The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Bill 7.A 06/07/2004C 7 7 �gA CITY PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Meeting, Date: Discussion and Determination of the Location, for the Future June 7, 2004 'Highway 101 Interchange, ClP Project No. 661264.' Meeting Tim F 3:00 PM 7:00 PM Category (check one): L_j Consent Calendar Public Hearing F New Business Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Department: Director: Contact P16-s". Phone Number: Plan Administration Pamela Tuft, A Punela (101) 178-4552 and Public Facilities Rick Skl.adzien Susan L�a� (707) 778-4303 and Services Cost of Proposal: Account Number: To Be Determined C501204 Ainount.Bufteted: Name of Fund: Capital Improvement Program (To Be Determined) Developer Contributions Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: Exhibit 1 — Cross Town Mobility. Enhancement — Corona Road Interchange Alternatives Analysis Exhibit 2 — Adopted Plan Line — OrdinanceAl 991 Exhibit 3 — Mailing List and cover letter. Summary Statement The Council is requested to determine the preferred - location for a future interchange, if warranted (Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connect.or/.Interc,hange Corona Road Interchange). To assist in this decision, a matrix has been prepared to illustrate the pros and cons of the four scenarios (see attached Exhibit 1). Patrick Flynn qfHDR Engineering Inc., and Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers will attend the Council Meeting to discuss the analysis .report.. Recommended. Cit y Cound R.Action/Suggested Motion Provide direction on preferred interchange location. Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attorney: Date: City Al� v Mana2er: Date: Date: Today's Dat Revision # and Date Revised: File C ode: H:pt/Raini6r/cc-6-7-04 location corona-rainjer2l.do'c CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 7, 2004 AGENDA REPORT for DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION OF THE LOCATION FOR THE )FUTURE HIGHWAY 101 INTERCHANGE, CIP PROJECT NO. C501204 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council is requested, to determine the preferred location'for ,a future interchange, if warranted (Rainier Avenue Cross -Town Connector /Interchange or Corona Road Interchange). To assist in this decision, a matrix has been prepared to illustrate the pros and cons of four scenarios (see attached Exhibit 1). 2. BACKGROUND In October 1995, following the approval of the original Rainier Avenue Cross -Town Connector Interchange Project; the City adopted a Precise Plan Line (Exhibit 2). The plan line identifies the area needed to be set aside, as development occurs, for the future alignment of the planned roadway,. In January 2004, the Council heard a presentation on a Cross -Town Mobility Enhancement Alternatives Analysis,Report; This work effort' waszompleted to expand upon the General Plan's Transportation Element :research, and to conduct an initial screening of interchange alternatives, prepare conceptual geometric drawings, review" the alternatives with Caltrans as to their feasibility in relation to planned Highway improvements, and to prepare preliminary capital construction cost estimates (excluding land acquisition and mitigation costs). In April 2004, the Council reviewed preliminary analyses identifying three alignments for improvements associated with extending Rainier Avenue westerly from McDowell Boulevard North to Petaluma, Boulevard North; no action was taken. In 'order to assist the; Council in determining the preferred location of an interchange, an analysis listing the. pros;and cons,. stated in the Cross -Town Mobility Enhancement — Corona Road .Interchange Alternatives Analysis (Exhibit 1), has been prepared by the consultant team, based on the following scenarios: Scenario 1 Existing conditions with Rainier Avenue interchange based on alternative 1 preferred interchange configuration. This alternative follows the adopted plan line for the originally approved overpass and interchange project Scenario 2 Existing, conditions with Corona Road interchange based on a new Caltrans standard configuration. Scenario 3 Existing conditions with - Corona: Road interchange as proposed in the. 1993 environmental impact report ,for "Rainier Avenue Cross -Town Connector and U.S. 101 Interchange,ProjecC configuration. Scenario 4 - Existing cond'i'tions without a future 'interchan ge at Corona; Road 'or Rainier Avenue. 3. ALTERNATIVES A. Designate Rainier Avenue as' the preferred location for an interchan ge based on g configuration, direct staff to prepare ;an analysis of. the local rtoadway algnment e options to connect .Rainier Avenue to Petaluma. Boulevard North (Scenario 1) and take appropriate action to amend the adopted- plan dine, accordingly. B. 'Designate Corona Road as the preferred location ;for an ;interchange as proposed in the new Caltran& standard configuration and direct the Rainier Avenue Precise Plan line be amended to eliminate the interchange fight-of-way (Scenario 2. C: Designate Corona Road as the preferred location. for an interchange based' on the 1993 ;environmental impact report' for "Rainier. Avenue Cross -Town Connector and U..S 101 - Interchange Project" :configuration, and direct the Rainier Avenue _Precise `Plan line be • amended to eliminate the interchange right =of -way (Scenario 3). p. Approve resolution rejecting both Rainier Avenue` and Corona Road - as th& preferred location for an interchange and direct the Avenue Precise Plan line be amended to eliminate the interchange right -of- -way (Scenario 4). 4. FINANCIAL.:IMPACTS Depending upon City Council direction, to be determined.. 5. CONCLUSION A. If Rainier .Avenue Alternative 1, is .chosen as the preferred interchange � location (Alternative A : above) ; staff will return to , the Council with a presentation , and request for 'determination of the local roadway alignment options to connect to Petaluma Blvd. North (as originally requested in April 19 Council agenda item): Rainier North. (original Plan .Line). 2. Rainier Village. Drive (with local connection; road). 3. Rainier South (major roadway with.new Petaluma.Blvd. North connection). • J � B. If Council chooses :Corona Road as, the preferred interchange location, Alternatives B or C above (with either the 1993 Environmental Impact Report for Rainier Avenue configuration or the new Caltrans standard configuration, measures for right of way dedication and proportional financial participation in needed infrastructure improvements, plus payment of impact fees, will be required. Council determination of a preferred interchange alternative and, in the case of the Rainier Avenue alternative, the - selection of a local roadway connection to Petaluma Boulevard North may affect the timing and scope of review of proposed development applications in the immediate vicinity of the interchange an_ d its component links to the City's existing roadway network. In some cases, these projects may not be able to move forward in the development review process until the has formally established ' a plan line and completed applicable einvironinental review. Issues such as right of way acquisition, traffic volume impacts on the existing and proposed roadway network, proximity and configuration of intersections, configuration of any other connecting roadways, ability to secure at -grade rail crossings, construction ,impacts to existing habitat and waterways, and other issues will have to be clearly resolved 'in order to. allow provide pending development applications with appropriate direction on, proj ect- specific site planning. and environmental issues. Many of these issues can be addressed through the program -level analysis of the General Plan EIR. The pending major development projects that are potentially affected by the Council's determination of cross -town conector/Highway 101. interchange issue are the Petaluma Village Factory Outlet expansion,. Petaluma Valley Plaza (DSL Property), Sid Commons (the Johnson Property), Regency (the Kenilworth Property) and Cobblestone (Jessie Lane and r Petaluma Blvd. North). 6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE'. MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION' A Rainier interchange or Corona interchange scenario will be included in the General Plan and project specific design work and environmental review will proceed in accordance with Council direction. 7. RECOMMENDATION City Council to provide direction on preferred interchange location. •