen the highway to the south in order to move people out of town. She agrees this i~ should be funded through a Gas Tax. She doesn't think this will have a positive long term ia impact. i9 Mark Medeiros, is opposed to widening the highway because it hasn't been effective. He Zo prefers mass transit and he prefers to subsidize other forms of transportation. Read Joan Zi Dideon's Bureaucrats. zz ~ill Kortum, the ballot measure will be an "advisory vote" and the public will need to learn 23 the reasons for the seed money. You should urge the S~upervisors to get behind the sa CALTRANS study. Zs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ~~ 26 JOIN'I' DISC~JSSION 2~ Facilitator Peter Bluhon suggested and the group agreed on ~he following ground rules: - 2a Respect the views of others, listen and please don't interrupt. -If you wish to speak, please 29 raise your hand. - Avoid competitive behavior. - Focus on your interests and not your 3o positions. 3i Phil Erickson, Project Manager for the Calthorpe Study, gave an overview of how the 32 Sonoma-1Vlarain Multi-Modal Study addressed the Novato Nanows. Key points made: 33 - The Sonoma-Marin Multi-Modal Study addressed how public funds (sales tax, other 34 local, and federaUstate monies) can be used effectively to address transportation and land ss use issues in both counties. Key to a66reviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK Cou»cilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire February 9, 1998 Vo1.31, Page 293 i - The Study examined the Novato Narrows (defined as the area from north Novato where z the freeway becomes 2 lanes each way to the north end of the Petaluma Bridge) and 3 deterrruned that sales tax revenues should not be used for improvements here. Mr. a Erickson recommended that counties cooperate in pursuing state and federal funding for s improvements in the Narrows. 6 - Petaluma will receive a higher per capita percentage of the projected sales tax revenues ~ than other subareas in the County of Sonoma will receive. The Preferred Scenario in the s Calthorpe Study proposes the following projects and allocations: 9 • $46.3 Million io i i ~ $14.0 Million iz • $19.7 Million is ~ $23. S Million ia a $ 5.2 Million is ~ $ 1.3 Million HOV* from State Route 116 in Petaluma to Old Redwood Highway Rainier Interchange Old Redwood Highway Interchange East Washington Interchange ltoadway Improvements Northbound Climbing Lane towards Cotati ~6 - Bonding the project shortfall has not been considered to date. i~ - Funds, in addition to sales tax revenues, are necessary to completely implement the i~ Preferred Scenario. is * HOV - High Occupancy Yehicle lane Zo Chamber persons' comments: zi - This is a sweetheart deal for Santa Rosa ~2 - If we did nothing and waited for another form of transportation then what? Response - zs there is no real answer to that. 2a - How long would it take to complete a widening project? Response - 18 to 24 months for 2s right-of-way identification; 18 to 24 months for right-of-way acquisition, and 5 to 7 years 26 for construction. This is depending on CALTRANS' work flow. z~ - The assumption is that a one cent sales tax would be approved for 9 years or a half-cent zs sales tax would be approved for 18 years. z9 - We can leverage that shortfall. 30 - CALTRANS needs unanimous local support for this project to be successful at their end. Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. Patricia Hrlligoss, MS CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM- i~ice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 294, Vol. 31 February 9, 1998 i - The Calthorpe plan is inadequate and we need to develop additional funding. WE are not 2 just trying to develop a sales tax initiative. 3 - We have a complex problem in the County, not just a commute problem. The highway in a Santa Rosa is congested many times during the day. s - We can't risk loss of the tax measure. 6 - We all agree on rail, and we all agree on highway. We all want to widen the highway ~ from Petaluma southward. We need to tell the voters how we'll deal with the shortfall. s - We should request some seed money out of the sales tax issue for inclusion of 9 improvements to the Petaluma River Bridge and Highway 101 south to demonstrate io community resolve, and we should address the Novato Narrows by leveraging additional i i funding. iz Council members' comments: ~3 - What is the Level of Service (LOS) at the County line? Response - Level E ia - What is the LOS at the north end of the Petaluma Bridge? Response - Level E is - What is the LOS Windsor to Novato? Response - Level D with the Preferred Plan i6 - What is the LOS with 6 lanes, 2 of which are HOV lanes? Response - Level D, but at the i~ County line at Peak Hour it is I.evel F, while the HOV lanes would be Level C. ~a - If portions of the project are listed in the tax measure, will the State fund it or not? ~9 Response - if you give a small portion of money to the project, you will be a participant. 20 - What is the maximum number of people in a single lane per one hour? Response - 2,000 zi to 2,400 people. z2 - VVhat is the maximum number of people travelling by rail per hour? Response - 4,000 per zs hour. za - How long is there gridlock? Response - 2 or 3 hours (Some participants did not feel Zs comfortable with that response. The question was not answered fully, and staff said this 26 will be researched.) ' z~ - What would the time line be for the "narrows?" 1Zesponse - it would be completed in a Za later second phase in about 15 to 16 years. 