HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 8.A 07/12/200471
O tl
r CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL July 12, 2004
Agenda Title: Meeting Date:
Discussion . and Determination of the Cross -Town July_ 12, 2004
Connection/Highway 101 Interchange Local Roadway Alignment
Options. Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM
® 7.:00 PM
Category (check one): ❑ Con sent .Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business
® Unfinished Business
Department:
Plan Administration
and Public Facilities
and Services
Cost of Proposal:
To Be Determined
Amount. Budgeted:
$1,3.11,000
❑ `Presentation
Director: �`� Contact `Person:. Rhone Number:
Pamela Tuft, AIGP`' : Pamela. Tuft,,:= (707) 778-4552
Rick Skladzien, Susan Lackie (707) 778-4478
Attachments to ALyenda Packet Item:
Matrix illustrating four local alignment options
Summary Statement:
Account Number:
C501'204
Name of'Fund:
Cross -Town Connector
The. Council is requested to determine the preferred location 'for a future local roadway alignment to
connect Rainier Avenue to Petaluffal Boulevard North. The locations previously discussed by the Council
are Rainier North (original Plan Line), Rainier Village Drive .(with local connection road), and Rainier
South (major roadway with new Petaluma Boulevard North connection either at -Shasta Avenue or in the
vicinity of Cinnabar Lane)..
A matrix has been developed to provide a comparison of the Tour alignments (see attached).
Recommended Citv Courieit Action/Sugyest'ed Motion:,
City Counci'1 to --,provide direction on the local roadway alignment for the Rainier cross-town
connector/interchange project.
Rowed bv_Finance Director: Review v Cit : or ev: AvorbvOWNy City Manager:
DaAejG�/ ,�A�1(• Date:
To av's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: File Coder
28 June 2004 # Kpt/Rainier\cc 7-12-04 local connectionLdoc
CITY OF' P]ETALUMA, C.ALIFORNIA
JULY 12, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
for
DISCUSSION AND DETERM_1NATION OF THE CROSS-TOWN CONNECTIONMIGHWAY 1.01
INTERCHANGE�LOCAL ROADWAY ALIGNMENT'OPTIONS,
CIP.PROiktT NO. C50.12.04
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Council is requested to determine the preferred location for a future local
roadway alignment to. connect Rainier Avenue to Petaluma Boulevard North. The
locations previously discussed by the Council are Rainier, North (original Plan Line),
Rainier Village Drive '(with •focal connection road), and Rainier South (major
roadway with new Peta'luma�B'oulevard North connection either. at, Shasta Avenue or
inthe vicinity of -Cinnabar. Lane).. A matrix 'has; been developed to provide a
comparison of the four alignments, (see attached).
2. BACKGROUND:
Following .the approval of .the original Rainier Avenue extension project, in 1994, the
City adopted a, Precise Plan Line (October 1995) to identify the area needed to be set
aside, as: development occurs,. for the future alignment of the planned roadway. As
projects continue to be proposed for entitlement or subrriitted for preliminary review
(i.e. factory outlet °,expansion°, -Lands of Johnson at north end. of Graylawn Avenue,
Lands of Johnson located on the east side of Petaluma River north of Lynch Creek,
DSL project on 'McD'owell. Blvd. North at Rainier, .Petaluma Boulevard North
projects) there remains the 'issue of ,where •the. road, will align, assuming' that Rainier
remains in the General Plan as, a future roadwayneed.
In January 2004,, . the Council heard a presentation on aCross=Town Mobility
Enhancement Alternatives'Analysis, Report. Thi's work effort was completed to
ekpai d 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, andto prepare preliminary capital. ,construction cost
estimates (ekcluding land acquisition and mitigation costs).
-On April 19, 200,4; 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.
June 7, 2004 the Council designated -Rainier Avenue as the preferred location for an
interchange based on Alternative 1 preferred interchange configuration, and directed
staffto,prepare aA analysis of, the'loca'l.roadwayalignmeht options to connect Rainier
Avenue to Petaluma Boulevard North.
