HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7.A 06/20/2005CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA TA
AGENDA BILL June 20, 2005
AEenda Title: Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding the Meetin! Date: June 20, 2005
Shasta Avenue Alternative Alignment of the Rainier Avenue Cross -
Town Connector
Cate2ory (cheep one):
❑ Unfinished Business
Department:
Community
Development
Cost of Proposal: N/A
Amount BudEeted: N/A
Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM
N 7:00 PM
❑ Consent Calendar N Public Hearing
❑ Presentation
Director:
Mike Moor
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
❑ New Business
)Contact Person: Phone Number:
Mike Moore 707-778-4301
Account Number: N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
1) Shasta Avenue Alternative Excerpt from HDR Local Connector Alternatives Analysis, July 2004
2) City Council Minutes Excerpt, July 12, 2004
Summary Statement: At the conclusion of its deliberations on July 12, 2004 (see the attached Council
minutes), the Council directed staff to move forward with a Rainier alignment that included two alternative
connections to Petaluma Blvd. North — Rainier North and the Shasta Avenue alignment of Rainier South —
and also directed staff to analyze both a two-Iane and a four -lane roadway. The primary reason stated by
the Council for retaining the Shasta Avenue connection was that the transportation utility analysis
performed by Fehr and Peers indicated that it could provide incrementally greater traffic utility to the
existing City roadway network than the Rainier North Alternative (0.77 versus 0.64, respectively). In
comments to the City Council at its transportation workshop on March 25, 2005, Mark Johnson,
representing the Johnson project, stated that the Shasta Avenue alignment for Rainier has a significant
impact on their project, and that the possibility of a, four -lane alternative of that alignment would render
their project infeasible. He asked the Council to rescind its July 12, 2004 direction to consider the Shasta
alignment in subsequent studies so that they could continue processing their application and begin work on
the project ETR.
Recommended Citv Council Action/Smmested Motion:
Provide direction to staff regarding the Shasta Avenue alignment alternative to the proposed Rainier
Avenue Cross-Towm Connector.
Reviewedv Admin. Svcs. Dir: Reviewed by City Attornev: A roved,b� City Manaeer:
D t • (y 1113 Date:
tir
Todav's Date: Revision # a7&U.Itlsed: File Code:
June 9, 2005
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 20, 2005
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING THE SHASTA AVENUE
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT OF THE RAINIER AVENUE CROSS-TOWN
CONNECTOR'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the conclusion of its deliberations on July 12, 2004 (see the attached Council minutes), the
Council directed staff to move forward with a Rainier alignment that included two alternative
connections to Petaluma Blvd. North — Rainier North and the Shasta Avenue alignment of
Rainier South — and also directed staff to analyze both a two-lane and a four -lane roadway. The
primary reason stated by the Council for retaining the Shasta Avenue connection was that the
transportation utility analysis performed by Fehr and Peers indicated that it could provide
incrementally greater traffic utility to the existing City roadway network than the Rainier North
Alternative (0.77 versus 0.64, respectively). In comments to the City Council at its transportation
workshop on March 25, 2005, Mark Johnson, representing the Johnson project, stated that the
Shasta Avenue alignment for Rainier has a significant impact on their project, and that the
possibility of a four -lane alternative of that alignment would render their project infeasible. He
asked the Council to rescind its July 12, 2004 direction to consider the Shasta alignment in
subsequent studies so that they could continue processing their application and begin work on the
project EIR.
2. BACKGROUND:
Beginning in December of 2003, the City Council began considering the alignment options for a
cross-town connector and Highway 101 interchange at Rainier Avenue. In a report prepared for
the City Council by HDR Engineering and Fehr and Peers Associates, various alternative
interchange configurations and roadway alignment options were analyzed based on location, cost
and operational utility. The discussions that started in December 2003, continued through the
City Council meeting of July 12, 2004. The purpose of the July discussion was to get City
Council direction on the connection of Rainier Avenue to Petaluma Blvd. North.
The Council considered four alternative routes described as follows: Rainier North (the route
following the City -adopted plan line of 1995); Rainier Village Drive (utilizing a proposed
connection through the Factory Outlet site); and Rainier South (with an option of connecting to
Petaluma Blvd. North either in the vicinity of Cinnabar Lane or Shasta Avenue). Concurrently
with the discussion of the Rainier alignment alternatives, the City began processing a
development application for the Johnson property, located in the area bounded by the Factory
Outlet expansion site on the north, Lynch Creek on the south, Highway 101 on the east and the
existing Oak Creek Apartments and railroad line on the west. Based on their initial submittal, the
Johnson's propose to develop 312 apartments on approximately 18.7 acres. Their application
proposes to construct a two-lane extension of Shasta Avenue, including an at -grade railroad
crossing and bridge over the Petaluma River to serve as its principal access. The Johnson's
development application requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A
consultant, scope of work and budget for the EIR were identified months ago, but the Johnson's
do not want to proceed with the EIR because of the Shasta Avenue alignment alternative of the
Rainier cross-town connector.
As long as the two-lane and four -lane Shasta alignment is part of the overall project description
for the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector and interchange, the EIR for the Johnson project
would have to analyze its impacts on the project and the overall roadway network. In comments
to the City Council at its transportation workshop on March 25, 2005, Mark Johnson,
representing the Johnson project, stated that the Shasta Avenue alignment for Rainier has a
significant impact on their project, and that the possibility of a four -lane alternative of that
alignment would render their project infeasible. He asked the Council to rescind its July 12, 2004
direction to consider the Shasta alignment in subsequent studies so that they could continue
processing their application and begin work on the project EIR.
As indicated by the July 12, 2004 minutes, the Council kept that alternative as part of the project
description in order to see which alternative connection to Petaluma Blvd. North might provide
the greatest congestion relief to other roadways in the City network, particularly East
Washington Street. Any environmental assessment of the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector
and Highway 101 interchange (probably an EIR, and its federal equivalent, an EIS) cannot begin
until the City has completed a Project Study Report (PSR). The PSR process typically takes 18
months to 2 years to complete. Therefore, if the Council wants to see the results of a detailed
traffic analysis of both alignment alternatives as part of the Rainier project environmental
documents, the Johnsons, and perhaps other pending applications, would have to wait until the
PSR and environmental documents are completed and the Council has the detailed information it
is looking for to determine which connection provides the greatest traffic utility for the
community.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
The Council could consider three possible alternatives to address this situation:
1) Direct staff to leave the Shasta Alternative as part of the proposed Rainier Cross -
Town Connector until the Project Study Report and EIR are completed so that this
alternative can be fully analyzed;
2) Direct staff to include the Shasta Alternative as a component of the General Plan and
General Plan EIR traffic and circulation analysis in order to ascertain whether this
alignment provides any significant traffic utility; or
3) Remove the Shasta Alternative from the project scope of the proposed Rainier
Avenue Cross -Town Connector with no further analysis than that originally provided
in the HDR/Fehr and Peers report of July 2004.