29 - We have to be science and engineer based here, and we need to determine where there so are information gaps. Do we need more traffic modeling? I,et's ask more questions so si that we can have this research done. Key to abbrevlations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire February 9, 1998 Vo1.31, Page 295 i - This body should write legislation for the Sonoma County Transportation Authority z (SCTA) and the Board of Supervisors for the March 17 meetmg. s - We need to know the implementation time for the highway widening and for the rail a segment. s - Do we want the addition of 2 lanes or 1 lane? Should there be HOV lanes? Should the 6 HOV restriction remain on the new highway segment for 24 hours a day or for specific ~ hours? ~ - Rail would be easily implemented, and it will be cheaper. 9 City of Petaludna Traf~ic Engineer Allan Tilton's coanments: io He indicated that CALTRANS is considering funding a$15 Million study to prepare ii preliminary design and environmental review for the Novato to Petaluma segment of the ~2 highway. If CALTRANS completes such a study, the agency may be more likely to request i3 funding form the California Transportation Commission m the future for construction of the ia improvements. . is He also indicated that if the County allocates some portion of sale taac revenues to the i6 Petaluma Bridge widening, it may give the county a better negotiation position for design and i~ timing. ie After the City Council and the Chamber Board members posed questions to Phil Erickson i9 and Allan Tilton, the discussion focused on how congestion could be solved in the Narrows zo and how improvements could be funded. Zi General Areas of A~reement z2 There was general agreement around the followin~topics: Zs - The City Council and Chamber Board should jointly recommend the list of transportation Za projects to the Board of Supervisors at the March 17th meeting. 2s - Itail transit development and U. S. Highway 101 improvements are equally important. z6 Areas of Disagreement 2~ Some of the areas of disagreement included: zs - A six-lane highway (addition of two lanes) in the Narrows is the proper solution to 29 congestion. A number of people prefer a six lane solution while others believe that 3o current data do not support such a solution. si - The City Council and Chamber Board should prioritize U. S. Highway 101 ("101") 3z improvements. (There was general support for prioritizing the "101" improvements if the 33 Petaluma Bridge is added as a sales tax funded project.) Key to abbreviations: JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire Page 296, Vol. 31 February 9, 1998 i Consensus was reached on the following: 2 1) Congestion along the Novato Narrows should be addressed. s 2) The group supported the proposed $15 Million CALTRANS study for preliminary design a and environmental review of "101" improvements in the Narrows. s 3) Additional research should be conducted and data gaps should be completed on , 6 alternative congestion relief improvements. Some researc~ topics should continue after ~ the March 17 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors' meeting. Work should be done a jointly on identifying topics and conducting research. (Initial topics of research are listed 9 in the next section of the minutes.) io 4) Congestion relief improvements in the Narrows should be a high priority project in the ii County's recommended State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The City i2 and Chamber should advocate aggressively for this. ~3 5) A multi-source funding strategy should be develop,ed to fund the comprehensive list of ia transportation improvements proposed in the County of Sonoma. The sales tax measure is should be viewed as one of several possible sources of fund~ng. i6 6) Seed money should be included in the sales ta~c measure for some improvements in the i~ Novato Narrows to demonstrate the community's resolve and support for addressing is congestion. This action is intended to leverage additional sources of funding. (There was i9 general agreement_that some portion of the sales ta~c measure should be allocated to ao widerung the Petaluma Bridge, but no agreement was reached on the amount.) Zi Questions for Further Research Za Questions, topics for future research, and alternatives that require additional research or 2s information include: Za - A single reversible lane in the Narrows should be evaluated as an alternative to 2s building two additional lanes. 26 - What is the likelihood of receiving state and federal funding of various transportation 2~ proj ects? 2a - I3ow much congestion relief will be generated by a rail transportation segment? z9 Key Themes from the Discussion 3o Participants agree that the County of Sonoma needs the sales tax measure to be passed in s i order to fund much of the needed congestion relief improvements. Different interest sz groups must support the measure to ensure its passing. Although there was unanimous 33 agreement that congestion must be addressed, the two groups disagreed on the 34 approach. Individuals reluctant to support widening U. S. Highway 101 want more data ss as well as a feasibility analysis before supporting a particular solution. ltail supporters 36 believe that once the rail is operating, highway congestion ~vill decrease. Key to abbreviations: .JH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Cour~cilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire February 9, 1998 Vo1.31, Page 297 i The most important area of agreement was that a comprehensive funding strategy is needed. s The group views this effort as a way to gain assurance that project they support that are not s in the sales tax measure continue to have serious consideration for funding through other a means. s 6 AIDJOURN ~ At 11:10 p.m. the meeting was adjourned ~ 9 - 10 `^--'~~~ G. , ~ 11 ia M. Patricia Hilligoss, ayor i3 ATTEST; 14 15 16 i~ Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk Key to abbreviations: .IH-Councilmember Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Na»cy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Vice Mayor Matt Maguire