Preliminary° analysis by the, consultant teams has• identif ed. four, local. aligriments for=
improvement associated with ektending- Rainier Avenue westerly from McDowell
Boulevard North .to Petaluma Boulevard North:
1. Rainier North (original Plan Line)
2. 'Rainier Village Drive (with local, connection road)
3. 'RainierSouth (major roadway with,new. Petaluma Boulevard.North connection)..
a. Shasta Avenue
b. Cinnabar Lane
Although 'th_e` project was eventually removed. from the approved list of Capital-
lmprovernent Projects, the Plan„ _Line remained' as an adopted .council decision:
Should an alignment be desired; .other than within the adopted PlanLine area, an,
amendment to the Plan Line will be necessary to insure proposed projects respect,, set:
aside: And/or build to.ahe preferred. project.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
A.:Desgnate .Rainier North (original Plan Line) as the local roadway 'alignment to
connect to; Petaluma Boulevard North.
B..Designate Rainier V.illage� Drive as the local ,roadway alignment to connect to
Petaluma. Boulevard North.
C. Designate._Raini'er South as the local. roadway alignment to, connect to Petaluma
Boulevard.North;either at Shasta Avenue or Cinnabar. Lane.
D. Direct staff to analyze, other options as the local roadway alignment to. connect to
Petaluma Boulevard North:
E. 'Take no action (Plan Line would remain in place as. originally adopted).
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
A 'Capital Improvement Project- has been idendfibd, for the cross-town connector.
Pursuant -to Cfty, Council direction, work will begin on completion of environmental
review and preliminary design.
5. CONCLUSION:
Specific direction on the preferred local'roadway alignment will allow the City
Manager and staff to provide direction; to pending devel'opmerit proposals, as ' to
preservation' -of -Anti 'pdtbd right-of-way 'needs ; to require. ,mitigation measures for
participating, in the fiscal, impacts ;for projected improvements; or, in some cases to
require the construction of public improvements consistent with the anticipated
roadway, alignment.
6. OUT.COME&OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL.IDE•NTI'FY SUCCESSOR
COMPLETION:
Project -specific design work, environmental_ review, and ,if necessary plan line
amendments, will, proceed, in accordance with Council direction.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
As deemed appropriate, City Council to provide direction on the local roadway
alignment for the 'Rainier cross-town connector/interchange project.
Attachment: Matr'ik of optional local alignments
•
10
Technical hlernoranr, ufl?
RAIN-IIER AVENUE ROSS TOPJECT
CAL CONN ECTOR ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS,.
Preparedfor:
City of Petaluma
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 local connector
element of the Rainier Avenue Crosstown Project.
This technical memorandum includes a description of" the alternatives developed through the
initial screening proces&'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-co-r parative,purposes.
City ot'Petaluma 1
Local Connector Altemativei Analysis July 2, 2004
i0 C h n i C-a d P `.0.rro aa. '11Mn
•
LocatConnector Alternatives
The -consensus between the City staff and HDR,on reasonable altematives�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
arid 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 ,tlie east
side future freewayramp intersection.and the intersection with McDowell Bou'levard:,Drawings
include three proposed developments in proximity to the proposed alignment;a'lte natives,
The matrix. on Pages 3 and 4provides a relative comparison of the alternatives.
The Plan. Line Alignment is the, alignment adopted by the City as the precise plan line in 1:995
and meets the City's design standards for the designation of a collector, street. With, the
exception of 1 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 local 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. Caltraris -requires a ,, mandatory minimum 4`10 feet (125 meters), between the
freeway ramp and the7 intersection'return for access control withtheir preferred recommended
distance of �515 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
Calti ans.
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-gradecrossing unless an existing equivalent crossing in Petaluma,is eliminated.
Each alternative did assume a bridge crossing of the Petaluma.River.
City'ot Petaluma 2
Local Connector Alternatives Analysis July 2, 2004'
IDA,
'fachnical Mlenioranclfvn
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATIONMATRIX
-Est' Mit6d
Ali
xarisodtUt
grf
'Altbrri. -_n�tentiib'ht-Cr;.ofW p!,91,
mentA.,
nvir
Y nfo cts
Alt
diristructidtv
a
2� Railrb 17ftitk
4-
2''
1 .01, Acres in Flood
Plan Line Plain
Q (At -Grade 0.64 8.32 Acres -.4 Feet N/A $6:1 Million
4. 13 Properties
Crossing) 1-08 Acres Riparian
Impact
0
1.01 AcresJ6 Flood 5- Plan Line Plain
F
(Grade 0;64 8.32 Acres
Separation) 1.08 Acres Riparian 13 Properties
Impact
'Village
(At=Grade,
Crossin6)
Cinnabar
(At -Grade
Crossing)
3.44. Acres in Flood
Plain
0.64 7.61 Acres
0 :92 Acres: Riparian 9 Properties.