0
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The Council's direction whether or not to include the Shasta Alternative in the scope of the
proposed Rainier project analysis may impact may have some affect on the cost of that analysis.
CONCLUSION:
Council direction on this item will clarify the scope of the proposed Rainier Cross -Town
Connector project for City staff and property owners affected by the alternatives.
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff.
lq
hi-Mchmenf I
Tc::iirti.^,al 10'emorar Juni
RAINIER AVENUE CROSS-TOWN PROJECT -
LOCAL CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
City ofPetaluv:a
July 2, 2004
Prepared By:
Patrick J. Flynn, PE, HDR Engineering, Inc.
James A. Labanowski Jr., PE, HDR Engineering, Inc.
Introduction
At the request of the City Council and Mr. Michael Bierman, City Manager for the City of
Petaluma, HDR conducted a comparison of potential alternatives for the Iocal connector
element of the Rainier Avenue Crosstown Project.
This technical memorandum includes a description of the alternatives developed through the
initial screening process with the City staff and HDR, as well as conceptual geometric drawings
and estimated construction costs for the various alternatives. This memo includes a matrix
identifying evaluation criteria used for the screening of local connector alternatives and a
preliminary evaluation of each of the alternatives. Traffic operations analysis was not
conducted as a part of this study. The Fehr and Peers calculated "Transportation Utility" factor
used in a prior analysis of the alternatives was used for comparative purposes.
City of Petaluma T
Local Connector Altematives Analysts
fq
(ee;mica; Il;em,orane'urn
Local Connector Alternatives
The consensus between the City staff and HDR on reasonable alternatives is the following:
• Plan Line Alignment Alternative
• Village Alignment Alternative
• Cinnabar Alignment Alternative
• Shasta Alignment Alternative
These scenarios are described in detail beginning on Page 6. Preliminary geometric drawings
and estimates assume the limits of the local connector are delineated between the west side
future freeway ramp intersection and the intersection with Petaluma Boulevard; and the east
side future freeway ramp intersection and the intersection with McDowell Boulevard. Drawings
include three proposed developments in proximity to the proposed alignment alternatives.
The matrix on Pages 3 and 4 provides a relative comparison of the alternatives.
The Plan Line Alignment is the alignment adopted by the City as the precise plan line in 1995
and meets the City's design standards for the designation of a collector street. With the
exception of I horizontal curve in the Village Alignment, additional alternatives developed as a
part of this analysis were designed to meet those same collector street standards. A copy of the
City's street standards is attached on page 5.
Other than on the Plan Line Alignment, no local access connections to Rainier Avenue were
shown. It was assumed that Iocal developers proposing new development would need to apply
for access to the connector in conformance with local and state access requirements. It should
be noted that Caltrans requires a mandatory minimum 410 feet (125 meters) between the
freeway ramp and the intersection return for access control with their preferred recommended
distance of 525 feet (160 meters). These requirements would need to be considered when
locating access points to Rainier Avenue. Locating an access point closer to a freeway ramp
than these distances requires a formal design exception and is not automatically granted by
Caltrans.
Various assumptions were made, and are stated in the descriptions below, with regard to the
appropriate crossing of the railroad tracks. Although it is possible to cross at -grade for any or
all of these alignment alternatives, PUC and SMART approval would be required and may
represent a significant challenge. Both agencies staff have indicated a strong reluctance to
approve an at -grade crossing unless an existing equivalent crossing in Petaluma is eliminated.
Each alternative did assume a bridge crossing of the Petaluma River.
City Of PM•Isana
Local Connector AlteMadl.s Analysis
fl
iacanikal 1 remar. ,uftrm
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
''
Alternatrve'rGeometry"Utrb
Alrgninent
TFansportatron Poientia�s -
Bttdge Neigtit
: Estimated
Alterriative-
f
Bnvrr4irimental -
�tght of'Vllay
Bridge liefght
_ Atiove
-
- (1 toImpacts.
Impacts
Above -River
:" -"-
ConstFUction
Railroad Track
Cost-
Plan Line
1.01 Acres in Flood
I
(At -Grade
0.64
Plain
8.32 Acres
Crossing)
1.08 Acres Riparian
13 Properties
2 - 4 Feet
N/A
$6.1 Million
Impact
1.01 Acres in Flood
Plan Line
Plain
\
(Grade
Separation)
o.64
1.08 Acres Riparian
8.32 Acres
13 Properties
35-40 Feet
23 Feet
$6.6 Million
Impact
3.44 Acres in Flood
—_i
�"
Village
Plain
7.61 Acres
--
0.64
Crossing)
Crossing)
0.92 Acres Riparian
9 Properties
2-4 Feet
- N/A
$5.2 Million
Impact
e•''i I
1.28 Acres in Flood
_
—
Cinnabar
Plain
(At -Grade
0.77
8.49 Acres
\
Crossing)
0.34 Acres Riparian
9 Properties
2 - 4 Feet
N/A
$5.3 Million
tj
Impact
City of Petaluma
Lacal Cnnnedar Alternatives Analysis 3
July 2. 2DD4
V
fl
F-070-41 1 117emw,;,j13 1)
7:r- 1.28 Acres in Flood
( Cinnabar Plain
(Grade 0.77 8.49 Acres 2 _ q Feet 23 Feet $5.8 Million
1'''`�_• Separation) 0.34 Acres Riparian 20 Properties
1`` • %
Impact
I J 1.28 Acres in Flood
-t- Shasta Plain 9.34 Acres
(At-Grade 0.77 20 Properties 2 — 4 Feel N/A $6.2 Million
Crossing) 0.34 Acres Riparian Possible Relocations
Impact
'Estimated construction cost does not include costs for land acquisition and relocations.
"Transportation utility is rated on a scale of zero (0) to one (1) with zero representing the least utility and one representing the most utility.
City of PeWwa 4
tact Connector Attematives An 10% July 2. 20W
60
Ti'L'i7 f;IGF:i ii'l4:i1 {):'c`'li CSL?.i;
City of Petaluma
.Department of Engineering
Street Standards
Design and Application Guidelines
DUMON PEA.7URE AKTUM4.
Lanes
Number
a
Lnnc Wath
STA'
•Median width W-01-2trl)`
LQA Turn Lana
Y LN
Righl Tum Lana
YrS
ISk"Iv Lane
YES
PackdngNO
YES
DevilIn Spard (M.M)
45
Cuda Linc Ratram
IOrs V
InklmCAan Spacing (4)
35(Ylr
sidewatke
Y1:R
widt)a
0.0•
planet
Width
Atoms
Ow-ctlings Served
TMITK Volumes
Mcmpc ))a tly
TrAMt V S3.Ta
Camb uity
LOLW-:C x
2
12w'
W - 16'41'
NO (1)
NO
NO (2)
YM
35
six)' -o0
21941'
Y1 mS
s•(r
YI?N
To
91:5
i•Mik 112 -Mil,
FLFS301•TITU.t.