Impact
1.28 Acres.jin Flood
Plain
0.77 8.49 Acres
0.34 Acres Riparian 9 Properties
Impact
35 — 40 Feet 23 Feet $6.6 Million
2 — 4 Feet. 1N/A $5.2 Million
2 — 4 Feet N/A $5.3 Million
City of Petaluma
Local Connector Alternatives Analysis 3
July 2, 2004
t Gc f3? 1 i d,'1 Ctii ? 1I Xwy)
- "
1.28,Acres in Flood
Cinnabar
(Grade
Plain. 8.49 Acres 2 _ 4 Feet 23 Feet $5.8, Million
0.77
=
Separation)
20 Properties'
0.34 Aces Riparian
`r
Impact. _
1:28 Acres in Flood
==..,
`y
b
Shasta
(At=Grade
Plain 9.34 Acres
0.77 20 Properties_ ' 2 -.4 Feet N/A - $6. Million
Y—'^ $:
Crossing)
9)
0.34: Acres Riparian Possible Relocations
Impact
'Estimated construction cost does not include costs for land acquisition and relocations:
* *Transportation utility is
rated on a scale of
zero:(0) to'one{1) with zero representing, the least'utility-and one representing the most utility.
City of Petaluma
Local' Connector,Altematives Analysis
4
JutO
Technical (x error n,;,urr1
a
City of Petal=a
.Department of Engineer n.g
Street Standards
D * gtl: ,and Applioat on Gt delines
DtESiCiTct FSATUitJa AIt1;iiRW.
L'pL6I:CTUit
Rl:SWl111TIAL.
M)NOit (S)
KEDUC_L11(S)
viax-NnAL
M)NOR
R1131131INTW.
Nurn)xt d
2
3
2
iitnc Wicilh t3'.=0". �
taw`
icT,cr•
�w•
S'al•
Medior► Width Id-0' - :0-W
r-W-• 14'al'
- )?-t'
6'.(1• • ?-U- .
G.ts•. sw
LCA TUM Lam nU
NO
W)
Rigbl Tina Lunc YEs
NO
NO
NO
W)
nio h; Labe YES
lap C')
..NO
NO
NO
pnrkiligNO YES
YES
Y1iti
Yi..s
Veko Spocd (M.P.}l.) dS
33
25
20
I S
Cutlet UPC Radius lOt .aw
3mr-0"
35ty4l"
13S•ti
(a)
Insamolon 5pecdng (4) 360-0'
2t)IY.tr'
I Si>'.Ir'
15.0•
1d/11
Sida;V+alka YI'K
YIN
YFS
Y1=_ti
Width G.0"
S 0
q -
Alnntcr Y1
YKS
YNti
width
TO
Atcess I.IMI'it?t)
YI S
YIE.c
I)-Oings StMod H;A
arXl,
.tx+
ttrq
.1
TTAITIC, VolUnIC&I (0.101'. 31mo
.'A)t) . 6.wl
l,c..v lwln : fw4l
ixYa thou 1.134xr
l." titan ?lea+
Meragel 13"Y
TmMli ".T.)
caminuttv
WA
N A
N A
NOTES
1. Lcll _tutu laacs tstoti be ca,Yiav�d at ^+nterstclianx ►o AnCrt'`tructx
2. Tii rw L- tI -y h¢ c-msWoted near aaAmU aM'Cunuaewz io maw liw%de klcau nim.
3; xcnw4irW X1dicis to Iw!;=-& idc?td W lime nr 17"$n.
4. Mnimufi A=CP1ab1iv
5 Qnye:w%Y'W4ti6I1% +L+ )K, sALun d %kith dnv3uCeYB cut opperele awlc 0 &7 IsImcl
ip ..,t �. , I
Sold+ Smith
CITY, OF'�ETAi;UMA i„
patttnen sFa eerf STREET
''� ,e-rx,�o;�`F"acTa?ems ++"`•'' STAI% DARDS
N T S
bcsign and Application `Mh
Q` 14
m-cUth 1 14 91
GlliSchnrs ,u.,, . ,
'�, i 1'IrgINN 1<tlmac. `iet`h +� • �. .. .�. 'r....e+�...+..�1,,4 d'•1' �lA'l 1 .�. � -�"�C.