2
uur
>r tr - 17-M
NO
NO
NO
Y):5
IS
2SIM),
1 Sir-*
YRN
Sur
YES
1'f lr
Ylrc
-4w
I.cas stout htxxt
NA
MRiOR (S)
RF41DI.NTIAL
2
9W
NO '
NO
NO
Y1¢5
2a
12T -w
)s.u•
YT;S
s:o•
YNI
6'41"
YEN
lilt)
Lcvt than List%)
NA
NOTES
1. UR tutu lanes mug Ec eafaidcetd at intentatians to ArUxcll Nttw;6t.
2 ElWycie L nq may he considered nur ettrvots .end Cunuahra In "titer i4,akcia Itto"u ls,
3. Ccutylinc Radhaa to ha cmieidcred al time aT I)caign.
4" Minimum Accaplabia
s Driveway loaylinns est ix: xug+tamd +kith davamaya dl uptxrAla a.da ni• the ffitrt,"cl
RLDUCE11(s)
MINOR
R):St)li`xTW.
TA)*
L'-0-- u -d^
NO
NO
NO
YF -v
(illi
Y1;$
21t
LuAl than 21111
N .t
t
CITY OFPETALUMAfe
DrpatTitteni t(EayUenLrc STREET' Null
Hutitctc
h Smith
:]i•.giN trryil- Cjl{¢Ib MN1:
arcaw" 117
STANDARDS T T S
Design andAp)im n
io�inrah 2tttlt !N9?
t•u..urwK liad.. It t -, i ...-.�� �..�.. _._. ._ r.�.��......`� 1•.�"ri.�.�,`,ti ( 1 ._I�.� .
5
ctty of Petaluma July 2, 2oW
Lad Connector AltemotNes Analyses
N
la R
Plan Line Alignment Alternative
i E:cnniCi.,l hiprtrJt'randur.
This alternative was developed as the preferred alternative for Rainier in the 1994 adopted EiR
and adopted by the City in 1995 as the precise plan alignment. The geometries layout is shown
on Exhibit 1. The significant difference between this current layout and the 1994 configuration
is that Rainier Avenue is not elevated over the freeway. Two options for crossing the existing
railroad tracks were considered in this evaluation:
1. Crossing of the railroad at -grade
2. Crossing of the railroad with a grade separation (road structure)
The vertical profile of this alignment for a railroad grade separation is not ideal. The vertical
clearance above the railroad would align the structure approximately 35 feet above the
Petaluma River and would have approach grades in excess of 6 percent. Provided below is a
preliminary road profile for this alignment, and although not ideal, it can be designed to
AASHTO Standards.
The estimated cost for this alternative is $6.1 million for the at -grade crossing option and $6.6
million, if a gmade separation were utilized.
{
UPEFr)r E4 65 K5 PN !40 MPH)
iAINIER iMINUE; CEMERIPR06j_1t.E i _ , s= q:30% J-{�_;_ ' �_
_ ----; , • I I" i i - LINE yT��. " 1 i,otutr_w.i_� i
OF
.CLEARANCE- 1 BRl
- Si � *�'-•�- j - --I_ -___ _-__I _'_ I -1_ r., siAART—..W--�-�-i { ' I 1 _
i^' 1
7( h
II� IF
p t 0
ETAlN1AA �NER-�I I .. i
1 -- ;'. -I_i...l_f.-_:.
RAINIER AVE CENTERLINE PROFILE
(10:1 VERTICAL EXAGGERATION)
City of Petaluma 6 ! y
Local Connector Alternatives Analysts July 2, 2004
-_ L::_�_._1-_::J.._Gcl__1_._I__I_._1.j_l. _:_\_�• ii '�. ::1:1 =(.: 1 _
/,i; 1, i T Y^ -t1 t�•I !- 1 � 1 I � �i�:_e. _. - :. :_. IIIA � � �I���� Dlllfk �L>3�: r__. r ___.: _ .r :=v._:._ .. ,, _ 1
-W,I� 4FG.1 7 -fu 11111 II ;If I_.. ;II L IIIIL __ ! - -p'li �I : t • _--'--T.�.:..:.i"jl';iia
.1:-_..____� 11•p - i � .�.J- ,( .._ S :-_'• .._
' _ '_..-� IL_-'-- -�.-J q . -//L.� r ._.. ._Ilnr.._.._I - `I. , - :. �; ,.';.: •.; �:: :..- ... _.._. '!I .I!n L_.._.__i i
DEVELOPMENT,"- -::-., 'Iin.i
_�11
i .
i _ J
---------------
_ .'-'S. -�._— _
_
_ _—_____ - _ _ - _ _
T-1 s - I _ ..___ _
yT
1 _ '.(�l i i l:: �i v:... .1..� I•i't"i"T }c l:':
PROPOSED
'I 1
:.DEVELOPMENT .. 'v P - I• i I: i� 11� !-i 1 J F i-1 -1 1-r I.f.�.
— - -i-- -
i L.l_LJ..L
\' \\ :m y(�? r•1-1. `;..p:F�,��::P;�chy:5_t'9
Ob �` dam.-.._.._:_,-'.r •.< I;\.t\, ',. '.-- ra `\• ..
:.
rv. l PIVER _ ♦_:.'. ..-._ �.c A R� \.. i \�Y . j fl ;i '\ ' 'H..',.._.. y- i'1'T'I�
4 fi � i I-`i.�___�..'• --------
r
___ _.' •���'.__._���+ O.p . I I - i II ii-,�Y-h._ r,{ _. 11_.0 '�.,aJ_i.i.ls
<\,Mq--:__ 1 -. •\ i ' -s•.a ` i IET 1.1::.�::. pis .. '.1` .i. y!-
. ( __ ; r -� -- !' PF- -� - 11! �L..l� Vii• �•;'.:nsM. I. -1 I I
!-_Y �i� ••_rte• I I 1 � o l ' � i I : 11 II
•1 .: Iln
e'
CUi a
T"—.._..
-----------
nrq
--------------
��\� �\ 1 I I � In I ♦ A IP `
't ! - r- � - i - +'%=°>:.-. - - _ '\ i �}rFo . is♦�� : � ��.�, - t -.�;, I r�hll� 4�{- � � t
1. �,-J.� i 1 .'"01 �_ yI 1 - � !! �I•^ � r. % ''j'�(-' - :i,` A5 � r l :'� �..i ♦ �' _i�'\ l . i'.~._ `C.11��i�=�,,�_[,r`' �:;_
- - � i 1`-..1. li: ' ;i � )�� -. ♦. ), ri` i t •, : 1,.`\ 1: Y^-1114..%'•�>` f-.J..<>-�-r ,r_
l ..'�:c_j i ii: i i � J\ -( n. -_ i - ; �1. t .T< ;•^`1��.y l'y-'" j ' -'t "b. �.h'-dq\i "w� �'� ��`� (
LLLV
- 1, T � r r I `"r:. ♦ `t '. Y' ::. ,_'' \ eY . .
'OE' �; ,' �_)��- i :; .u, •`\-•'•'--T1ul-.7 r, -;\.. - `.?.;.�'s.-_'_'I i"
I i ,r ! i, \ _.I aiy \ Q <• ch� ..ypr ,.r:_ :: � r 1
-' _ ^4i I •1- cF -.ii - `• i ,�'nr'._. VI ')'!.v i o- ter; ,
< S
-'_ - 1 r. %'CC{I• \� lam._ .l '. .�. •.+,?.^. A t'Y .-- ..,L,.1�I.
, � - r 1. ♦ '\ Ji I ,', i. �ri�_.
' 1 ll:_ / ]:�• `♦-\ ♦ i`�� ( b.l�J _>13.1!L. __L1.IJ_LAJ.LL1. 1__l 11_I
T ', I -...� _- , ... 1 Ktii4J ;<♦ y..�,: is ..`' " `t ' i' / y2 _ = � \ � .. ..,_.__.._
�'t, 1 _ _�'�_ i r�\� .��,: �k>-Cp �'.%k��'r-.:i� '���5:. r". .i i^� ':p�w♦ i �'♦\k.'': f:',+`Slf• i `_ j�'-ilii.. I .l
,..1•� ,�. t�,au ,"Z\.//1 N i •. ; �c-o / \. ' ;( , ;� d:::`. ���„',' `_ 'r `{� •`^' V. f- !z..ri"
_.- RAINIER AVENUE INTERCHANGE AND
--i" LOCAL CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES
-.. CITY OF PETALUMA
.rte' :/U�y..';♦',c.v: ice• JULY zdoa
\• :� : � I i i F”, ('�?-';�� � � \�� ` ♦ nss o-- r ml �noae
PLAN LINE ALIGNMENT
Islsl mr-aoo
Village Alignment Alternative
Treat1niCai fill enroIat; dam
This alignment immediately proceeds away from the interchange in a horizontal curve that
aligns Rainier parallel to the Petaluma River. This first horizontal curve, adjacent to the
interchange, does not meet the City's design standard for a collector road without introducing a
superelevation (banked curve). After paralleling the river, Rainier then turns west, crossing the
river, and proceeds to intersect with Petaluma Boulevard. This alternative does provide for a
direct access into the proposed expansion of the Factory Outlets.
This alternative has the majority of Rainier Avenue (West) located on the east side of the
Petaluma River. The preliminary geometric alignment is provided in Exhibit 2. This alignment
assumed that the railroad track would be crossed at -grade. The estimated construction cost for
this alternative is $5.2 million.
City of Petaluma 8
LMi Cmnenor AltemaHves AnalYM, ,. n.., ,nn. �K•
„! -- - ---'-------
'll ; i I �_. {-`f= �il I �—'.Nr:']'. _... •:—•:.,.a 7—'—'r'a:�_x_v..—_—_' f' '—'—.,_— n u ! �-� l: /. \. ``I �' nln�.`.' LI .. 1.—r I
I ..I
--•� •'I ITV{tJ I �-'} I: :.. .. ... r Ijl I - j.,l __ _ = c._ _ •� ^:�. Tv :.:_./...
-
..
!l,ld r -.._.. tr :1111 I I - I 1p-.._._ i:/-TT-'--n!Ii i - .1” •11.; I! _.I !; ! !
I ."�:'.'•'.'�' �' � I - i• 1. �\
.-
PR OP.OSED.'I::�,' .•, `. ._-iiia •'jn i
ENTi-
: -
__
II
_ _ __ __ _ _ ____ r• .:.
-------------
------------
1.'
od..6d_4.f_ J.s4: J.1:_L:4Di
•` _ �`TT I r _
PROPOSED
I ill! DEVELOPMENT
Z ,: _..! ^ 1 '?'•. .. _ _: -_".-- � ��i !� ii ._\ y i! y.. i..y_v„ r:��.��-1"P'f'Y T. i-
j `d I.r" e r• i -rte:--__..--- - 1 .. _ 1 _ i. 1 dll_-� r !�,
I'
II_.._.: 1 1 11 1 \ .. -a ]_..-•
i - ! � Fp9'
lC-
\ .` j I l Ir. i `f .•` ��Q - ;, ii ,�`•`` `•'i�):`, j .-r _IIIL. i 11' I IJTII{ V 1 I
I I I 1� 1' - I \�. Fy � `. 1.. �'1 �'-` - �.. =.r'�. :i:`` I- j It { +-s
�� `•i^ - .. i--1 i
Cf
C.\ '•yf^ '\I ' `t;[ '� {/II I�_'>Fyrl"=.
__ - f 'L-- ! _ .I I ^ _ _ -� `.,\ _ '.Z•� .'� ���: ..�C�. '-vs:�'.�_ � lig,\ I 11u..Y�.�ni=-_�`.l,'Y,Ci . �:.�__.r.
.\ - J - ' 1 • 'r' .` _ .i .i I L.A, v'� i" •.\Iry 1... I-01\� 1
J -T
iF
Y•a: \� !l.- l 11 ti LI. . i �/
�� - '- ! .\
- l I ^i •Yl; �/ _ `,I\.� C�,]] )^ ! I'�, .. iJY'�1', T .. r. 4 �1 '�:i: 1
\� r, `'l.. - 'T� : C r- :}: a •r I ` r; y .1.
''r � 1 - AJ I i �'L •Y � - _� "Y,T. (� ,.c �' •. '::�:j-'� it .�.f.. .1 , ,'I -�_.� i l,: i `�'u-. y...-i:i -�
-i _- �i i __ _ I i�0_ i _iii , ,�'\-�•`i-"l:,-:'\ /C,' 9-'.,i. ii-..'� .I✓ -l_..'' i S,'�..�_a ._t...as
�-.. �• �' !): i :,'- 1 '`: .'Ott: -; i �`%� '� � i :y<• s. r." is
- I S`--"- / /� r ' ` _ .�:�:'..�..:: )a•L .a .:1:.`� it :1 _.jam : r"r.r�.; q:—.. �,ti :
''\ _ I j !. 1• 1 ^.�'r ..� ` Apr )t '..`' � -�. .. •. � _{�•.T:..'�. �Xr_�. �r _.{il:�l: rf ei-.{.,L,I�i�; i I
T 1 ) '\ 1 r.I i L__�-Ti'�' ' i - ^ i�:i -' i.- -- .e- _:`,-) J .�V:'.'CiL�r•---ki�.i'�niy:: i .ay'U-T:�y�i�G': -i�. .�-.��! . r \�,: `: �;.�-,�i. i} � /, i`r_r`. q( i.°:�i�^:i.�% rr).,1�� \q' .v. i �\�:A., �•: j.�:(: -( �q�:.iy^i/%: : :< :d-�-_S'-j;II;Ia:__.
YLLT_'�
1=
R 1
N
INT
%G1E ._Ai_N;-D
LOCAL CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES
1: #CIOF PETALUMA7 JUL' 1409
l
'. ?