City of Petaluma 5
local Connector Alternatives Analysis July 2, 2004
r�clttr.lc�_I it1�i��xa�'�ndcrrn v
Plan Line'Alignment Alternative •'
`This alternative was, developed as the preferred alternative for Rainier in the 19.94- adopted, EIR
and adopted by the City in 1995 as the precise plan "alignment; The geometricslayout ;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' vertica'I'profi'le .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: Piovided below is a
preliminary road profile ,f6r this alignment, and '.although not ideal, it can. be designed 'to
AASHTO Standards.
The .es"timated cost for this'alternative is $63. million .for the at -grade crossing option and.-$6.6
,million, if grade separation were' utilized.
PEFD ! Fi�S <PH r
RAINIER A- -NUE! CNTE L"INE I PR(D,1L 1M (_ vl ! t-_! S=• I
IR
.'.-__. �._-._:mow.._ •- ( ,
. C. � :, -.• I `� �...__ - _�___ ;—}-'•,-,{-C&F�RANCE--- T_'..,'B�lT�" "OF�`,, TE
4 - - (....I BRIDGE DECK
� ��_�p YI I
;.SMART ,
!
-P.ETALUMA. JIVER,
f� i
RAINIER, AVE_ CENTERLINE 'PROFILE"
(14:1 VERTICAL EXAGGERATION)
City of Petaluma 6
Local"Connector Alternatives,Analysis July 2, 2004
Pwo
'p-OSEI
71) ELOP�-`-
j:
a
n .41 z
—7
7t�K. -------- -----------
------------ .......... .
------------
-----------
--- --------
---------------- .......
yam
- -- - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- --
v - -IT
t
A"
PROP'OSEI
"",
PIE'VO P M Ek'ij "I "a;
C(
V,
!JlfL
j
q
Z!
A?
%
N,
is R'AINIEF
L
u:- X,
0�'
ma
-j
e"
T' Ir
�7
A I
Q
V.
A-:
f
%
A
, �j
7 W
'X
-7111 IL
RAINIER AVENUE INTERCHANGE AND
LOCAL CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES
f J.
CITY OF PETALUMA
f JULY 2004
'K
2,136,5,lrm Point Road
A 5 3CC PLAN LINE ALIGNMENT
F0150M. CA 95630
(916) B17-4700
Village Alignment Alternative'
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'$5.24million.
•
City of,Petaluma 8
Local ConnectouAlternatives Analysis July 2,1004
--a
it
7
iis
if, 7
x
DEV
.j:
it
i.j
a
12— .......... -------------
---------------------
---- — ------------- -----
------------------- ----------- ----- --
----------
vx
Rh6POSED-
'DE•VELOPME4T-"
J_1
6
'A . . . . . ...
. . . . . . . . . .
(7
prTa
7
J—
'x
:6 qp
:ice
J " 4�m
7
�v
"A-
"z
A,
'I -j
A
7-4
RAINIER AVENUE INTERCHANGE AND
LOCAL CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES
A
CITY'OF PETALUMA
"Z d JULY 2004
Z-
236te
,on 1 , Pol,+ Road0
30 VILLAGE ALIGNMENT
(98
1
C%916 7- , 00
Techn4cal Memorandu l
_Cinnabar Alignment Alternafive `' •
This configuration. was developed as an alternative to the Plan Line Alignment in Cross Town
Mobility Enhancement A7tei.q atives.report prepared in,December 20031-(previously described as
the South,Alignment). This alternat'ive'would align Rainier Avenue away from -the interchange_
in a southwesierly direction and then turn to,align with .Cinnabar Avenue. The -geometric layout
is shown in ExhibitI
Two, options for,crossing the existing railroad tracks were again considered in evaluation of"this
alternative:
1. ' 'Crossing ofitherailroad'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 ;$5:8
million if a :grade separation were utilized.
•
City,'oi Petai'uina,
Local Connector Alternatives Analysis
10,
4uly,2,:2004
j
E
f
J
j,
11`j,
j
- - - - - - - - - -
7 ry —
:PROP OSEt
DEVELOPMENT,'
w-
J,,
LI
7J.