�'\ •. i, . ` �._ . y: � �:�•\' -. 'may. 1/i':.% lees o -m rulm xom
VILLAGE ALIGNMENT
FUR
7rchni:al Mt ilnoranchlm
Cinnabar Alignment Alternative
This configuration was developed as an alternative to the Plan Line Alignment in Cross Town
Mobility Enhancement Alternatives report prepared in December 2003 (previously described as
the South Alignment). This alternative would align Rainier Avenue away from the interchange
in a southwesterly direction and then turn to align with Cinnabar Avenue. The geometric layout
is shown in Exhibit 3.
Two options for crossing the existing railroad tracks were again considered in evaluation of this
alternative:
1. Crossing of the railroad at -grade
2. Crossing of the railroad with a grade separation (road structure)
The estimated cost for this alternative is $5.3 million for the at -grade crossing option and $5.$
million if a grade separation were utilized.
City W Petaluma 10 f
UW Cannenor Altematrves Analysis 0i1"' 'M�
—• i __♦-�-:_ � _ oba:v::c:-61::_::J.._/.<1.1.1_Lj _I_;. _.1.�: 1\ / , _ .� n ,^, 1
c'-�:..:.i_,_i::_L_J.L., 1j1i 'ii
j �-.
al, r •n J /t� - :I f.'_l I: - ;r, llin- _ r . li=---y'atiG31FEtiL31Y�➢ti=__=.. __-�'-_:- �yi,-1 --_ '!•: .-':-,; �r: a..
'--�..�i/ --- It",{4J �;, .,F � r,:•• _ I: :. i_,.!i� -- 1-_ - ll.:. .— ---'-:...c:: -'�i '---.._:.•.-�_
C.- l LFL- l 1 L :11!!, - II Ilr___•__ ... - L- - IL
Ri : 1'I -_.._.._..-_-•lnIL..r1-I ,._ -'_I.I.i'i_.il. � i .�1..J."I•,.:T. .�t .. ..-I I __.''—•=+=�t' ::..._.�.._... . __..�,.-..-_..
`•a
915 r _ lr 'III 1 11' 11!__•-_. ii 11 _7_!_.: P.p I - •• .1 - - •I ` 1
,A 1 --`111. �-'_., �. ;i Ji - - �. (. .-1 Ir ___ r• :::r.r .! : PROP.OSED,�i :�,'::{f -::;': �:; � � it i t.._.-"--1 :
1 I 11
utf
�.I . �.� .. i• i iii _ n. _ _ _ DEVELOPMENT,.:'..:._:•-. - ' 1 .I �i J -
�,:--.:, - ._- ._ ii�: :. :'rq:•i1 - -n'ii'_ �ii�!' - - "/klll-._�-�4i L.. !
, n
. ..
11
I
.:-__•
1
•
-W3
_ 1 - ll.. i - ,,, .�• _ - _ �•-` _ - .____ :1 � i.1 �`.J..4a_k_3.!_J. d.Jd:.l.l e4.1
i _ ! ��i .� �, �. � - '., 1P �i ' i 1 ..y;z f f"T "i 5'-I• '
i -
_I/ p PROPOSED •..�'q !t ! i:l}Ijt`- I1 -,.+^.!--i _!.'! :�?_i"ti"'i-.j-i..' r
-�E,Fi - DEVELOPMENT' v P ' - i I' •dl "l j 11A 11. J._. A.i_LJ
o -x:, / ice' _ __ _- _ i _ ""'-;rte - 1 _ •! .- �' �-..-III_t-1_:,� FI,�,1"
I it jr o i• 1 _ ____ VEP _- `.`_, __-i. �. •)r* i i i. it-. °.,�:' j
\� - _ Pl I - _ '`^ - It• i� i`'-�LJ..41__-'-!--f:P'f 'I
PETAWMA P(,
Ytl'_ J '
I 1 ( •1 ) ` � 1 / - ,�'a .O � �y.. - Tq(U�� .. 1 fllr �j0 1 i i 1 y--rl ' ,1� ��ill
- '� - _ R
- - - 1 I A• 1 - 1
OF Ob�-':�,`\.;� IPC"R
i.;i_11
/T,
•-i
r_.• ' �.,T::.: ��'r`::� '' it /1 1 ii / - ! a•\. .,'Y �'l, rt) f l' `' i - . {- ,
1 . ..� i �_ if-
Y 3_',;/-c'-'� ..0 `. `.•,f:_ •:\`• .amu,{-�._: _.i 1=-"--_
L -1 -Yr-, i ! - • li ,'r ,`:-.._ \i I �'1 J. 9'
_• - ii i � �''•� - .:, � 1 , .•`- '� ;1. 7�-Iut-..r"� < I
•.`- r:y�ra..�_:, :,ii i - -:f _ � .. .I .,i LTii..iV. .. ..�'d1 �. f
•, �•__L' i :r I I i ter`:-�` _� '"r.. � � \` '
- j i - -.:y:. l/ ' - - `>i .`:�•/j`. - I'' i :..3'•r.,..l `y�._ ;:r -.i . �I.o- ? •n 1: µ _ _ - {-
�r r-., p' 1 - ,� - I '?.FAT / :'i / ,-fV�%.' �f, , ^ " >•:, ''Jim . f.. j �_'r '. 4'"' .'
+++AL1 r / ._ � ?):,•" � -1 h.: t,..l. 1 '+f' : , q:.y"
-1,'-��,_' 1.-y I �._.__ ',• .=�'TJ `.. j� ! - •i \ � •. .tYr _t r..., :�.. �>`-' ♦ �.r:r>,ilr �:; _.:-i,T ,
'.
l: .( rT' `L' ./ ,.i � ¢%:,. ,.\ - \ :•J.�. �'Y i•,"��'t, �y. RJt....la_1 L_J_L1:;=.,LA�•J_LLi_J_1_i
1 i._ � 11 .. �: ..._ I f:::�: - ; {It�? .• n � SSS; `A1C'- _i.J� `'. .�1 i�( e, .• � ` .):� L4"'; 'lii�--i•i_ _. _ � I
T- .1 .r a I pyla_)-C,Y tJ' i'� �4\`/ �. •:o H ; '. F-. [: �r�a. '. Via--m/-.��1 .L -.
'•� tl '' 1' _ '1� - L. �k� To- - `• :p �' , 1�.' fpr \ �. �'<y'�:\ i>.
RAINIER CONNUE NECTOR
ALTERNATIVES AND
LOCAL CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES
JT- i _ '�f to��J�rY� /i'�6;.'.�' ''1 `'•.:/:�. CITY OF PETALUMA
_"" �.a` �. ( ...i JULY 3004
. .,1 �1—.�1. .. I i i �`�.`V';�i %._ i��`:°.�• V�., `:,�''(/:
CINNABAR ALIGNMENT
17DR
Shasta Alignment Alternative
7r,rruCal iir'emnrano' ur;
This alignment is similar to the Cinnabar Alignment and proceeds away from the interchange in
a southwesterly direction. This configuration would continue in a southwesterly direction past
Cinnabar Avenue and would turn to align with Shasta Avenue. The preliminary geometric
layout is provided in Exhibit 4.
Evaluation of this alternative only considered an at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks.
Significant challenges to this alternative include a large excavation effort of a hillside adjacent
to Shasta Avenue and possible need for tall retaining walls. In addition, considerable R/W
impacts to properties along Shasta Avenue may require complete acquisition and/or relocation
at great expense. The estimated construction cost for this alternative is $6.2 million.
City of Petaluma 12 )�
Lm
Local Connector A lteatNes Analysis Juty 2. 2004 `
----�._
—.::.
:v--. _�: ='-.-_ -«_rc:=_-vr:._...1...,.,.,..:,..,,,�.(- -a r:: �:._ �,ix _s:.f.:,_._,-_}iij'-'__"".•, .. ..j, ': _ Ib3YF7.1� - - __'.:'_-1 r -_i �!! i i'� _:-_'�� i
t r
•A(i iT.-,t 4J � i � 11'- tl. 1t' 1'I _____
_.._...� •'"F c.wJ .'- i�jii ii ii? ii, -
- ... .:. ... .. - - ^'+---_.-- n!fl : •'," :::. r, u'iF LIN i 4-
�..
e'r'"" L.._' ,yr/-'-�•}r-� r,!:` t, _ ..I ij: I. is i i» � epi �, �,'`•� :: ��i .':,. PEYELOPM NT. .' ,�`/1]-.._..-xii; � .
,I It JI•
t•i9 � r. "_.._. f. - ,;. ~I+T. }:;'. Jt: _...___.„: p' „��i I� �' .�.� �. �: ._ ..-_.._ ^'n. ____: i
y ,
LL
^r '
t -
.c v-` - c .- : .
._'1.......... .. .. S, . i ; �! L.a!L�..d.._.t 4 a.. t...ia.J;.y
`'( i.t ri TS v•a 1'1 #7 P lT119
i
PRPP09EP
V a
/ J
DE
S,YELOPMENT \ `=' !' •�
l b (_
} - 1 - �•uff ,_9.,LJ
ii
_ 1 it
_ _ _ _ -.-'a ? _ - _per
jri•.,.,�.._,... `RljE4C aLUM9 ! !! ii -ii4. J.l. J. J..6.{_td..a:?i,..6J•r'�.
TaSU4 ?...._ .._• rni 1 + _Ei �`40R'/. .i - Y - �''4 ,-_ _ _ RTig •, 1...... ii;:•�••�ri^r't— iii-ri•s'C`•.
Mp ��R} I j �. '' (; • ^•- - sP - / - - 'O A• '.. ^.C_ ` - R- � l: u...1..; r}+ ... +
'�'_:.-L+;.;;'_�/'' i ! ,'+ -� ! - _ -AOA �. �� - _ _-`.�, r: ” •#;,
:;
'-_ i i_(`..i 1 i ? 'i '` �. i � iz - ��. � �00�' _ ":�c,. 'r, r'�:.;�;i }i-_,Jl?``^.-"+,J. i,<•,�{� <-r :._
-' _:_?-,'_,_ i, •.` 'r-.._ i (' i .''` .,�iC4' .:�`\.:'^..} (. '. .. ..i( }. 1.41, { I i r�..h C`x.: i' -r
r-
_
.............
_ - t_ _ _ �,... :r. i f ii - 1 ,F w•,�p •. r .i ,�.• � .��. �t+f�� �,�1 y1
-j 'f'Gf ! 7:'fi',;=:�_-.:.: �':*�� r ii � - `ti L'�K. }''•'- �'L� .j.�, s�{T�-'. iP/�{$,. �'� rr. -`..
' t -_-i. i "�c`".-:-rte``` i `! �" -, � � �`I . ` '..^�J:• � . _Y .:+.e �. t+ '•+'��.r _��'r }'_.,? " _ _
•+ i. � iii i tr i i ":� l „',- i � :(i ••,7 ''---.�F_ 1 'i1'}. i '1 .- : .•1 Sr:p:i3::T:i,v: v,._i:: �. i i in' I • "`i'2 �.. `-'i}. � :� �•yr }�` '• �aJ ^V. Y. :'i '" � it..l. L-4-4. i- I' • ,
:�� •'' ( ' sir,.. o'1... _.rf 1-, -4 }. i.i
+ - r ! --,i: I p l = ,! - i �.✓.�`'..+ •' -%" f0._.]_' is i _iii__ y 1 i i i i_- - t- L
-I a/�- 1' i J � h. , ''\ }\ .Y �,, h`4. �•?���'
INT
{ ', . _.. _.:1 : 1 -_ j f h. �lp `..1:4 �/ r(. `.1 �' 'l�( l�[� •t l.. ( ..:y S '1'I (%,x[:I:::
-
,.:
.� s' .. L: I i i - t7�'"•:•. /rr � 1 v'. �.. :�K.� 7�.i�r�'. sa'ui i,.J n ,L
' _ .r i_,._ - is �'. L: n7h'.'/l`• Y 1T.::� `� i 1 n `i p - r.{ /.
OR ALINANGE AND
+ ` LOCAL COTY OPT PETALUMANATIVES
•1 '•+ ��-__ - r-.". •'+ ; i' „ ,� ! .i `.'qw (� ..
: i - •\ .. -r'i : - - -,- # F- :�>. \Sp � �1 � .' c: � .r`, 1 ` .� r i�1 "�.'" -Ri-� sx+ zWn
� 1 1
zscs +.�+>olm mon � SHASTA ALIGNMENT
J feiaF,. Lt 94669
1]:61 fll-e100
44Me.h/1'lenl eC,
Vol. 40, Page 158 July 12, 2004
AYES:
Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt and Glass
NOES:
None
RECUSED:
Harris
Council Member Healy MOVED the remaining landscape assessment
districts:
M/S Healy and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Determination of the Cross -Town Connection/Highway 101
Interchange Local Roadway Alignment Options. (Tuft/Lockie/Skladzien)
City Manger Bierman introduced Pat Flynn from HDR to explain the four
alternatives, including their costs. He requested Council feedback on
which was the best option.
Pat Flynn, HDR, was directed by Council to return with more details
regarding the local connector between McDowell Boulevard and
Petaluma Boulevard. He explained the four alternatives:
1. The Plan Line Alignment - the Plan Line adopted in 1995 with an at -
grade crossing of the railroad tracks and a bridge (grade separation).
2. The Village Alignment
3. The Cinnabar Alignment - has an at -grade and a bridge (grade
separation).
4. The Shasta Alignment
Mr. Flynn wanted to make Council aware that other than the Plan Line
alignment, which shows access to the proposed extension of the factory
outlets, there were no other local access alternatives shown; this would
require developers to apply for access for any development. Another
assumption was that Caltrans would require a minimum distance of 400
feet from the freeway intersection ramps to the nearest intersection. The
only option to override this would be a "Mandatory Design Exception,"
which is almost impossible to obtain.