—�z= ---------- -- ----------- -------------------------- ---------
-- - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- -
-----------------
-----------
- - - - - - -- - - -
4-
7
7-
-T
t
J i' OAOPOSED'� : �:� ', L,1,1,,-,' , — , I : 1 -14
@
cr-
Al
L
7�
7-
%
t.
e"
2.
7, r
r
2,5-
N
V N
11 X
7
V,,
-o
Q,
I '-V
'2
y
L - --; F1
I No,
X, I N
T� LOCAL CONNECTO
RAINIER AVENUE INTERCHANGE AND
CITY OFT
TALUMAALTERNATIVES
A
\
JULY 2004 <
Rood
z
v
s 00
CINNABAR ALIGNMENT
v Folsom, gA2365 Iron '95630
V�,- vi -
IC7-4700
Techill ica . Meip rarcic.m
Shasta Align„ment Alternative
This alignment is similar to the. Cinnabar Alignment and proceedsaway'froni`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 Exhibit4.
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; c.'onsiderable R/W
impacts; to properties along Shasta Avenue may require, complete acqu, isition a..nd'1or :relocation ,
at great expense. The estimated ,construction cost for this alternative is ,$65.2 million.
•
•
City oi.Petatunia -
LocaK, onnecfor,Alternatives Analysis
12
JUlIV2, 2004
•
4,%- �'�47 , II I-• I_I 'r'i!: - -- l_ "1. - "II�IL _� __ .'III
-
17
;•'i•
l//,/: � �'-l- - ��-/ .;j�5`-� 111 1, - r.l'. t 11 - l •' _- - -.II IF-.'_ _ j - _
/'/: � % ir::. ' :I :I �.`_.', I• I: .I,li_ _ —li' �:. 7 /- I;" ,II.II; I - II I II '
..! I• �_ `� _ __ - _ � ! • - - _ it -' I IF.--
`.'DEVEL`QPMEN T;,
Y'
•I
11� I• `I ` - - I i
�'l •° d ! I: i 1, -,', i � �: l I
r" "I•
alit
nln i
i'
r -
J
- 9 _
7_d '1' I-J• 1=1 -L•', _C-J_-
T
i _ , '•��; I `-i, .a'i ill — _< •e r.-
- ,',: _..,. I- \,',\',, l' 7c__ _ � '-`�' ;;�,; rQ�UM ,��z;':: I,,jilr`-•.nl?.- t>7 7—t -r r\x•�.",�'�II,.�..__\i'(
_ - r',\ _ ,/..- .•I ♦ - ill_'-JI.I�.
=a'.- _: �j; .1;,, i=J � Ll ir ' • I ',:
% -� �, `r• i „� mow' :�..,t'' •\= °%/,�,-�:=' _ ,
EE
-411
�` \! � - yr. \ � _ ,: � _ ;\` � u��\ � <.. ' r•:''t=; � .t•'.•� ,11 I" -
-'t. - - ;'{-::•:-, - •x. -\..ice-r'" l• - - 1_I.
\ ;. •t'r -� _ J_ I _',/'�_• //? o \ �' ._/` ,i, ! -."�' '�'•. _ .'t-\ n� - .g ^�'` -Y\ � ,i�'�-.:J� �'L°J 11 1-L,L�J 1 J
,., _ - '' r7 � I. � - - -} " �; 1,.: �-riIV--1 � \ � ,S %-�'.i• [ ^/, .. i 3 '.r. •,'.1.: y�,�.�, <�`: a"':��5 ,'\ -- .'i ri — —
�' •'"�.;.:"`°'M.' ./" -� ,' � ." i ���>' �,.: RAINIER AV ENUE INTERCHANGE AND
�;�-.1',!-,f . 1 -r �-• - ,3 :, \ • ,��t,,�,,_; < ,.�:,,':� ,i ,,..P °. � G;, \. ��, ,, ,� LOCAL CONNECTOR,ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF PETALUMA
l; - - - -:• `, >' - '� t•.Q`�- '2365 Iron Point Road
,- "1', „.1 `'`;-\1�:''.`;<'..: .� ��••. i•.' i I Salta 30o
Folsom, cA 95630 SHASTA ALIGNMENT
'
r916/ 817-4700