Mayor Glass asked if any option avoids the Mandatory Design Exception.
The Consultant explained that this exception had to do with local access
points located near street intersections and this does limit access for
development in the area. He said that the design could be adjusted to
move the ramps closer to allow for more development. Mayor Glass
stated he would also like to see an at -grade crossing for the railroad.
Mr. Flynn continued by explaining the difficulty in obtaining an at -grade
crossing from the Public Utility Commission and SMART. He went through
the Matrix to explain the four alternative comparisons and costs.
Council Member Torliatt had a question about what the River height was
compared to the existing flood plain. The consultant stated the floodplain
is about 20 - 22 feet and the bridge height would be 2-4 feet above the
/41
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
July 12, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 159
River. The railroad bridge is currently 8 —10 feet above the River bank. The
roadway at -grade would be about 6 feet above the River bank.
Mayor Glass was concerned about the concrete pillars causing a back
up of floodwaters. The Consultant explained that an analysis was done
and the bridge abutments would be placed at the edge of the 100 -year
floodplain. This analysis showed it would not cause water to back up. He
said that the bridge would be about 35 - 40 feet above the River itself.
Council Member Torliatt asked how wide the planned roadway would be.
The Consultant referred to the Plan Line alignment with bicycle paths on
both sides, four lanes, and a sidewalk on one side would result in a width
of 75 - 80 feet.
Mayor Glass clarified that with adjustments at the Shasta crossing, it would
be possible to avoid the removal of 6-7 residences.
Vice Mayor Moynihan clarified that four lanes would provide the capacity
necessary for the cross-town connector. He also noted that the figures
provided did not include land costs for right-of-ways. He wanted to know
how many property owners there are; the Consultant did not know.
Council Member Thompson addressed the at -grade crossing and asked
what would be the most palatable for the railroad. The Consultant said if it
followed the Plan Line it would be easier with the Village alignment the
most acceptable.
Mayor Glass asked which would have the least impact on flooding of the
four alternatives. The Consultant said he could not tell.
Council Member Healy asked if Council needed to focus on just one
alternative or could they address the alternative(s) that are the most
feasible and would satisfy a CEQA process and analysis. The Consultant
said Council could select a preferred alternative going into a CEQA
process.
City Attorney Rudnansky said that the Council could have a preferred
alternative and make that the description of the project and then study
the others in an alternative analysis.
Council Member Healy asked about the Utility Index Scores, stating that
the two southern crossings at Shasta or Cinnabar scored the highest.
Mr. Flynn stated yes, using the Fehr and Peers numbers. This alignment was
chosen because it was closer to town and took pressure off Washington
Street.
Council Member Healy had questions regarding the need for four lanes
on the western side of the freeway and about the 410 -foot separation
from intersections; he asked if a five -way intersection could be allowed.
/9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Vol. 40, Page 160
July 12, 2004
Mr. Flynn stated that Caltrans would not allow this but a round a bout
would be acceptable.
Council Member Healy asked if the Shasta alignment at the railroad track
could be realigned to take less area.
Mr. Flynn explained that this would be a collector/arterial street requiring
a 500 -foot radius to meet City standards but with a higher elevation, the
radius could be tightened.
Council Member Torliatt asked what the span of the bridge would be. The
Consultant stated that the bridge would be a three -span with fill, abutments, and
bridge piers with a clear span of 220 feet. She requested clarification on the
maps to explain what road segments were included in the construction costs.
Mr. Flynn stated it included the actual roadway costs, embankment
material, and pavement for Rainier Avenue, including the bridge cost
over the railroad and River, and would stop short of the interchange.
Council Member Torliatt clarified that it did not include any of the
interchange construction.
Mr. Flynn stated that the interchange, including ramps and auxiliary lanes
would cost about $ 8 million.
Council Member Torliatt asked what the distance was from the area he
outlined from Petaluma Boulevard to the interchange, and from the
interchange to McDowell.
Mr. Flynn said it was about 1500 feet from Petaluma Boulevard North to
the railroad tracks; the bridge over the railroad tracks and the River would
be about 500 feet.
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated he was convinced that four lanes would be
required to provide the necessary capacity. He wanted north and south
connections shown with a frontage road to Corona and a connection to
the existing Groylawn, or a two-lane access over Shasta. This illustration
would allow property owners in the area to assess the potential impacts.
He wanted to see how much local developers would contribute to offset
construction costs.
Mayor Glass said that this was the crux of the debate, to determine how
much local developers would contribute to provide traffic relief.
Council Member Torliatt asked about the number of daily automobile trips
on Rainier.
Mr. Flynn stated that the number would be 41,907 from the Fehr and Peers
numbers.
Council Member Torliatt wanted to clarify if this includes the 27,000
generated at Rainier and McDowell and the Factory Outlet.
011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
July 12, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 161
General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuff explained that the 27,000 was the
average daily trips from the three projects and doesn't assume that all
would travel Rainier. She will ask the traffic consultant to determine what
percentage of the 27,000 would be. She clarified that the 41,907 was not
capacity, it was anticipated volume.
Council Member hrliatt computed that the two developments would
generate roughly 43% of the traffic on Rainier and the other 53% would be
local traffic.
Council Member Healy referred to the June traffic analysis that compared
Corona to Rainier. He stated with no project there would be 47,000
vehicle trips per day on Washington and with Rainier it was reduced to
32,000; the Corona option only reduced it to 44,000 daily trips. He wanted
traffic relief, particularly on the Washington corridor.
Mayor Glass stated that the community is experiencing a windfall of
development, in part due to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSPj,
and the proposed development of Kenilworth and the Fairground sites. He
wanted to pursue collecting traffic impact fees from these developments
to achieve greater relief on Washington by not necessarily developing the
Rainier area. He referred to the Retail Leakage Study that identified the
Rainier area the least desirable retail site that would increase traffic and
growth.
Council Member Healy responded by referring to the CPSP environmental
document in Chapter 6 that stated this plan would generate an
additional 115,000 new net daily trips, which does not include the
development at the Kenilworth site.
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that Council was not evaluating the traffic
impacts of proposed projects. When the alternative is chosen, then the
interconnection impacts would be needed. He didn't feel the Leakage
study addressed development constraints such as congestion at
Washington Street. He said that to provide access to the development,
the Village was the best alternative and he wanted the public to express
their choices.
Council Member Torliatt wanted to discuss the community's development
priorities and where the daily car trips will impact the community. She
stressed that Council had agreed that development of the central core of
the community was where development should occur. She felt the
Kenilworth Junior High site would impact local streets and roads the least
rather than the developments at the Factory Outlet, Rainier and
McDowell; also the timing of the funding for the road improvements would
support this development.
PUBLIC INPUT
David Keller, Petaluma, criticized the plan as not being specific enough to
indicate what it was supposed to accomplish. He wanted Council to be
�-'
Vol. 40, Page 162 July 12, 2004
specific to indicate this project allowed access to development on three
parcels in the Corona floodplain; provided traffic relief on Washington
Street; and he asked what the performance standard would be.
Mark Johnson, J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corp., Menlo Park, stated he
wanted to see the property developed in the proper way using
responsible means, and to accomplish this, his company was developing
River access with parks, bicycle, and pedestrian trails and would improve
the blighted Payron Reach area. He referred to the Urban Growth
Boundary that indicated the property was to be developed. He didn't
support a four -lane road intersecting their project that they have been
working on for two years based on an alignment at Shasta or Cinnabar.
He wanted an at -grade crossing at Shasta and Rainier that would
connect with the Village concept to best support his development. He
stated that the PUC had said that there would be no problem with an at -
grade crossing at Shasta Avenue. His company would pursue Shasta and
wanted to work with the City to accomplish this. He didn't see the
development of ball fields on this property as fitting the designated use for
this parcel.
Vice Mayor Moynihan clarified that the at -grade crossing at Shasta would
be a two-lane crossing; Mr. Johnson stated this was correct. He also
agreed that this crossing could be changed if there was another access
to Rainier such as the Village or Plan line.
Jerry Price, Petaluma, supported the type of development that Mr.
Johnson has built in the past. He did not support Rainier as providing traffic
relief long-term.
Wayne Eckstrom, Petaluma, asked Council to look at the big picture of
how the raw materials will be delivered by heavy equipment on
dilapidated roads that will create more traffic congestion.
John J. Molloy, Petaluma, withdrew his support for the Magnolia project.
Stan Gold, Petaluma, addressed the sales tax issue and that it has to be
produced by the right type of development and not be pursued at the
cost to other areas of the City.
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, talked about infill being built by developers in
the flood plain causing negative and costly effects.
BIII Kortum, Petaluma, referred to the Fehr and Peers traffic report that
stated even with a cross-town connector, traffic congestion would
worsen. He supported a cross-town connector without the accompanying
development.
Cindy Thomas, Petaluma - She was leaning toward not supporting the
cross-town connector project. She wanted responsible development with
more specific information regarding the impacts. She wanted to see
traffic relief for the southeast part of town.
2y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
July 12, 2004
COUNCIL COMMENT
Vol. 40, Page 163
Vice Mayor Moynihan said that an evaluation was needed to answer
questions regarding traffic impacts, retail, orientation, what lands to be
taken/acquired, who will benefit, and who will contribute. He supported a
four lane or possibly two lane access; evaluation of a grade level crossing
with PUC; he wanted to keep costs down, height down, and the visual
and environmental impacts to a reasonable level. He supported the
Village Road alternative and wanted to give direction to staff to follow
this alternative.
Mayor Glass asked the Consultant if Council would know without an
Environmental Impact Report which plan had the most or least impacts.
The Consultant said that any project requires a series of analyses and that
this presentation was preliminary and did not show all the impacts. The
next step would be to analyze all the impacts in the environmental
document. Mayor Glass said then Council is not aware what alternative
has the least environmental impact.
Council Member Healy stated that the most sensitive properties are in the
floodplain and the discussion was really about Chelsea. The Urban Growth
Boundary was analyzed to show the amount of land available for
development. Johnson, DSL and Chelsea were all included in the analysis
and now Council Members were indicating that none of these parcels
could be developed. He cited a report from the Greenbelt Alliance and
the Farm Bureau that recommended cities in the County reduce pressure
on the agricultural community by efficiently using the land within their
urban growth boundaries. Mr. Johnson's property would be developed
whether Rainier is built, and DSL and Chelsea were not assuming that it
would be built either to get their entitlements. He mentioned the leakage
study and he would be very careful that proposals meet the needs of the
community and fit within a strategy. He felt that the community needs a
Rainier cross town connector and interchange and that a southern
alignment would be preferable, according to the transportation utility
scoring rating these at a .77 and the Village and Plan Line at .64. He
wanted to see the best traffic relief for the community, not just for
Chelsea. He would provide direction to staff and the consultant to
provide the next steps to focus on the southern alignments. He wanted
Council to move on this quickly to alleviate the amount of traffic that the
CPSP would generate.
Council Member Thompson said his criteria would be similar to Healy's in
regards to traffic relief and the opportunity for an at -grade crossing. He
said that without traffic relief downtown would be negatively impacted.
Council Member Harris appreciated seeing all the pros and cons of this
controversial project. He wanted to know if one plan could be the
preferred and have the other alternatives explored. He supported the
Shasta alternative.
Vol. 40, Page 164 July 12, 2004
1 Mayor Glass answered that under CEQA the Council could designate a
2 preferred alternative, but after analyzing all the alternatives, the Council
3 could change their minds if the land was still available.
4
5 Council Member O'Brien favored the two southern alignments and stated
6 Rainier would provide traffic relief.
7
S Council Member Torliatt felt that the community would rather not have
9 the additional traffic generated from the two retail parcels. If the car trips
0 were not part of the project she would support access to the properties to
1 prevent putting more traffic on local streets and roads. She indicated the
2 original Plan Line alignment moves away from the River and supported
3 the River Enhancement Plan. The southern alignment would put a lot of
4 traffic through a residential neighborhood so she would choose the Plan
5 Line alignment.
Vice Mayor Moynihan reminded the Council of Mr. Johnson's opposition
to the southern alignment and that his development did not need Rainier
which means he would not be contributing to the cost. The Retail
Leakage Study favored Kenilworth if circulation impacts were ignored. He
stated that if the interchange were not built, Washington Street would be
a problem. He felt the traffic utility numbers were preliminary and did not
provide the interconnection of developments, access to the Johnson or
Chelsea property or a north/south addition with a frontage road to
Corona or a connection at Graylown. Without these details, it was
impossible to determine better traffic relief at one alignment or the other.
He felt a successful retail project helped the community and helped to
pay for it. He wanted Council to consider which alignment would have
the most impact on the current projects he supported the Village Road
with the project developer building the bridge, not the City.
32 Council Member Toriiatt supported the southern alignment if Council is
33 considering reducing the number of trips generated from the parcels that
34 would access this that might make a two-lane road option the better
35 alternative.
Council Member Healy said he was supporting one of the southern
alignments with the Plan Line alternative moving forward as well.
City Manager Bierman said that Council is looking at a southern and
northern alignment and both could be evaluated.
Mayor Glass summarized Council support for a northern and southern
alignment with two and four lanes (with bicycle and turn -out lanes) or a
combination.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion, Direction and Possible Action on a Possible Advisory Measure
for the November 2, 2004 Ballot on the Rainier Cross -Town Connector and
Interchange Project. (Bierman)
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
July 12, 2004
Vol. 40, Page 165
Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated this should not be an advisory measure and the
Council should be taking a leadership role with regard to this issue.
After discussion regarding the advisory ballot measure, this item was tabled for
consideration at the July 19, 2004 City Council Meeting.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to the Special Meeting set for Wednesday, July
14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
Gayle Petersen, City Clerk
David Glass, Mayor